• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

English Bishop Richard Williamson says "inside job"

BigAl said:
Catholic Church-9/11 Was An Inside Job
Click to expand...

The Catholic Church declares it an inside job, huh? Funny they use a bishop they excommunicated to drop this bombshell then.
raise.gif





CURSES BEATEN!!
fist4su.gif
 
That's what they're stooping to? I mean, I thought a Professor of Theology was scraping the barrel, but an excommunicated priest?

:dl:
 
Look, I know this is a thread begging to be filled with jokes, so forgive me for being serious... but it's sorta hard to top Drudgewire's "Peter Pan for 9/11 Truth" image, especially since the guy's face reminds me so much of Ranke. The resemblence is scary, in fact :eye-poppi (*Shudders*...); I think Drudgewire's trying to imply something :whistling;). So anyway, I'll take my post in a different direction because of that:

Disgraced and excommunicated priest... Pakistani intelligence officer... parade of entertainment stars... this is what the Truth Movement presents to us. Yet, give us one, just one guy with hard evidence, and all of a sudden, the TM isn't such a joke. Find a single cleanup worker, for example, who said "Hey, I found a detonator". Or a Morgan Stanley employee who said "Yes, the wall in our office was obviously opened, and stuff was moved around". A Shanksville first responder who said "No, the stuff we picked up was not from Flight 93", or better yet, one who said "Yeah, I helped plant the stuff there". Someone.

Where are they? Every single "witness" - every single one - who the truth movement has forwarded has either been quoted way, waaaay out of context (think of CNN's Jamie McIntyre's oft misrepresented quote "...no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon" as an example of this... or any of the supposed "explosions" or "bomb" quotes) or haven't actually existed (Mike the EMT), or do exist, but outright lied (Lauro Chavez). These are the people the TM presents? These folks? Who's statements I either have to twist, accept unconditionally, or fail to research to believe??

This is why I posted in Sizzler's "Fareed Zakaria demonstrates the "TM" is not dead" thread, even though of late I've not cared to respond to posts that inane. It's just reached that point. It's officially descended past pathetic into unbelievable. Just how lacking, how utterly devoid of hard fact does a belief system have to be to try to claim that a person's belief means anything when that person was completely removed and uninvolved from 9/11, totally removed from access to evidence and primary information, and physically so far away that a schmuck like me in the midwest is closer? Braggadocio like that is the act of those who's goal is to convert, or the accomplishment of people who are more concerned with numbers of voices than accuracy or truth. It's certainly not the act of people who's purpose is to uncover, or rectify.

When are people who argue for the "Truth" movement going to realize that the weight of contradictions, misrepresentations, and utter dreck that passes for the central dogma of 9/11 "Truth" activism far, far exceeds the cumulation of contradictions that Griffin supposedly laid out in his latest book? When are people who call themselves Truthers or who claim to be asking questions about 9/11 going to realize that the lack of hard, reasonably solid evidence for any of their claims is damming? Say what you will about Steven Jones's microspheres, but at least it's evidence that actually came from near Ground Zero. The argument he builds from it has more holes than a colander hit by a shotgun, but at least he's based his argument on something physical, and reasonably demonstrable as being from around Ground Zero. When has any other argument been the same? For any other piece of physical evidence, the TM has resorted to misrepresenting, misquoting, or just outright screwing up what they've been told by others about it; for example, how many times is eutectic erosion going to have to be explained before people realize it has nothing to do with molten steel? When are we going to get anything other than a misstatement of what original evidence signifies?

And when are we going to hear from a conspirator? Do conspiracy peddlers really believe Silverstein is one? Honestly? Someone who, even if he really was admitting to an inside job, couldn't and didn't account for the fact that the physical evidence for 7 World Trade being "pulled" is utterly missing?

When are we going to hear from a whistleblower? One who's not made up, or who hasn't spun easily demonstrable as false stories?

When are we going to hear from a cleanup worker "Yes, I did remove a piece of demolitions equipment"?

And when are we going to get an explanation that actually accounts for what has been witnessed? When are the peddlers going to come up with an alternate theory that accepts the witnesses saw the jet hit? Or that the cleanup workers honestly "thought" they were picking up Flight 77 debris and passenger remains?

