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

[johnny karate]

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.

I would agree with you if JihadJane was honest enough to simply admit s/he misspoke or overstated the case. S/he has not done that. Instead s/he carries on with arrogance and bluster, trying to shift the burden of proof to those challenging her/his claim.

Instead of saying "Okay, perhaps "many" was a poor choice of words," JihadJane has defiantly challenged the rest of us to prove him/her wrong. It's a typical Truther tactic, and it stinks of dishonesty.

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

Nor would it to any reasonable person. JihadJane knows this, but doesn't care. S/he tried to pull a fast one and got busted. Now s/he wants to carry on like some someone whose been misunderstood and maligned. It's all one great big fraud.

 

[johnny karate]

Yawn.

I agree. Your lies are boring.

 

[leftysergeant]

It's all irrelevant, anyway. The family members know nothing of any calue as to what actually happened other than that their family members are dead. Their existence actually argues against one of the more whackadoodle beanches of Da Twoof, the fake passenger/no-plane lunatics.

When you get even a significant number of fire fighters who were on the scene supporting Da Twoof, there is something important going on.

I will just continue to consider the support of some family members for Da Twoof a sign of the PTSD a good part of the nation suffers.

 

[JihadJane]

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".

Thanks for some much-needed clarity of thought.

You are correct. I haven't defined "many". Its meaning has been assumed by other posters for partisan purposes. As I have explained repeatedly, "48 out of perhaps 10,000" doesn't strike me as "many" either. I wasn't making a numerical point.

 

[Brainache]

Thanks for some much-needed clarity of thought.

You are correct. I haven't defined "many". Its meaning has been assumed by other posters for partisan purposes. As I have explained repeatedly, "48 out of perhaps 10,000" doesn't strike me as "many" either. I wasn't making a numerical point.

Maybe next time you try to make this point you should say: "Of the many thousands of survivors and relatives of the victims of 9/11 it is possible that nearly 50 might support a new investigation of some sort"...

It kinda loses something when you take the BS out though, doesn't it Jane?

 

[JihadJane]

Maybe next time you try to make this point you should say: "Of the many thousands of survivors and relatives of the victims of 9/11 it is possible that nearly 50 might support a new investigation of some sort"...

It kinda loses something when you take the BS out though, doesn't it Jane?

Read my posts, ache.

 

[Thunder]

Hey JihadJane- even I have questions about the 9-11 commission report. it doesnt make me a truthr.

you do understand the difference between having questions about the 9-11 report..and believing 9-11 was an inside job...dont you?

 

[johnny karate]

You are correct. I haven't defined "many".

You don't need to, nor is it your privilege to do so. The dictionary already does that for us.

Its meaning has been assumed by other posters for partisan purposes.

The only basis for assuming what "many" means is the actual definition of the word.

As I have explained repeatedly, "48 out of perhaps 10,000" doesn't strike me as "many" either.

Of course it doesn't. That's the whole point.

I wasn't making a numerical point.

Irrelevant. Whether you originally intended for that list of 48 names to be supportive of your "many" claim or not, it is the only thing approaching substantiation that you've provided.

In case you're having trouble keeping up, the argument isn't that 48 names out of several thousand doesn't substantiate your "many" claim, it's that your "many" claim is not substantiated at all.

You said this:

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

This claim is completely unsupported by evidence, and thus erroneous. You have had this pointed out to you numerous times and yet refuse to retract your statement. What was once simply erroneous becomes a blatant falsehood.

Believe it or not, you're not the first Truther to clumsily stumble in here and blurt out "Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account". It's a typical canard of your dishonest movement to use somewhat vague language like "many" in order to create the appearance of a larger number without making a specific claim. In short, it's a lie.

Perhaps you think you are being clever in the way you have carried on, arguing what words mean and expressing mock indignation at the shoddy treatment you've received. But we've seen this argument before, and we've seen it defended in the exact same manner. In the end, you're not being clever at all, but rather trite and obvious.

 

[JihadJane]

In case you're having trouble keeping up, the argument isn't that 48 names out of several thousand doesn't substantiate your "many" claim, it's that your "many" claim is not substantiated at all.

I understand that that is the argument that you want to have but it it is not my argument.

This claim is completely unsupported by evidence, and thus erroneous.

I have provided evidence for it.

Believe it or not, you're not the first Truther to clumsily stumble in here and blurt out "Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account". It's a typical canard of your dishonest movement to use somewhat vague language like "many" in order to create the appearance of a larger number without making a specific claim

It's not my "dishonest movement" or gang. Without a thorough survey of Family Members' attitudes it is not possible to be more specific. This also applies to your claim.

"Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account" is an honest statement. Prove otherwise. I have provided supportive references.

In short, it's a lie.

Yawn.

Perhaps you think you are being clever in the way you have carried on, arguing what words mean and expressing mock indignation at the shoddy treatment you've received. But we've seen this argument before, and we've seen it defended in the exact same manner. In the end, you're not being clever at all, but rather trite and obvious.

You are not the first person to make a big noise about something about which you have no supporting evidence yourself.

I haven't expressed indignation, mock or otherwise about "shoddy treatment". You appear, once again, to be representing your own interpretation as mine. I have made observations about playground bullying tactics being deployed. Such bullying reassures me that the argument is too weak to stand on its own. I therefore ignore the argument.

The same goes for status and dominance games.

 

[Thunder]

I
I have provided evidence for it.

the truther standard of evidence..is very very weak.

 

[Brainache]

Read my posts, ache.

I have. Maybe you should go back and read them as well.

You still have no evidence that "many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account."

You had a list of 48 names. That is not many, nor is it evidence that those people are skeptical of the mainstream account of what happened on 9/11.

Honestly, this is starting to look like your own concrete core belief.

 

[Totovader]

Thanks for some much-needed clarity of thought.

You are correct. I haven't defined "many". Its meaning has been assumed by other posters for partisan purposes. As I have explained repeatedly, "48 out of perhaps 10,000" doesn't strike me as "many" either. I wasn't making a numerical point.

On the contrary- you were trying to rebut a comment that the conspiracist movement does not represent a majority, and certainly does not speak for the families.

Now that you're asked to provide evidence substantiating your claim- you've dodged the question and attacked every person requesting that you be honest.

Your statement here proves that you opened your mouth without thinking: you admit that what you have provided is not evidence, yet you turn around and claim that everyone should accept your numbers as evidence. You can't even keep your lies straight.

 

[Thunder]

It has been settled. Only a small minority of 9-11 family members want a new investigation..and an even smaller part of that group thinks 9-11 was an inside job.

 

[johnny karate]

I have provided evidence for it.

"Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account" is an honest statement. Prove otherwise. I have provided supportive references.

The lies continue. Let's take a look at your "supportive references", shall we?

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

First of all, pointing to someone else telling the same lie is you is not evidence.

Secondly, the link you provided leads to a webpage that says absolutley nothing about 9/11 family members questioning the official account.

How about actually linking to his comments and the references on which his comments are based?

You fail.

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.

Family members demanding an inquiry and family members questioning the official version are wholly separate things. You are once again displaying your intellectual dishonesty by conflating the two issues in a vain attempt to support your spurious claim.

You fail.

Here's how this works, sparky. If you want to substantiate your claim that "many family members of 9/11 victims are skeptical of the government's account", you need to provide a list of those "many" family members with links to their statements.

One of the Truth Movement's favorite pastimes seems to be compiling lists of people that supposedly question the official account, so surely such a list of family members is readily available. And after all, "Family members have put their names in the public domain in various places", right? You seem willing to cut and paste names, and provide links in support of your arguments, so you shouldn't find this task too troubling.

I look forward to your next post which will of course consist solely of you not substantiating your original claim and multiple paragraphs of sophistry desperately rationalizing why.

 

[Thunder]

The lies continue. Let's take a look at your "supportive references", shall we?



First of all, pointing to someone else telling the same lie is you is not evidence.

Secondly, the link you provided leads to a webpage that says absolutley nothing about 9/11 family members questioning the official account.

How about actually linking to his comments and the references on which his comments are based?

You fail.



Family members demanding an inquiry and family members questioning the official version are wholly separate things. You are once again displaying your intellectual dishonesty by conflating the two issues in a vain attempt to support your spurious claim.

You fail.

Here's how this works, sparky. If you want to substantiate your claim that "many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account", you need to provide a list of those "many" family members with links to their statements.

One the Truth Movement's favorite pastimes seems to be compiling lists of people that supposedly question the official account, so surely such a list of family members is readily available. And after all, "Family members have put their names in the public domain in various places", right? You seem willing to cut and paste names, and provide links in support of your arguments, so you shouldn't find this task too troubling.

I look forward to your next post which will of course consist solely of you not substantiating your original claim and multiple paragraphs of sophistry desperately rationalizing why.

I believe this is whats called "checkmate". Well done my friend.

 

[JihadJane]

@ johnny karate

Thanks for your post. I’m glad you’ve still got a sense of humour. I forgot I was on a TV game show!

The lies continue. Let's take a look at your "supportive references", shall we?

First of all, pointing to someone else telling the same lie is you is not evidence.

Do you have any evidence that David Kubiak is lying? He was probably in a better position than either of us to know about 911 families’ attitudes .

I’ve only met two adults who used the knee-jerk, “Liar!” accusation as the somewhat paranoid, first line of defence for treasured beliefs. Both were exceptionally dishonest people.

Secondly, the link you provided leads to a webpage that says absolutley nothing about 9/11 family members questioning the official account.

From the site:

"As the widow of FireFighter Robert J. Minara who gave his life on 9/11/01 so that others would be saved, I deserve to have full accountability for the tragedy that affected me and thousands of people."
Paula A. Minara

"Nothing can ease the pain of losing our son, Stewart Harris , in this horrific tragedy. We, as parents, are entitled to know all the actual facts. This report MUST be released."
Mildred & R. Jay Harris

"'Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.' In loving memory of our beloved son, Nicholas C. Lassman . {Tower 1}"
Ira & Laura Lassman

"I'm a 9/11 mom who lost her only daughter, Michelle at WTC#2 & want the truth to come out."
Julie Scarpitta

"I was injured at the Pentagon. I need to know the truth."
William K. Wright

"In Memory of our daughter Jennifer 23 years young, WTC1. The truth must come out in memory of all those lost and for our country to be safe and strong."
Mr. & Mrs. Vito Mazzotta

"My brother was killed in the WTC on 9/11 - we MUST punish those responsible!"
Gayle Barker Powell

"Mother of Robert Wayne Hobson III (WTC, North Tower, Cantor Fitzgerald, 105th floor) We need to know the whole truth of what happened that terrible day. Why my son will not be spending the holidays with his family."
Judith Hobson

"Sister of Leonard Castrianno , 1 WTC, 105th floor and still waiting for information on his murder."
Lynn M. Castrianno

"Another 9/ll survivor demanding truth!"
Janete MacKinlay

"Where is my daughter?"
Diana J. Sayegh

Family members demanding an inquiry and family members questioning the official version are wholly separate things. You are once again displaying your intellectual dishonesty by conflating the two issues in a vain attempt to support your spurious claim.

If people demand to know the truth about how their loved ones died despite the official version having claimed to have already answered their question, it strongly implies that the family members are questioning the official version.

You fail.

Here's how this works, sparky

Very funny, B-movie camp-gangster. What is the purpose of this kind of language?

One of the Truth Movement's favorite pastimes seems to be compiling lists of people that supposedly question the official account, so surely such a list of family members is readily available. And after all, "Family members have put their names in the public domain in various places", right? You seem willing to cut and paste names, and provide links in support of your arguments, so you shouldn't find this task too troubling.

There’s one here: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

Do you know anything about the rally, held June 11th, 2002, in Washington DC, supposedly numbering many victim’s families, led by the FSC, demanding the official 911 investigation?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Keep in mind that for the 3000 some victims, there are probably in the 100s of 1000s of family members. You're going to have a handful that want to beleive in conspiracy theories just out of the laws of probability. To say that 10-15 people represent 100,000 or so people is pretty dishonest. And for every family member you find supporting the conspiracy theories you will find a dozen claiming they don't. Just look at all the legit 9/11 documentaries which involve talking to family members.

The thing is that the ones who don't believe in CTs are not going to come out and openly say so unless asked, just like they aren't going to come out and say their favorite color unless asked. While the people who do think something is wrong with the normal acceptance would speak out.

 

[TexasJack]

There’s one here: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

Do you know anything about the rally, held June 11th, 2002, in Washington DC, supposedly numbering many victim’s families, led by the FSC, demanding the official 911 investigation?

You are really going to use patriotsquestion911 to support your argument? That site is a sham. Do you realize that it uses Edna Cintron, who tragically died that day and was seen frantically waving to be rescued, as someone who questions the 911 Commission Report? That's just one example of the gross deception that site uses. Do you really investigate these sites before you post them? I think not.

 

[stilicho]

There’s one here: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

This is where your difficulties on this thread and Bananaman's started, JJ. You probably saw this quote and accepted it uncritically:

"Many 9/11 survivors and many 9/11 victim family members have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11."

That quote is an opinion from a well-known conspiracy site. It should not be accepted uncritically as factual. That site, as many others, makes no attempt to distinguish between 9/11 family members who feel the US government (or unknown agencies) attacked its own people, on one hand, and those who think the investigation and report(s) were handled badly, on the other hand. Nor is there any attempt to create any categories between those two extremes of 'significant criticism'.

Moreover, that site includes the names of family members or survivors who have since clarified their statements or even changed their minds. Of the very few who agree with the "Truth" Movement, the per cent is probably representative of the "Truth" Movement as a whole. Governed by the very poor showings at the most recent anniversary of 9/11 by "Truthers", we could easily conclude that the "movement" is more in the imaginations of its members and leaders than in reality.

 

[johnny karate]

Do you have any evidence that David Kubiak is lying? He was probably in a better position than either of us to know about 911 families’ attitudes .

I don't need any because his veracity is not the issue. Your veracity is the issue, and saying "This person agrees with me" is not evidence of a claim.

From the site:

"As the widow of FireFighter Robert J. Minara who gave his life on 9/11/01 so that others would be saved, I deserve to have full accountability for the tragedy that affected me and thousands of people."
Paula A. Minara

"Nothing can ease the pain of losing our son, Stewart Harris , in this horrific tragedy. We, as parents, are entitled to know all the actual facts. This report MUST be released."
Mildred & R. Jay Harris

"'Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.' In loving memory of our beloved son, Nicholas C. Lassman . {Tower 1}"
Ira & Laura Lassman

"I'm a 9/11 mom who lost her only daughter, Michelle at WTC#2 & want the truth to come out."
Julie Scarpitta

"I was injured at the Pentagon. I need to know the truth."
William K. Wright

"In Memory of our daughter Jennifer 23 years young, WTC1. The truth must come out in memory of all those lost and for our country to be safe and strong."
Mr. & Mrs. Vito Mazzotta

"My brother was killed in the WTC on 9/11 - we MUST punish those responsible!"
Gayle Barker Powell

"Mother of Robert Wayne Hobson III (WTC, North Tower, Cantor Fitzgerald, 105th floor) We need to know the whole truth of what happened that terrible day. Why my son will not be spending the holidays with his family."
Judith Hobson

"Sister of Leonard Castrianno , 1 WTC, 105th floor and still waiting for information on his murder."
Lynn M. Castrianno

"Another 9/ll survivor demanding truth!"
Janete MacKinlay

"Where is my daughter?"
Diana J. Sayegh

Assuming all the people you quoted above actually do question the official version (not that you can glean that from most of these statements), you've only added 11 names to your list of 48.

Oh wait, no you haven't. 3 of the above names were already on your previous list. I'll be gracious and assume that was an oversight based on simple incompetence rather than malicious dishonesty.

So that gives you a total of 56 names, only 8 more than the number you've already admitted doesn't qualify as "many".

If people demand to know the truth about how their loved ones died despite the official version having claimed to have already answered their question, it strongly implies that the family members are questioning the official version.

Gee, that's super. However, you made the following declarative statement:

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

You didn't say it seems like many family members of 9/11 victims are skeptical of the government's account, or you assume many family members of 9/11 victims are skeptical of the government's account. You made a definitive claim, saying many family members of 9/11 victims are skeptical of the government's account.

Your inferences do not substantiate this claim. Only facts can do that. So far, you have provided none.

There’s one here: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

Again assuming these people actually do question the official version (I didn't read their statements, I only counted names), you added another 26 names, (33 total, 7 were duplicates) for a grand total of 82 names.

82 names out of, let's be very conservative and say, 6,000 people.

That's just a hair over 1%. And that's being generous with the figures.

Do you know anything about the rally, held June 11th, 2002, in Washington DC, supposedly numbering many victim’s families, led by the FSC, demanding the official 911 investigation?

Sure. I also know that it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

What we're talking about is your ridiculous lie that "many" 9/11 family members question the official version and your pathetic verbal flailing pretending that it isn't.