Are Truthers' accusations against Silverstein based on latent anti-Semitism?

[pomeroo]

It naturally arose for you because you have no other way to participate in debate. You rely on the most petty tactics out of desperation, insecurity in your position, and an inability to apply critical reasoning.

You've been caught lying again. We rationalists are triumphant. We have beaten you liars to bloody pulps. We have exposed all of your bogus science, your distorted quotes, and your outright falsehoods. It is your side that is desperate. Its mad effort to absolve the jihadists of their terrible act has failed. You have produced absolutely nothing that lends the slightest bit of credence to your pernicious fantasies.

Critical thinking played a big role is defeating your evil movement. Its conspicuous, embarrassing absence in the fools and charlatans who lead myrmidons like you by the nose eliminated any possibility that your myths would infect the body politic.

This is what this whole thread is about, relying on charges of anti-semitism when specific questions about Silverstein cannot be answered.

You're lying again. There are no specific questions about Silverstein that haven't been answered--ZERO. Certainly you have raised none. Your hopeless attempt to defend the indefensible "pull it" canard resulted in total humiliation for you. You accused an innocent man of lying about something, and became tongue-tied when challenged to express his lies in words.

If your irrational behavior toward a man who has manifestly done nothing wrong does not stem from anti-Semitic impulses, what is stopping you from saying so?

 

[1337m4n]

I would condemn any bigot, racist or anti-semite in or out of what you fallaciously refer to as the Twoofy Twoof Movement.

I also condemn anyone who throws around charges of bigotry, racism or anti-semitism without knowing what the hell he's talking about.

You "would", but...?

 

[1337m4n]

To those that think this is just some way of "avoiding the debate", I would like to ask you: what debate?

In other words, what PROOF is there of any wrongdoing on Silverstein's part?

If evidence existed, your charge that I am "avoiding the debate" might have some merit--but as it stands, ZERO evidence exists and thus there is no "debate" to speak of. There is only liars making up lies and doing the typical Truther-dance after being exposed as such.

All it would take to prove me wrong on this is to provide even a shred of evidence--can you do so?

 

[1337m4n]

And you have only yourself to blame for that.

 

[1337m4n]

The only thing I refused to do is sign on to any pledge that you mustered up.

This is the other thing I wondered about--WHY? Would it actually cause you physical pain to say "I condemn the anti-Semites who claim to represent 9/11 Truth"?

You seem like an overly emotional rebellious 15-year-old, e.g. "I DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING YOU SAY! YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!" as he runs off to a Green Day concert or whatever it is that rebellious 15-year-olds listen to.

 

[RedIbis]

The wall of dumb is thick here, but I've had a couple of stouts so I'll give it a go.

You've been caught lying again. We rationalists are triumphant. We have beaten you liars to bloody pulps.

This is my favorite part.

You're lying again. There are no specific questions about Silverstein that haven't been answered--ZERO. Certainly you have raised none.

How about this question: Who's the fire commander he supposedly spoke with?

If your irrational behavior toward a man who has manifestly done nothing wrong does not stem from anti-Semitic impulses, what is stopping you from saying so?

I don't have to say anything or apologize for anything or anyone since I have not uttered a single anti-semitic comment. You have to ask yourself why you construed my comments in such a way.

 

[pomeroo]

The wall of dumb is thick here, but I've had a couple of stouts so I'll give it a go.


This is my favorite part.

Excellent. You acknowledge defeat. What I wrote is incontrovertibly true and it is a promising sign that you are forced to admit that you have nothing to counter it with.

How about this question: Who's the fire commander he supposedly spoke with?

Who cares? What difference does it make? How does his innocuous agreement with the FDNY's assessment somehow morph into a conversation about demolition? Where does demolition enter the picture?

You have been exposed as bankrupt on these points.

I don't have to say anything or apologize for anything or anyone since I have not uttered a single anti-semitic comment. You have to ask yourself why you construed my comments in such a way.

You have made baseless accusations against an innocent man. I suggested that anti-Semitism might account for your irrational attitude. When I asked that you correct the record, you indicated that you refuse to condemn the Jew-haters in your evil, mindless movement.

 

[RedIbis]

You have made baseless accusations against an innocent man. I suggested that anti-Semitism might account for your irrational attitude. When I asked that you correct the record, you indicated that you refuse to condemn the Jew-haters in your evil, mindless movement.

I corrected you several times. I just don't feel it's necessary to comply with your goofy pledge. It's a matter of taste.

 

[LashL]

specific questions about Silverstein cannot be answered.

What specific questions about Silverstein "cannot" be answered?

Perhaps you are asking the wrong questions, or perhaps you are asking them of the wrong people. That does not make them unanswerable.

It might, however, mean that you will have to do more than mindlessly accuse innocent people of criminal offences on an Internet discussion board - with absolutely no evidence to support your accusations - in order to obtain the answers.

 

[pomeroo]

What specific questions about Silverstein "cannot" be answered?

Perhaps you are asking the wrong questions, or perhaps you are asking them of the wrong people. That does not make them unanswerable.

It might, however, mean that you will have to do more than mindlessly accuse innocent people of criminal offences on an Internet discussion board - with absolutely no evidence to support your accusations - in order to obtain the answers.

RedIbis isn't even capable of formulating an actual accusation against Silverstein. He is totally unable to express what the man could be lying about.

 

[pomeroo]

I corrected you several times. I just don't feel it's necessary to comply with your goofy pledge. It's a matter of taste.

You are, by common consent, an incoherent thinker and a sloppy writer. When you use the word "goofy" to characterize a request to condemn the Jew-haters in your evil, lie-based movement, probably it is just another example of your intellectual laziness. But what if an innocent were to jump to the conclusion that you selected "goofy" as le mot juste? Let's see how the logic would work out:

The fantasy movement is infested with vicious Jew-haters;

A fantasist baselessly and maliciously accuses a Jew of preposterous, wildly implausible crimes;

A rationalist asks the fantasist to disavow the Jew-hating wing of his movement;

The fantasist refuses, calling the request "goofy."

All right--why is it goofy? We would have understood if you had talked about my "discomforting" pledge, or my "unwelcome" pledge, or my "uncongenial" pledge, or my "awkward" pledge, or...you get the idea.
You are someone who slanders a Jew for no particular reason. You either are or are not a Jew-hater, but (note carefully) it is not obvious that you are not. You, as usual, wallow in the murk. Some of us can penetrate it, however.

 

[Max Photon]

Be a jem, would you?

Gosh Pomeroo, now if we could just get you to use one joule of that energy to stand up for the US Constitution.....

 

[1337m4n]

How about this question: Who's the fire commander he supposedly spoke with?

I have a better question: What is Larry Silverstein's favorite color? It is a question that makes perfect sense to ask of a random stranger on the Internet, instead of Silverstein himself.

I will repeat LashL: Perhaps you are asking the wrong questions, or perhaps you are asking them of the wrong people. That does not make them unanswerable.

But the REAL question is why does your question belong in a subforum entitled "Conspiracy Theories"?

 

[pomeroo]

Gosh Pomeroo, now if we could just get you to use one joule of that energy to stand up for the US Constitution.....

Nah, I'm a joule-hater.

 

[1337m4n]

Gosh Pomeroo, now if we could just get you to use one joule of that energy to stand up for the US Constitution.....

I like the Constitution; it is a good expression of the written ideals of our founders. I also like some of the unwritten ideals of our founders. Such as the ideal that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

People claiming to represent the Truth Movement have jumped to a conclusion, without evidence, that Silverstein is guilty of terrible things. I do not believe these people are standing for our founding ideals when they do so.

If one is suggesting that I am doing the same with my points regarding anti-Semitism, I would direct them to my first two posts in this thread in which I provide a rough case supporting me belief that many of the attacks against Silverstein were originally rooted in anti-Semitism. You will not find any Truther who will present such a case for why they are suspicious of Silverstein. They simply "are" suspicious of him and that's that. Which in and of itself furthers my case for anti-Semitism.



This question isn't directed at Max, but would someone please enlighten me as to why the Truth Movement would invent the use of "pull it" as a term for explosive demolitions?

 

[Dave Rogers]

On the subject of the not-so-fine art of repetitive lying, this just in by Philip Giraldi, who used to be in the CIA and now writes for antiwar.com :

Neoconservative pundits have a tendency to assert that something is true even if it is not and then repeat the assertion over and over again to give it credibility. Repeating a statement without subjecting it to any critical analysis is generally regarded as little more than a rhetorical gimmick.

Now where have I seen a classic example of this?

Oh yes. "Silverstein stated that he ordered the FDNY to 'pull it', which is demolition industry slang for imploding a building."

Ah, I see. Repeat the central meme, but introduce enough novelty so as to

1) prevent the target of the disinformation from becoming bored, which would decrease the effectiveness of the stimulus, therefore requiring a greater number of repetitions

Now where have I seen a classic example of this?

Oh yes.

"Even if 'pull it' isn't slang for imploding a building in the demolition industry, Silverstein wouldn't know it wasn't, because he's a property developer."

"Here are 23 different examples of the word 'pull' being used in the demolition industry when talking about implosions."

"I phoned the receptionist at a demolition company and she said that 'pull it' was slang for an implosion outside the industry."

Don't fool yourself that neoconservatives have a monopoly on misdirection.

Dave

 

[Confuseling]

...
People claiming to represent the Truth Movement have jumped to a conclusion, without evidence, that Silverstein is guilty of terrible things. I do not believe these people are standing for our founding ideals when they do so.

If one is suggesting that I am doing the same with my points regarding anti-Semitism, I would direct them to my first two posts in this thread in which I provide a rough case supporting me belief that many of the attacks against Silverstein were originally rooted in anti-Semitism. You will not find any Truther who will present such a case for why they are suspicious of Silverstein. They simply "are" suspicious of him and that's that. Which in and of itself furthers my case for anti-Semitism.
...

Sorry bud, I'm still not buying it.

By analogy - the vast majority of schizophrenics smoke cigarettes. Why don't we ban cigarettes? We'd probably cure schizophrenia!

You can't make this shut and dry, because there are at least a million confounding factors. They're swimming in the countercultural stream, so maybe they're statistically predisposed to anti-semitism, but in individual cases you're making a leap. Their inability to coherently explain their suspicions doesn't concretely further your case - although it certainly doesn't rule it out. You don't have a control case - a tower which wasn't hit by a plane, that collapsed "into its own footprint" ) I know, I know) hours later, while being owned by a rich old Gentile; and without that this is all meaningless.

My guess is that people are suspicious of Silverstein in part because of circumstances, in part because of his manner and person, and in part because of senseless, malign, Jew-hating insanity. And the fact that people are suspicious of him means that he is inevitably dragged further into the 911 maelstrom. Mud sticks, and suspicion breeds suspicion. Any meme that propagates is good propaganda. It makes absolutely no difference to the majority of the people spreading them, probably even starting them, whether he's a Jew. That just conveniently increases their traction.

Sure, some of them are Nazis. Some of them hate him because he's old, and rich, and reticent. Some of them probably don't even know why they hate him - they just plain do. But you're pushing accusations beyond the extent and the certainty of your data. What do they call that? Irrational prejudice - that's it.

 

[funk de fino]

What's the matter, do you have a problem answering a simple question? Tell you what, I'll give you a substitute one.

Do you condemn the JREF "debunkers" who are wife beaters? Do you? No evasion, now!

And if you don't like that, question, I'll give you another option. Do you condemn the JREF "debunkers" who are child molesters?

Please don't tell me that these simple questions are too hard for you to answer.

Coward. I asked you a simple question and you refuse to answer while demanding I answer a similar question?

Are you 5 years old?

If you answer my quite reasonable question I will answer any of yours.

 

[metamars]

Coward. I asked you a simple question and you refuse to answer while demanding I answer a similar question?

The above, followed by

Are you 5 years old?

is just precious!. All you left out is "and btw, my dog is bigger than yours! Nya, nya, nya."

I wonder, though, if you're missing the point, entirely?

 

[SDC]

metamars, no one here is talking about wife beating. The question is that of anti-semitism in the Truth movement. Your response to funk is asinine and useless, not to mention off topic.