Are people serious with this 9-11 ct stuff?

Montsegur

New Blood
M
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
13
As the title says are people serious? I have read what has been said on here and recently read abit of the ct. I am by no means an expert on anything but the stuff on some other forums is bewildering, it defies common sense.
 
Sadly, yes. Here's one from my inbox today (he is addressing another debunker):

"Give me one good reason to think you're not the lying pseudo-science supporter of the terrorist traitors who attacked our country which the chief economist of the Labor Dept 2001-2002 says you are, and i won't nail you as such in the next edition of Wikipedia."

Craig Hill, US Senate Democratic primary candidate from Vermont

The "chief economist of the Labor Dept." he refers to is Morgan Reynolds, who believes that no planes hit the Twin Towers.
 
Last edited:
As I've said before (in so many words): These 9/11 "inside job" theories, such as they are, don't even rise to the level of non-starter. As Gertrude Stein once famously remarked about Oakland, "There's no there there." They are so far beyond basic common sensibility, it wouldn't surprise me if it were some day revealed to be an elaborate hoax.

Until then, I'm left to gaze in wonder at the whole phenomenon.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
As I've said before (in so many words): These 9/11 "inside job" theories, such as they are, don't even rise to the level of non-starter. As Gertrude Stein once famously remarked about Oakland, "There's no there there."
Click to expand...
Perfect!

They are so far beyond basic common sensibility, it wouldn't surprise me if it were some day revealed to be an elaborate hoax.
Click to expand...
Killtown and Christophera sure have me wondering about that. It doesn't seem humanly possible for people who are (presumably) self-supporting to be so dense.
 
Based on the people you are "debating" with in that thread, I doubt they need anyones help (R. Mackey, Pardalis, Belz).

Funny how you never directly respond to a post addressed you Killtown. You respond to them in other posts, I asusme to avoid the instant anhialation you would recieve if you did so...
 
Gravy said:
Sadly, yes. Here's one from my inbox today (he is addressing another debunker):

"Give me one good reason to think you're not the lying pseudo-science supporter of the terrorist traitors who attacked our country which the chief economist of the Labor Dept 2001-2002 says you are, and i won't nail you as such in the next edition of Wikipedia."

Craig Hill, US Senate Democratic primary candidate from Vermont

The "chief economist of the Labor Dept." he refers to is Morgan Reynolds, who believes that no planes hit the Twin Towers.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, Craig Hill has zero chance of ever getting elected. He's running against Bernie Sanders, (known locally as simply "Bernie") a legendary figure in Vermont politics. (He's semi-famous for being one of the few official Socialists ever elected to Congress -- Vermont likes to pride itself for its iconoclasticism.) As a rule of thumb, if you're opponent is so famous that at the mere mention of their first name everyone knows whom you're talking about, you're pretty much sunk.
 
Stellafane said:
Don't worry, Craig Hill has zero chance of ever getting elected. He's running against Bernie Sanders, (known locally as simply "Bernie") a legendary figure in Vermont politics. (He's semi-famous for being one of the few official Socialists ever elected to Congress -- Vermont likes to pride itself for its iconoclasticism.) As a rule of thumb, if you're opponent is so famous that at the mere mention of their first name everyone knows whom you're talking about, you're pretty much sunk.
Click to expand...
As a semiannual Burlington visitor, I know Bernie well. I just wanted to point out the extreme delusion and nastiness of Mr. Hill.
 
I think you should send Bernie a copy of that mail! To show another weakness of his competition!
 
Do these people believe, CT to be a viable platform, from which to run on?
Fascinating, the depth of their delusions!
 
Not only are people deadly serious about this stuff, but some even seem to think they are heroes, leading a revolution. They know exactly how the world works, everyone else is asleep. Quite sad really.
 
Last edited:
You haven't seen anything yet....

Go to infowars.com
or
prisonplanet.com

take an hour or so to glance at the issues, and answers on those sites...then you will see the true heights of delerium pervading the "9/11 truth" movement.
 
I used to think they were just honestly misguided, but I am more and more convinced every day that the 911 'truth movement' is an ideological wolf in sheep's clothing.
 
twinstead said:
I used to think they were just honestly misguided, but I am more and more convinced every day that the 911 'truth movement' is an ideological wolf in sheep's clothing.
Click to expand...

Not a doubt in my mind! I have only followed this, for a little over a month!
DT
 
I think they are just joking. Sort of like taking trolling to the national blog level to see who will play along.
 
The thing that fascinates me is the seemingly great need for complex explanations.

On the LC board, I raised an alternative theory. Now, I don't believe this, but I said something like:

Why not accept the explanation that aircraft hit the buildings, and the subsequent damage caused their collapse, but question what motivated the attacks? That a secret group (US government, private industry, insert your choice of responsible party) set up a front organisation which recruited the terrorists to carry out the attacks. The terorists would be thinking they were doing it in accordance with their fanatical desires. No need for faking of any evidence. The number of people involved in the 'conspiracy' need only be small. Very little chance of having trail linked back to originators (especially if you remove the people who set up the front organisation).

This way it becomes very difficult to refute the existance of such a secret group, no need to have to dispute offical reports, and the whole thing is relatively simple and plausible.

Nope - no way. Apparently this would be too simple. What conspiracy is any good unless it involves holographic projectors, etc?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom