Loosers "WHO IS WHO" Quiz

[Oliver]

I just saw this troofer-GZ-footage again - so here´s my little quiz: Who is who in the CT (ClownTinhats) - scene?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107452ffa5265978.jpg

[Cylinder]

1. A moron.

2.. An addle-pate.

3. An ass.

4. A blockhead.

5. A boob.

6. A cretin.

7. A dimwit.

8. A dingbat.

9. A dolt.

10. A dope.

11. A dork.

No thersari were injured in the production of this post.

[Abbyas]

2. Is Tom Foti, a complete jerk.
3. Is Luke, a young, overly excited boy.
11. Is actually a decent guy. I've spoken to him at length on many occasions. He has some "questions" regarding 9/11, but has great frustrations with the truth movement.

[Bell]

Abby, Tom Foti, is that the BABEEEY guy?

[Gravy]

1 is the cameraman who owes me a six-pack for getting the Silverstein quote wrong. He also has a huge jones for "squibs." 4 is a semi-regular on Saturdays at GZ. Don't know his name.

Yes, Tom Foti is the Baaaaybee guy.

[Oliver]

I guess "number 3´s" name is "Lou" or "Louie" - but i don´t remeber where i heard that.

ETA: You´re shure his name is Luke, Abby?

[Abbyas]

ETA: You´re shure his name is Luke, Abby?

Yes.

And I want to stress the non-douchiness of number 11, I don't think he'd appreciate being in the above list.

[Oliver]

Yes.

And I want to stress the non-douchiness of number 11, I don't think he'd appreciate being in the above list.

What does "non-douchiness" mean and who is number 11?

[Beleth]

Colin Farrell, David Schwimmer, someone with constipation,
John Mellencamp, Donkey Kong, tap him on the shoulder to get that cream pie in his face, Brad Pitt,
Arnold Rimmer as a teenager, Nostrilman, Cancer Boy, and apparently a non-douche.

[Abbyas]

Colin Farrell, David Schwimmer, someone with constipation,
John Mellencamp, Donkey Kong, tap him on the shoulder to get that cream pie in his face, Brad Pitt,
Arnold Rimmer as a teenager, Nostrilman, Cancer Boy, and apparently a non-douche.

:roll:

[Brainster]

I guess "number 3´s" name is "Lou" or "Louie" - but i don´t remeber where i heard that.

ETA: You´re shure his name is Luke, Abby?

Luke Rudkowski (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72254,6.html). He makes several appearances in the Looser's NY 9/9/06 film, including one where he introduces the first responder with the oxygen tank. He's part of the NY 9-11 crowd.

I think #6 is one of the Looser's Oneonta crew (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3456206261122980339&hl=en); he appears about 30 seconds into this clip.

[Polaris]

3. Is Luke, a young, overly excited boy.

I could have sworn that was Michael Rappaport.

[Hierosis]

# 11 (are you saying I was in on the plot by giving me the number 11???!!!!) would be me. not sure if I care for "dork," but the later discussion of my "non-douchiness," does make me feel appreciated :)

for the record, that picture of me was NOT taken at ground zero, but at an event I went on 9/9. i do not hang around ground zero theorizing as some of the "truthers" do.

and I'm actually I'm flattered that i made the top 11 (there we go again! coincidence???), considering how rare it is that you'll see me out at public events for 9/11 Truth. admit i, you put it up there because i'm giving an ancient illuminati signal by closing my eyes and positioning my sun glasses at a near 33 degree angle!

I hope people are able to sense when someone is being sarcastic around here.

Oh, and #7 and #8 are the same person.

Craig

[Brainache]

Yes.

And I want to stress the non-douchiness of number 11, I don't think he'd appreciate being in the above list.

Say it isn't so! Has Abby fallen for a Troother?

[stateofgrace]

# 11
and I'm actually I'm flattered that i made the top 11 (there we go again! coincidence???),

Craig

Don't be.

[Hierosis]

Don't be.

well, that IS my picture up there. but pardon me if I find some hypocrisy in you guys obsessing over a collection of random photos of "9/11 Troothers" while jumping to conclusions about people whom you know nothing about. which is the type of thinking you accuse the truth movement of.

[Bandersnatch]

There's enough of it on both sides.

If I recall correctly, there is a video out there where gravy is implied to be a government agent.

How did it go? "The ink isn't even dry on your ID?"

[Abbyas]

There's enough of it on both sides.

If I recall correctly, there is a video out there where gravy is implied to be a government agent.

I agree, but we shouldn't stoop to that level.

ETA: Nevermind, I made a whole movie mocking them. I'm a hypocrite. But not all of these people in the photos are down at GZ harassing people.

[Bandersnatch]

I agree, but we shouldn't stoop to that level.

ETA: Nevermind, I made a whole movie mocking them. I'm a hypocrite. But not all of these people in the photos are down at GZ harassing people.

I think that was the movie, actually. The one with Alex Jones doing the crazy laugh thinggy. I kinda did that when I watched it.

[Hierosis]

There's enough of it on both sides.

If I recall correctly, there is a video out there where gravy is implied to be a government agent.

How did it go? "The ink isn't even dry on your ID?"

actually, it was quite obnoxious and outright ridiculous for anyone to be called a government agent. also, i like alex personally, but I thought that hehandled himself very poorly when speaking to Mark. but the actions of alex jones are just that. the acts of one man. just became I fall onto the other side of this "debate" doesn't meant I see the need to argue that ridiculously.

[Brainache]

So does anyone know a painless method for extracting feet from mouths?

I think I could use it about now.

BTW Hierosis I think taking Oliver seriously is not an option. He is the first German comedian in living memory and he is making it up as he goes along.:D

[Brainster]

well, that IS my picture up there. but pardon me if I find some hypocrisy in you guys obsessing over a collection of random photos of "9/11 Troothers" while jumping to conclusions about people whom you know nothing about. which is the type of thinking you accuse the truth movement of.

Obsessing, by trying to identify a few people?

The reason why we want to know Who's Who in 9-11 Denial because of the "do your own thing" nature of the movement, with nobody agreeing 100% on the conspiracy theory. Ergo it is important to know who each individual is and what they believe. For example, there is no sense debunking the missile at the Pentagon when debating Jon Gold, because Jon Gold generally agrees that the Pentagon was hit by Flight 77. Steven Jones does not appear to deny there were hijackers that day. Others don't believe in controlled demolition. So we often find ourselves up against the "no real 9-11 investigator" defense anytime we bring up a particular conspiracy theory.

[Orphia Nay]

Where are those pics from, Oliver? Are they from Abby's GZ film? Damn and blast my not having broadband!!! :mad: :boxedin:

# 11 (are you saying I was in on the plot by giving me the number 11???!!!!) would be me. not sure if I care for "dork," but the later discussion of my "non-douchiness," does make me feel appreciated :)

for the record, that picture of me was NOT taken at ground zero, but at an event I went on 9/9. i do not hang around ground zero theorizing as some of the "truthers" do.

and I'm actually I'm flattered that i made the top 11 (there we go again! coincidence???), considering how rare it is that you'll see me out at public events for 9/11 Truth. admit i, you put it up there because i'm giving an ancient illuminati signal by closing my eyes and positioning my sun glasses at a near 33 degree angle!

I hope people are able to sense when someone is being sarcastic around here.

Oh, and #7 and #8 are the same person.

Craig

Great post, Hierosis (Craig). Welcome to the forums. You seem like a fairly sensible person, so how did you get involved in 9/11 revisionism, and what's your stance? How did you become so visible? (Can someone explain what Hierosis did to make Oliver notice him and include him in that lineup?)

Perhaps start a new thread. Don't be put off by people's sarcasm - but I think you can give as good as you get. (Mostly, people here are nice, until they encounter wilful ignorance, then they understandably feel the need to take out their frustrations in sarcasm.)

I agree with Brainache's comment about Oliver. Hehehe. Yep, first really funny German that I've come across too. :D He's a legend.

[Hierosis]

Obsessing, by trying to identify a few people?

The reason why we want to know Who's Who in 9-11 Denial because of the "do your own thing" nature of the movement, with nobody agreeing 100% on the conspiracy theory. Ergo it is important to know who each individual is and what they believe. For example, there is no sense debunking the missile at the Pentagon when debating Jon Gold, because Jon Gold generally agrees that the Pentagon was hit by Flight 77. Steven Jones does not appear to deny there were hijackers that day. Others don't believe in controlled demolition. So we often find ourselves up against the "no real 9-11 investigator" defense anytime we bring up a particular conspiracy theory.

Um...yea...sure... When you lay it out like that, it CERTAINLY doesn't seem like obsession!

[Hierosis]

Where are those pics from, Oliver? Are they from Abby's GZ film? Damn and blast my not having broadband!!! :mad: :boxedin:



Great post, Hierosis (Craig). Welcome to the forums. You seem like a fairly sensible person, so how did you get involved in 9/11 revisionism, and what's your stance? How did you become so visible? (Can someone explain what Hierosis did to make Oliver notice him and include him in that lineup?)

Perhaps start a new thread. Don't be put off by people's sarcasm - but I think you can give as good as you get. (Mostly, people here are nice, until they encounter wilful ignorance, then they understandably feel the need to take out their frustrations in sarcasm.)

I agree with Brainache's comment about Oliver. Hehehe. Yep, first really funny German that I've come across too. :D He's a legend.

Thanks for the welcome. I'm a bit exhausted at the moment and need to get to bed. But I'll provide a more thorough introduction at a later time.

[Oliver]

I just saw this troofer-GZ-footage again - so here´s my little quiz: Who is who in the CT (ClownTinhats) - scene?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074530d99c36868.jpg

Damn - i couldn´t edit my initial message. (LISA?) So here´s the updated pic... :rolleyes:

[Gravy]

actually, it was quite obnoxious and outright ridiculous for anyone to be called a government agent. also, i like alex personally, but I thought that hehandled himself very poorly when speaking to Mark. but the actions of alex jones are just that. the acts of one man. just became I fall onto the other side of this "debate" doesn't meant I see the need to argue that ridiculously.
Welcome, Heirosis.
Alex Jones certainly is an easy target for us, because of the extreme views he represents.

But it's wrong to attempt to isolate him. He didn't just handle himself poorly when speaking to me. He had over 1,000 people following him on 9/11, most of whom chanted right along with his bullhorn.


The police blocked off 2 lanes of traffic and the Truth Movement gathered in the middle of the street. Alex Jones got on the megaphone again and started speaking about WTC 7 and other things. In the hour or so we were there, we chanted "Pull it! pull it! pull it!" and "murderer! murderer! murderer!" among other sayings like "911 was an inside job, we have the proof, so face the truth!" http://tinyurl.com/npobs
Will you take a stand against these horribly ignorant statements about Silverstein and the methods used to express them? Will you encourage others in the "truth movement" to stop making these baseless accusations? (Perhaps you do now...my thanks and apologies if that's so!)

[Brainster]

Um...yea...sure... When you lay it out like that, it CERTAINLY doesn't seem like obsession!

Hey, obsessed with 9-11 debunking certainly. Obsessed with who the Deniers are? Only as a tool for debating. I don't need to know who's who in the creationism movement to debate them, because all creationists are the same.

Welcome to the forums!

[T.A.M.]

Hierosis:

Welcome to the JREF Forum on Conspiracy Theories. Unlike some other boards, your views, no matter how polarized to the majority they may be, will be allowed, and banning is extremely unlikely (never seen a case here, myself).

As for the "Obsession", ya I think as Brainster said, it is only for the purpose of focusing our debating issues/tactics, tailoring them, if you will, to the "truther" we are debating or arguing about at the time.

Interestingly, you seem to be a fencesitting individual, who is perhaps just falling toward the "truth" side.

All I have to say, besides welcome, is if you bring in theories or view points, be prepared to back them up. As Abby can tell you, while we are mostly civil, we debate vicously in here.

Peace

TAM

[Brainache]

I was under the impression that the whole "who's who" thing was another one of Oliver's deliberately provocative attempts to get Truthers to come here and debate. He loves doing that stuff. I don't mind it either.

I don't buy the "we need to know who we are debating" argument. I figure you should just debate whatever someone posts. I don't care if it's JohnDoeX or John Gold or John of Patmos, if they talk rubbish they will be dealt with harshly. If they come with facts and logic they will be welcomed and be engaged in meaningful dialogue.

So welcome one and all, but beware the Bunny! :bunpan

[stateofgrace]

well, that IS my picture up there. but pardon me if I find some hypocrisy in you guys obsessing over a collection of random photos of "9/11 Troothers" while jumping to conclusions about people whom you know nothing about. which is the type of thinking you accuse the truth movement of.

You are correct hierosis and I apologies for my abrupt message to you. I was some what worse for wear last night and fired off an insult towards you. I do not know you nor do I know your views on this matter.

Welcome to this board, if you continue to post here hopefully whatever your views or opinions are will be voiced a civil and friendly manner. I’m sure you will receive the same in return.

stateofgrace

[T.A.M.]

I was under the impression that the whole "who's who" thing was another one of Oliver's deliberately provocative attempts to get Truthers to come here and debate. He loves doing that stuff. I don't mind it either.

I don't buy the "we need to know who we are debating" argument. I figure you should just debate whatever someone posts. I don't care if it's JohnDoeX or John Gold or John of Patmos, if they talk rubbish they will be dealt with harshly. If they come with facts and logic they will be welcomed and be engaged in meaningful dialogue.

So welcome one and all, but beware the Bunny! :bunpan

Perhaps i would restate, not that we NEED to know, but would like to know. Here is an example...

If I, by some chance, get into an argument with Morgan Reynolds, over 9/11. Well if he brings up the topic of the WTC attack, there is no point in me bringing up the "jet fuel" issue, because he doesn't believe planes hit the WTCs (he is a no-planer). So while it isnt needed, it is nice to know what his views are or are not, so I can tailor/focus my debate/argumenting on points of contention between both of us.

TAM

[Hierosis]

Hierosis:

Welcome to the JREF Forum on Conspiracy Theories. Unlike some other boards, your views, no matter how polarized to the majority they may be, will be allowed, and banning is extremely unlikely (never seen a case here, myself).

As for the "Obsession", ya I think as Brainster said, it is only for the purpose of focusing our debating issues/tactics, tailoring them, if you will, to the "truther" we are debating or arguing about at the time.

Interestingly, you seem to be a fencesitting individual, who is perhaps just falling toward the "truth" side.

All I have to say, besides welcome, is if you bring in theories or view points, be prepared to back them up. As Abby can tell you, while we are mostly civil, we debate vicously in here.

Peace

TAM

I should make a few things clear, and please don't take this negatively. I'm not someone who reads and posts on message boards for the most part. Someone sent me the link to this thread because my picture was in it, so I signed up to simply introduce myself and joke around a bit.

Also, to get the ambiguity out of the way I am NOT a fencesitter. My views absolutely fall towards the "troothers" side, but that almost means nothing because it represents such a large group of people with different intentions. But if by "toothers" you mean someone who goes to ground zero to argue with people and give out literature that has "where's bin laden?" pictures on them, then that's not me.

But I also didn't come here to debate with you guys honestly. I know where you stand and there's nothing I could do or show you that will change your minds. However, I wanted to disassociate myself from generalizations, charactarizations, stereotypes and some of the lunacy of some people who question the official 9/11 story. I put forth no specific theory because I recognize that I don't know enough about each individual component of 9/11 to properly do so.

So that's where I stand...

[Gravy]

...So that's where I stand...
Thanks for that clarification. I realize you may not want to get into this, but what confuses me is that you say you're definitely a "truther," which I assume you mean that you believe the US gov't was "in on it," but you say you don't know enough about the specifics to debate them.

Isn't that completely backwards?

Shouldn't such a serious belief be based on knowledge of the specifics? If you want to disassociate yourself from our generalities about "truthers," I suggest that's the place to start.

:confused:

[Hierosis]

Welcome, Heirosis.
Alex Jones certainly is an easy target for us, because of the extreme views he represents.

But it's wrong to attempt to isolate him. He didn't just handle himself poorly when speaking to me. He had over 1,000 people following him on 9/11, most of whom chanted right along with his bullhorn.


Will you take a stand against these horribly ignorant statements about Silverstein and the methods used to express them? Will you encourage others in the "truth movement" to stop making these baseless accusations? (Perhaps you do now...my thanks and apologies if that's so!)

Woah there tiger.

First, I find it intersting that you cite his "extreme views" when explaining your dislike for Alex Jones. The man has many faults and tends to be extreme in a lot of what he does. But you come off to me as someone who is beyond obsessed with arguing over this stuff. And then you declare that I denounce anything...

Let me be clear. I don't know Mr. Silverstein. For all I know he sleeps with buffalo and likes to dress up like Liberace (I hope you're not so hardline that you mistake my sarcasm). So I don't feel the need to apologize to him as neither of the chants you cited were uttered by my lips.

But I don't owe you some declaration of alliegance or pledge to "take a stand" in the truth movement. Bro, you seem to enjoy what you do here, and that's cool. But I have my questions about 9/11 that will always remain unanswered. So I don't feel I have to explain myself or debate you.

Best,
Craig

[Oliver]

But I have my questions about 9/11 that will always remain unanswered.

Mhmm, i´m pretty sure they will if you don´t ask them... :boggled:

[Hierosis]

Thanks for that clarification. I realize you may not want to get into this, but what confuses me is that you say you're definitely a "truther," which I assume you mean that you believe the US gov't was "in on it," but you say you don't know enough about the specifics to debate them.

Isn't that completely backwards?

Shouldn't such a serious belief be based on knowledge of the specifics? If you want to disassociate yourself from our generalities about "truthers," I suggest that's the place to start.

:confused:

I appreciate your suggestion. First, I never said I was a "truther." You did. And clearly you've come to define that as a dirty word, in the same way that Fox News does with word liberal (just a metaphor).

Saying that "the US Government is in on it" is a loaded term that only sees one absolute position. It is not a good 7 word sentence that accurately reflects what I believe.

I said GOOD DAY SIR!

[Hierosis]

Mhmm, i´m pretty sure they will if you don´t ask them... :boggled:

Sorry mate, I'm just not taking the bait here.

[Gravy]

I appreciate your suggestion. First, I never said I was a "truther." You did. And clearly you've come to define that as a dirty word, in the same way that Fox News does with word liberal (just a metaphor).

Saying that "the US Government is in on it" is a loaded term that only sees one absolute position. It is not a good 7 word sentence that accurately reflects what I believe.

I said GOOD DAY SIR!
Also, to get the ambiguity out of the way I am NOT a fencesitter. My views absolutely fall towards the "troothers" side, but that almost means nothing because it represents such a large group of people with different intentions.
So you are "NOT a fencesitter," but you don't want to be labeled a truther. Well, that's too bad. You've made your bed.

You've come here to tell us that you're not going to tell us what you believe. That's productive.

How sad. And no, I do not enjoy correcting the historical revisionism of fools, but I feel it's important to do so.

[Crungy]

Yes.

And I want to stress the non-douchiness of number 11

Non douchiness fading fast fast. Might wanna get some

http://www.mum.org/Lysol28.jpg

[Shrinker]

First, I find it intersting that you cite his "extreme views" when explaining your dislike for Alex Jones. The man has many faults and tends to be extreme in a lot of what he does. But you come off to me as someone who is beyond obsessed with arguing over this stuff. And then you declare that I denounce anything...


Jeez, heaven forbid a New Yorker should be offended by people all over the world exploiting 9/11 for personal gain. Or defaming the NYPD, FDNY, the former Mayor, practically every local government institution and the entire population, who must surely be taking bribes to prevent them saying what they really saw that day. Heaven forbid that a tour guide should get angry about idiots telling packs of lies to visiting tourists. If anybody ought to be 'obsessed' about this subject, it's Mr. Gravy here and folks like him.

Good luck with your unanswered questions Craig. If you hang out with people who make money out of mystery and intrigue, you're not going to find them answered any time soon.

[Gravy]

Non douchiness fading fast fast. Might wanna get some

http://www.mum.org/Lysol28.jpg
:jaw-dropp

[Abbyas]

Look, guys. I think we need to 'good cop' it a bit here.

He came on here because someone was mocking his picture without necessarily knowing who he was. He wasn't at Ground Zero, he was just sitting outside of a church. I think we can understand that frustration.

And while he shouldn't have necessarily judge Gravy by people posting his picture, we shouldn't judge him specifically by the others in the Vanity video.

[T.A.M.]

I agree Abby. Just let him leave as is, I say. He actually is a good reminder, to all of us, that sometimes we forget that some of these people we have labeled, are just genuine people with genuine questions. If he wants to associate himself with that side of the fence so be it. I have a good friend of mine who is a hardcore truther. Now granted, we are not close friends, but we can still hang out, and do things together, without getting "into" it about 9/11.

That being said, 95% of these guys are still wing nut paranoid idiots...I just don't think he is...from what I have seen.

LOL

TAM

[Shrinker]

Look, guys. I think we need to 'good cop' it a bit here.

He came on here because someone was mocking his picture without necessarily knowing who he was. He wasn't at Ground Zero, he was just sitting outside of a church. I think we can understand that frustration.

And while he shouldn't have necessarily judge Gravy by people posting his picture, we shouldn't judge him specifically by the others in the Vanity video.

Oo, is that for me? I guess it reads harsher than I expected. Imagine me saying it with a kind of weary sigh...

[Abbyas]

Oo, is that for me? I guess it reads harsher than I expected. Imagine me saying it with a kind of weary sigh...

No! I still love you, Shrinker.

[Shrinker]

No! I still love you, Shrinker.

Crikey :blush:

[Oliver]

Look, guys. I think we need to 'good cop' it a bit here.

He came on here because someone was mocking his picture without necessarily knowing who he was. He wasn't at Ground Zero, he was just sitting outside of a church. I think we can understand that frustration.

And while he shouldn't have necessarily judge Gravy by people posting his picture, we shouldn't judge him specifically by the others in the Vanity video.

Hey, i didn´t mock anyone - i´m just interested in who the heaven these guys are. Nothing but a little quiz.

And until now no one answered the 1,000,000 Rupiah question. :rolleyes:

@Admins: Could you fix the link to the picture within the initial message? http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/violent064.gif

[Orphia Nay]

I'm debating a troofer in another forum (among others) at the moment who also admits she doesn't know if it's LIHOP or MIHOP and, to me, that seems "backwards", as Gravy said. She doesn't recognise a fact when it's practically poking her in the eye, and clings to the 'holes in the official story' line.

No-one here is saying Bush is a great president, and that's not the point.

Troofers are all asking questions. But they don't want to know the answers, and will keep repeating the questions and clamouring for an investigation.

Debunkers have investigated those questions, have found answers, and are trying to share them with others. Like it or not, WE are the investigation.

Until a troofer admits that there may be answers, they will always be in the dark. I just don't see how people can call themselves a fencesitter if they don't think there are any answers.