When will the TM be any more than a complaint list saying "This doesn't agree with that", and "This seems suspicious"? And when will items on that list actually be reconciled with currently generated knowledge in order to advance the theses held by those noting the anomalies? Not all anomalies end up leading a person in the direction of the truth, and in my experience, it's never been anything more than a distraction from it! In my experience, anomalies never resulted in anything more than discovering a misunderstanding or uncovering a miscommunication. Given that, I need very solid proof that something heavily based on an anomaly actually leads somewhere other than a party's misunderstanding. Because in all honesty, when I see "free fall" or "thermite" or "stand down", that's all that the belief ends up being based on. Just some misunderstanding. Perhaps deliberate. Perhaps even honest. But never accurate. Never grounded in the real facts of what's happened.

I'm not even looking for a person to prove the thrust of the various CTs to me. I'm just wondering if someone has enough evidence to merely make me question what I know. The only truther so far to have done that was Gordon Ross, and that was only because I don't have the engineering or math skills to have followed his argument. No one else has even reached the point of making me re-examine my beliefs. And that's due to the fact that I've taken all the converging threads of evidence that's available to me, some random schmoe on the internet, and noted that so much of it converges. The radar data jibes with the idea of a hijacking. The witnesses in both DC and NY all saw a jetliner, not a missile or a bomber, and the phone calls butresses all that, from the hijackings to the impacts. The videos all show me a pair of jets hitting the towers, all the firefighter testimony tells me the fires were there, none of those videos or testimonies show me anything remotely close to anything other than an expected collapse, and the FEMA and NIST studies all support what the firefighters said and what we saw in the videos. And so on, and so forth. The ATC testimony buttresses the phone calls and eyewitnesses to jet impacts. And so on. The Pentagon tapes jibes with the inability of military jets to do anything. And so on. All that evidence converges, so therefore my bar is set pretty damn high. And only one argument, only one single presentation by a truther has ever got me to rethink just that one component Gordon Ross addressed. And the only reason that worked was because I didn't understand it at the time.

Ok, too much ranting. My point is this: When are we going to see the end of "Personage "X" believes 9/11 was an Inside Job", and when are we going to see the start of "Person "X" was onsite and planted the thermite". Or "Lt. "X" recieved an order that interfered with the Air Force's ability to act". Or something that isn't so silly that it's refutable with a simple Google search. Just something.

When is something going to be brought up that makes me take a second look at things? Don't cop out and say my mind can't be swayed; remember, Gordon Ross stopped me in my tracks, and I needed folk here like Mackey, Newton's Bit, rwguinn, and all the other engineering types to clear things up for me. When is something going to be brought up that just gives me honest pause? Just that?

I've been waiting for 2 years now. One single item in two years, clarified and refuted easily by people with more knowledge than me, is a terrible track record. Where's item two? Some nattering ex-clergy doesn't cut it.
 
Pardalis said:
Craig Ranke is already a truther.
Click to expand...


Ha, I'd completely forgotten about the similarity. I'll just always associate that Pan fellow with all things stupid about the Internet (which is another way the two aren't that different now that I think about it).
 
Elmondo:

great post.

OP:

Every community has a village idiot, but the truther community seems to have a parade of them.

TAM:)
 
"Google Northwoods..."

Because an event planned by an administration 40 years ago is absolute proof that today's administration planned and executed the 9/11 attacks.

Without variation, all of these people claiming 9/11 was an inside job, use, exclusively, the falsities of Loose Change in their reasoning. I guess that's what happens when your first exposure to the 9/11 Lie Movement is Loose Change and you don't have the intellectual capacity to seek further clarification.
 
Last edited:
Because an event planned by an administration 40 years ago is absolute proof that todays administration planned and executed the 9/11 attacks.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention a plan that didn't plan on killing any Americans whatsoever and was still rejected by the government.
 
Every community has a village idiot, but the truther community seems to have a parade of them.
Click to expand...

A Truther gathering must resemble the Village Idiot Convention in Woody Allen's "Love and Death".
 
Dr Shimon Samuels, the centre's director of international relations, described Williamson as "the Borat of the schismatic Catholic far-Right" and said that he was "a clown, but a dangerous clown".
Click to expand...

Sort of a British Mel Gibson?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom