"Most 9/11 familes support the Truth Movement!"

[Elizabeth I]

Alternatively, you may use the "Implied Opt-In" that Truthers use. Which is, because the overwhelming majority of family members don't explicitly come out and reject the Truther creed, they automatically support it.

This is scary. There are lots of truly heinous practices that I have never explicitly stated that I disapprove.

if this was true...they would have all worn truther t-shirts on 9-11 at GZ.

Jihad seems to be saying that their fashion sense trumped their principles.

 

[JihadJane]

Bless the fools.

Umm....if you don't define these 48 as many, why did you explicitly state many, and then only provide these?

I reproduced the list in order to humanise the potential victims of Bananaman's violent urges and neutralise his/her Appeal to Emotion with one of my own!

Many violent criminals precede their crimes with intense fantasising and justify their actions and urges by demonising, dehumanising and belittling their victims.

48 names was quite sufficient to illustrate my point. One name would also have sufficed. In retrospect it would probably also have been wiser!

Really? You've never heard a twoofer say that "most 9/11 family members support the TM?"

Then you just haven't been paying attention to your own movement.

I am not part of any "movement" nor am I interested in joining one!.

Many times on JREF I have seen anecdotal evidence witheringly dismissed as unscientific.

("Many" is not "most".)

I've [substantiated my charge beyond simply repeating your innocuous and mutable "many"]. Repeatedly. Feel free to look at my previous post in this thread for one example.

As far as I can see you have yet to move beyond the Jumping-up-and-down-shouting-“Liar! Liar! Pants on Fire!” stage. You have provided nothing concrete to demonstrate that my statement is incorrect. Some posters on this thread have attempted to improve on CHF’s fashion-based t-shirt evidence but with little success.

I'm not the one claiming to know what these people think. You are. Your pathetic attempts to shift focus and burden don't change the fact that you lied.

By calling me a liar you are, indeed, claiming “to know what these people think”. What else can your assertion possibly be based on?

I would actually call 48 out of 5-7 thousand, a "very small fraction" of family members.

So to recap, with more accurate terminology...

"A small fraction of the 9/11 victim family members believe a deeper investigation into 9/11 is needed."

TAM

Hi TAM! Didn’t you mean it when you said “Goodbye”? Aw

The venerable nuns and monks of St Jref's loathe quote mining so let's have a look at my quote in context:

Quite simply because they're pissing on the graves of those who died.

Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account. Perhaps you better inform them to their faces that they are pissing on their loved ones' graves.

What is it about my statement and subsequent list that turned off analytical thought in favour of emotionally and intellectually disconnected mathematical activities?

Perhaps the endlesss thought-terminating cliches, the stereotyping and the repetitative, trance-inducing ”twoofer” chants (activities which reinforce cult-like non-thought; see thread:

....

) have taken their toll on 911TV minds.

Who in their right means believes that someone posting 48 names out of group consisting of many thousands does so in order to prove a numerical point?

However, in view of the amount of distress my words have caused, maybe it’s worth pointing out that politicians pay attention to their mailbags because they know that if one person writes to them to express an opinion there will be many more holding the same opinion, who do not write.

Publically declaring oneslef a disbeliver in the holy 911 creed is far more risky to one’s well-being than simply writing to a political representative about, say, potholes in the road. It is seen, by many (sic!), as equivalent to blasphemy. It can destroy your career and even your friendships. The wise will mostly keep their opinions to themselves.

Only the foolish speak out. That’s why we need fools.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Troll.

Concern troll, in fact.

 

[Totovader]

JJ makes a claim, can't back it up- and then says that folks who point out he/she can't back it up are liars because they are making the opposite claim...

Classic truther red herring.

 

[johnny karate]

As far as I can see you have yet to move beyond the Jumping-up-and-down-shouting-“Liar! Liar! Pants on Fire!” stage. You have provided nothing concrete to demonstrate that my statement is incorrect.

Suggesting I have to prove your claim incorrect is retarded and par for course for the level of intellectual dishonesty you have so far exhibited. You made a claim. It is your obligation to substantiate it.

By calling me a liar you are, indeed, claiming “to know what these people think”. What else can your assertion possibly be based on?

It's based on the fact that you made a claim and have absolutely no evidence to support it. Thus your claim = lie.

Or to put in terms you understand:

I am making the claim that you are lying.

Now it is up to you to prove me wrong.

 

[JihadJane]

JJ makes a claim, can't back it up- and then says that folks who point out he/she can't back it up are liars because they are making the opposite claim...

Classic truther red herring.

Would you be another person putting words into my mouth, Totovader?

I haven't called anyone a liar.

 

[Totovader]

Would you be another person putting words into my mouth, Totovader?

I haven't called anyone a liar.

Not explicitly- but you did claim that others are pretending to know what the families think... when in fact they are merely pointing out that you have been unable to support your claim.

You dodge the issue the same way you dodged my post- with a big fat red herring.

Are you capable of backing up your claim or not? It's a pretty simple question.

 

[Thunder]

i would love to see some evidence that even 1/3rd of 9-11 family members support
9-11 truth.

but truthers are making the accusation..so i wont hold my breath.

 

[eromitlab]

It's up to non-truthists to prove truthist claims. That way, we'll all see the light and convert to truthism once we prove everything for them; plus they don't have to tear themselves away from the more pressing editing of a new youtube video with teh most damning smoking gun evidence EVAH!!! Final nail in teh official conspiracy theory!!!11!!!!1!

 

[JihadJane]

Not explicitly- but you did claim that others are pretending to know what the families think... when in fact they are merely pointing out that you have been unable to support your claim.

You dodge the issue the same way you dodged my post- with a big fat red herring.

Are you capable of backing up your claim or not? It's a pretty simple question.

Thanks for your relatively polite enquiry. I don't respond generously to those who use the tactics of sad playground bullies. Red herrings are in the eye of the beholder's blinkers.

As far as I’m concerned this whole percentage furore is a red herring manufactured to avoid discussing my point about the morality and logic of using of unnamed Family members to support attacks on 911 skeptics (“pissing on the graves of those who died” Bananaman)

I think it's reasonable to demand that people who attack the arguer with cries of "Liar!" back up their hot-blooded accusations with facts.

As for backing up my much-vaunted “many” claim that does not actually claim very much - I haven't seen anyone disputing Bill Doyle claim, mentioned above, beyond innuendo. David Kubiak, former executive director of 911Truth.org, which has worked extensively with 911 Families, has made similar comments, e.g. http://911conspiracy.blogspot.com/2005/09/david-kubiak-responds-to-nico-haupt.html (in answer to question ::11). Family members have put their names in the public domain in various places such as on this site, for example: http://www.justacitizen.com/index.htm and others, as well as being at the forefront, of course, of forcing the 911 Commission Inquiry into existence.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that many supportive Family members would not want their names published. A brief study of the hyenas who stalk this site and other even worse ones, might give you a clue as to why. The charming johny karate's beliefs on the matter, which I assume you share, appear to be based on assumption and nothing else.

 

[JihadJane]

Troll.

Concern troll, in fact.

I had to look this alleged creature up. They seem to come in various shapes and sizes none of which fit me very well. It's amusing, though, that your name-calling occurs on a thread triggered by the biggest Concern Trolling of them all, the "pissing on the graves of those who died" accusation, assuming I am understanding internet fauna correctly.

Your comment appears to breach Rule 12

i would love to see some evidence that even 1/3rd of 9-11 family members support
9-11 truth.

but truthers are making the accusation..so i wont hold my breath.

That's a very specific fraction. Where did that come from?

It's up to non-truthists to prove truthist claims. That way, we'll all see the light and convert to truthism once we prove everything for them; plus they don't have to tear themselves away from the more pressing editing of a new youtube video with teh most damning smoking gun evidence EVAH!!! Final nail in teh official conspiracy theory!!!11!!!!1!

Amen, Father Twoof.

 

[Totovader]

Thanks for your relatively polite enquiry. I don't respond generously to those who use the tactics of sad playground bullies. Red herrings are in the eye of the beholder's blinkers.

What a pathetic response.

You made a claim. You need to back it up. Pretending that you're offended because you were asked to back up such a bold claim is not an adequate defense.

I'll ask again- though you've already been asked far too many times: are you able to back up your claim, or not?

 

[BigAl]

I reproduced the list in order to humanise the potential victims of Bananaman's violent urges and neutralise his/her Appeal to Emotion with one of my own!
...
48 names was quite sufficient to illustrate my point. One name would also have sufficed. In retrospect it would probably also have been wiser! ....

Nope, not until you provide a link to the complete statement from each person that explains why that individual wants an investigation, and then determine if the quote is based on facts and if it isn't, in fact, historical.

Lots of families were vocal in their call for what became the 9/11 commission and no longer have that gripe. I don't put it past the "Half Truth Movement" to put these people on their lists. I don't put it past the movement to put people on lists without permission. Unless we seen full quotes, we just don't know why they are on the list.

There are lots of legitimate complaints about air quality at WTC and survivors benefits. Maybe these 48 people have something to say about that and I can't see how these claims are connected to any of the core claims of the Twoofers; man-made demolition at WTC or that anything but 4 commercial jets and 19 Islamic hijackers caused all the death and destruction on 9/11.

As I have said before, I live in "Ground Zero" (*) for where the families of the victims of WTC live. This includes first responders and firehouses that were decimated on 9/11. The funerals in the months following 9/11 were endless. I can't count the number of people I know that lost loved ones.

There is ZERO interest in the claims of the "Truth Movement" here.

* Staten Island, a suburb of Manhattan and said to be the largest concentration of victims, survivors, and families of same.

 

[johnny karate]

I think it's reasonable to demand that people who attack the arguer with cries of "Liar!" back up their hot-blooded accusations with facts.

Once again, I have excised the majority of your post as your infatuation with your own rhetoric prevents you from staying focused.

Fact: You said

Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account.

Fact: You have failed to substantiate this claim.

Therefore, your claim is a lie.

Feel free to counter either one of those facts with any facts of your own. Until then, the conclusion I have drawn remains valid.

 

[CptColumbo]

From one of the people on "the List."

Testimony of Patricia Perry on S. J. Res. 1, The Victims' Rights Amendment, Before the Senate Judiciary Committee (4/8/2003)

<snip>The terrorists of 9-11 shattered the lives of our family and the lives of all who knew and loved John. Many questions linger on. What do I, what do we as a family and what do all John's friends want as justice for his murder? Each victim of 9-11 leaves family, friends and loved ones who mourn as we do.<snip>

<snip>Victims and family members are not dispassionate. We are angry, depressed and mourning. As families, we have a torrent of emotions that are not useful in preparing a legal case. We usually lack expertise and have a desire for vengeance that we claim is the need for justice. We are likely to quickly claim that an accused is guilty in our need to satisfy our loss and grief. We believe that criminal convictions should not be based on the emotions of victims and families, particularly in situations where we are not relevant witnesses to the crime. On the other hand, victims should clearly have the opportunity to participate in the penalty phases of a case, after a defendant has been found guilty of a crime.

In the case of the tragedy on 9-11 there were thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of victims. And, as we have seen in the aftermath of this tragedy and others, victims do not always agree on the best way a case should be handled.<snip>

bolding mine
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/victimsrights/10206leg20030408.html
I seen this list on a lot of web sites, but have not seen links to the statements from the family members in regards to what kind of investigation they want.

 

[CptColumbo]

From what I've read about Adele Welty (for example http://www.democracynow.org/2004/12/23/military_families_9_11_families_raise ) she seems more interested in stopping the deaths of civilians in the wars that have started in the wake of 9/11. If someone could point to a site that quotes her suspecting the Bush administration of orchestrating the attacks on 9/11, it would lend more credibility to use of this list as a call for a new investigation.

Also, some of the people on "the list" apparently signed this letter to US Senators.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06918-etn-911-fam-sigs.pdf

 

[JihadJane]

Therefore, your claim is a lie.

Yawn.

 

[Blender Head]

Yawn.

That's a worse response than when Bush said violence in Iraq would be "just a comma" in the history books.

I mean really now, "Yawn."?

 

[jhunter1163]

To be fair, the word "lie" implies that the person making the claim knows that the claim is untrue. Since the word "many" is not defined further, we cannot say with certainty that JihadJane's claim is untrue.

That being said, 48 out of perhaps 10,000 first-order relatives (parents, siblings and children) doesn't strike me as "many".

 

[Thunder]

48 family members...out of say 10,000 9-11 family members..is .0048%

considering the idiocy of 9-11 truth...that number sounds about right to me.

=)