"Jersey Girls"

[SDC]

Please, not another discussion on "who should investigate." Isn't this thread chez Jersey Persons?

 

[TheRedWorm]

s/he started it! [j/k] You're right, SDC. CE please ignore my question. If you feel like answering, please bump an old thread.

 

[rwguinn]

They don't deserve credit? Mr. Cheney told you already that without their efforts, there very likely wouldn't have been a 9/11 Commission at all. Without their continued efforts, the 9/11 Commission would've been headed by Henry Kissinger, of all people.

All you folks who b'leeve that the US would have said
"Well, shucks, we had 2 airplanes crash into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and another in a field in Pennsyltucky, all apparently hijacked, I guess that's the way things go"
and left it at that, the bus to the loony bin leaves in 5 minutes. There's a seat reserved for you...

 

[RedIbis]

I didn't presume anything about them, or myself.

Except that they couldn't or wouldn't think straight. Poor logic. You have no idea how straight they are able to think.

 

[Childlike Empress]

All you folks who b'leeve that the US would have said
"Well, shucks, we had 2 airplanes crash into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and another in a field in Pennsyltucky, all apparently hijacked, I guess that's the way things go"
and left it at that, the bus to the loony bin leaves in 5 minutes. There's a seat reserved for you...

Read the part of my post you've bolded again. It's true. You are clueless like four laughing dogs. Or five.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Oh, and a thread about the Jersey Girls wouldn't be complete without the two videos with and about them. Isn't it so, Brainster? Here you go:

Press for Truth

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

In their own words

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

 

[Sizzler]

The Jersey girls are not being used by the movement. They ARE the movement, which they pretty much started based on their own research and lack of responsiveness by the government. Are you aware that they gave the names of potential whistle blowers to the commission who were never called to testify? No wonder they are dissatisfied when few of their questions have been answered.

Have you heard them speak? They are primarily calling for accountability. I haven't seen that anyone was held accountable, only that the lying and manipulative Bush administration took full advantage of the tragedy to further the neo-con agenda as prescribed by PNAC.

I second this post. Well said.

 

[tanabear]

Chillzero, the Jersey Girls and other family members deserve sympathy for their losses. They don't deserve respect for peddling worthless conspiracy theories that accuse innocent people of complicity in 911 (Silverstein, Secret Service, military, etc.) and lessen/ignore the responsibility of the hijackers. The Jersey Girls have been actively peddling bunk for years.

What worthless conspiracy theories are they peddling? Which innocent people have they accused of murder? Do you have a problem that this Administration has killed ten of thousands of innocent people based on a lie? How many Iraqi's have we killed that were in some way responsible for 9/11? Which is worse, killing innocent people or accusing people of murder?

Chillzero,

Well, I stand by my statement; If these three, or four, women believe this crap, no matter what the grief that leads them to WANT to, they are just like all the rest of the Truthers; nuts. Because when you decide to believe a lie, even if it is for reasons of grief, you have abdicated your sanity and by definition are nuts.

If you want to think me callous, fine, but I think THEY are callous for calling criminals so many of the firefighters and military personnel who gave all that they had on that day, because if they support the idea that it was an inside job, those people were by definition in on it.

-Ben

The only people who have decided to believe a lie are the people who continue to be apologists for this Administration. When did the Jersey Girls accuse firefighters of being criminals? Where did you get the crazy idea that if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, then by definition the firefighters were in on it? People who believe Arabs were responsible for 9/11 believe we should exterminate all Muslims in the Middle East, right?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I second this post. Well said.

Who coulda seen that coming....

 

[Jonnyclueless]

What worthless conspiracy theories are they peddling? Which innocent people have they accused of murder? Do you have a problem that this Administration has killed ten of thousands of innocent people based on a lie? How many Iraqi's have we killed that were in some way responsible for 9/11? Which is worse, killing innocent people or accusing people of murder?

Can anyone else point out the irony in this quote?

 

[Tweeter]

This thread should be enshrined. Exposing the debunkers for what they are has never been so evident.

 

[gtc]

Where did you get the crazy idea that if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, then by definition the firefighters were in on it?

This is off-topic but I think it is an interesting topic in its own right.

I have started a thread here. In the new thread, can you explain how 9/11 could have been an inside job without the involvement of the FDNY?

 

[chillzero]

Chillzero,

Well, I stand by my statement; If these three, or four, women believe this crap, no matter what the grief that leads them to WANT to, they are just like all the rest of the Truthers; nuts. Because when you decide to believe a lie, even if it is for reasons of grief, you have abdicated your sanity and by definition are nuts.

If you want to think me callous, fine, but I think THEY are callous for calling criminals so many of the firefighters and military personnel who gave all that they had on that day, because if they support the idea that it was an inside job, those people were by definition in on it.

-Ben

Ben, If that's all we disagree about, I am ok with that.

While they have been through a tragedy, it's not callous to call the things they say crazy.

Also, trying to finagle that type of thing into "attacking victims" is quite stretching it.

I agree with both these statements.

Except that they couldn't or wouldn't think straight. Poor logic. You have no idea how straight they are able to think.

Again, I am talking about solely this matter. I don't know why you choose to ignore that. Victims and grieving families of those victims cannot judge the tragedy that made them victims in an objective manner. That takes away their ability to think straight on those matters.

 

[Pookster]

.... Again, I am talking about solely this matter. I don't know why you choose to ignore that. Victims and grieving families of those victims cannot judge the tragedy that made them victims in an objective manner. That takes away their ability to think straight on those matters.

Agreed. To believe they would be thinking straight on those specific matters shows a bit of naiveté itself.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Agreed. To believe they would be thinking straight on those specific matters shows a bit of naiveté itself.

This sounds like conjecture to me. Do you have any psychological research to support this position?

 

[Pookster]

This thread should be enshrined. Exposing the debunkers for what they are has never been so evident.

Oh, I can find plenty of better examples of debunkers showing their complete and utter disgust in even less civil ways at those who unjustifiably accuse innocent people of being an accomplice to murder on 9/11. The Jersey Girls only get a pass on their poor choice of actions and words but for so long.

Your indignation is cute though.

 

[Pookster]

This sounds like conjecture to me. Do you have any psychological research to support this position?

I have no psychological research to support it. It is based on life experience.

Careful you don't show your own naiveté about this too.

 

[chillzero]

This sounds like conjecture to me. Do you have any psychological research to support this position?

I don't have any to hand, but I'd be surprised if there was none. It is (IMO) silly to believe that victims are able to approach the subject of whatever victimised them in an objective fashion.

I work with missing persons charities, and have myself been a victim of violence, arson, and other crimes. I wouldn't consider myself able to think objectively about these matters, nor the families of the missing.

I also witnessed a situation in the UK where proposed law changes were driven by the surviving victims of a widely publicised crime, and IMO the proposal went too far. The media also utilised the victims to pull at public heartstrings in attempts to force it through (though they were really more concerned with selling papers); not what a democracy is supposed to do.

Anyway, not to derail this further, I think it is naive to look at grieving members of victims' families, watch them angrily proclaim that they are not getting the answers they need, and consider that they are thinking straight on the matter. (again, for those finding this difficult to keep up with, I don't know or question their ability to think straight about anything else at all - just the events of 911).

For goodness sake, it is difficult enough for so many people not directly victimised that day to think straight about it. Read through threads here, and you will see that often discussions are driven on emotion rather than calm, objective considerations.

 

[MarkyX]

This thread should be enshrined. Exposing the debunkers for what they are has never been so evident.

That we have high standards and 9/11 deniers like yourself refuse to answer questions?

None of you have even countered my points yet. I'm still waiting.

 

[GregoryUrich]

I don't have any to hand, but I'd be surprised if there was none. It is (IMO) silly to believe that victims are able to approach the subject of whatever victimised them in an objective fashion.

I work with missing persons charities, and have myself been a victim of violence, arson, and other crimes. I wouldn't consider myself able to think objectively about these matters, nor the families of the missing.

I also witnessed a situation in the UK where proposed law changes were driven by the surviving victims of a widely publicised crime, and IMO the proposal went too far. The media also utilised the victims to pull at public heartstrings in attempts to force it through (though they were really more concerned with selling papers); not what a democracy is supposed to do.

Anyway, not to derail this further, I think it is naive to look at grieving members of victims' families, watch them angrily proclaim that they are not getting the answers they need, and consider that they are thinking straight on the matter. (again, for those finding this difficult to keep up with, I don't know or question their ability to think straight about anything else at all - just the events of 911).

For goodness sake, it is difficult enough for so many people not directly victimised that day to think straight about it. Read through threads here, and you will see that often discussions are driven on emotion rather than calm, objective considerations.

I think this clearly depends on the individual person and the time frame. We are talking about close to 7 years.

Were blacks never able to think straight about civil rights?

Are victims of violent crime never able to think straight about the crimes committed against them?