Why did the 9-11 Truth Movement fail?

[Bananaman]

"The 911's True Movement is the movement that campaigns to support the Bush regime's 911 narrative" (emphasis added).

The assumption you make is the connection between Bush and 9/11.

This connection is totally without evidence but you take it as a given. With no evidence.

Can't you disassociate the two first. Look at what is actually known and backed up with evidence and see the unfounded assumptions you're making.

It really is odd that you can't see that you are starting with a premise and then looking for evidence rather than the other way round.

And of course, the tacit implication is that supporting the Bush narrative is supporting Bush.

Bananaman.

 

[JihadJane]

The assumption you make is the connection between Bush and 9/11.

This connection is totally without evidence but you take it as a given. With no evidence.



Can't you disassociate the two first. Look at what is actually known and backed up with evidence and see the unfounded assumptions you're making.

If it wasn't the Bush regime that told us how it happened and who dunnit, which regime was it?

It really is odd that you can't see that you are starting with a premise and then looking for evidence rather than the other way round.

All I did was state that the official story (true or not) was communicated by the Bush regime.

You are jumping the gun somewhat in believing that this means my thoughts about 911 are controlled by my thoughts about the Bush regime.

And of course, the tacit implication is that supporting the Bush narrative is supporting Bush.

No, they are two different things.

 

[Bananaman]

If it wasn't the Bush regime that told us how it happened and who dunnit, which regime was it?

Independent investigations, as you know. Try and break free of your assumptions. The assumptions you make, such as 9/11 investigations being bullied by the Bush regime are laughably simplistic and bordering on, no not bordering on, but are wholly ludicrous. Naive really.

All I did was state that the official story (true or not) was communicated by the Bush regime.

You're sure about that are you? (cough)

You are jumping the gun somewhat in believing that this means my thoughts about 911 are controlled by my thoughts about the Bush regime.

I am assuming things. But my assumptions are based on evidence, unlike yours. My evidence being your posts where you repeatedly start with political ideologies and then flirt around the known facts of 9/11. It's back to front thinking. That's what I'm trying to explain to you.

No, they are two different things.

So you will state explicitly that not all debunkers support Bush. In fact you will go further and say that from the evidence you read on this forum, most debunkers are not supporters of Bush, but come to the same conclusion nonetheless?

Bananaman.

 

[~enigma~]

I didn't say anything about supporting Bush. I said:

"The 911's True Movement is the movement that campaigns to support the Bush regime's 911 narrative" (emphasis added).

Who campaigns for anything regarding 9/11 besides the sub-human truthers?

 

[JihadJane]

Independent investigations, as you know. Try and break free of your assumptions. The assumptions you make, such as 9/11 investigations being bullied by the Bush regime are laughably simplistic and bordering on, no not bordering on, but are wholly ludicrous. Naive really.

The "independent investigations" came later, reluctantly. The story was already told.


One can make much more than an assumption that the 911 Commission was "bullied by the Bush regime". One can read about it from mainstream authors such as Philip Shenon.

You're sure about that are you? (cough)

You can read it above. (cackle)

I am assuming things. But my assumptions are based on evidence, unlike yours. My evidence being your posts where you repeatedly start with political ideologies and then flirt around the known facts of 9/11. It's back to front thinking. That's what I'm trying to explain to you.

Perhaps you can give some examples or respond to the relevant posts at the time, as we obviously have very different impressions of my posts.

Do you feel yourself to be ideology-free?

So you will state explicitly that not all debunkers support Bush.

Certainly, but remember it was not me who said there was a connection between supporting the Bush regime 911 narrative and supporting the Bush regime politically.

It's red herring as far as I'm concerned, despite your efforts to pin it on me!

In fact you will go further and say that from the evidence you read on this forum, most debunkers are not supporters of Bush, but come to the same conclusion nonetheless?

You're very commanding when you get going, Herr Bananaman!

I'm not sure exactly which conclusion are you referring to here. I get the impression that some debunkers support Bush, (including several esteemed JREF debunker superstars), some don't and plenty did but are now a bit embarrassed about it.


Overall, there is a distinct rightwards lean.

Who campaigns for anything regarding 9/11 besides the sub-human truthers?

What does “sub-human” mean?

Does it mean that human rights legislation doesn't apply to them?

 

[Alt+F4]

All I did was state that the official story (true or not) was communicated by the Bush regime.

Depends on which part you are referring to. The plane crashes, in New York at least, were under local jurisdiction. Bush didn't tell us two planes crashed into the WTC, the FDNY did.

 

[funk de fino]

FBI, NTSB and NIST part of the Bush regime?

Are they all replaced as each President is changed?

Overall, there is a distinct rightwards lean.

Incorrect

 

[~enigma~]

What does “sub-human” mean?

For someone who claims to be smart you really are pretty dumb when it comes to english.

Sub-human

1. Below the human race in evolutionary development.
2. Regarded as not being fully human.
3. Less than human or not worthy of a human being.

Any questions?

 

[Bananaman]

The "independent investigations" came later, reluctantly. The story was already told.

That would be by the the Bush bullied media presumably.

One can make much more than an assumption that the 911 Commission was "bullied by the Bush regime". One can read about it from mainstream authors such as Philip Shenon.

Political ideology again? Coming before facts? Perhaps you's like to enlighten us on the facts that he presents that blow the whole Bush cover up apart. That should be fun.

Perhaps you can give some examples or respond to the relevant posts at the time, as we obviously have very different impressions of my posts.

I could but it would take up too much time. You know perfectly well that you post more about politics than facts.

Do you feel yourself to be ideology-free?

Um, pretty much yes. Well, maybe no. I don't know. I certainly don't let it lead the way I think... Get the facts before the worldview. Pretty simple.

Certainly, but remember it was not me who said there was a connection between supporting the Bush regime 911 narrative and supporting the Bush regime politically.

It's red herring as far as I'm concerned, despite your efforts to pin it on me!

Ok, but it's pretty obvious to the impartial observer. I don't think I need to add anything to that.

I'm not sure exactly which conclusion are you referring to here. I get the impression that some debunkers support Bush, (including several esteemed JREF debunker superstars), some don't and plenty did but are now a bit embarrassed about it.


Overall, there is a distinct rightwards lean.

There it is again. You can't help yourself can you? Get the two separated for God's sake. It's fogging your thinking appallingly.

Bananaman.

 

[twinstead]

Wow. Some people just CANNOT put their political views aside and look at a situation objectively. Sometimes it just has to be done, and in my experience, it actually can be a useful skill sometimes.

 

[johnny karate]

It makes you wonder how much longer people who want to blame the "Bush Regime" (whatever that is), will harp on this way. His entire administration is being swept out of office as one of the most disgraced and reviled in U.S. history. The man himself is nothing more than a punch line at this point. He is political poison, and even his own party won't touch him.

So who could possibly be protecting him or his "regime" by not exposing his involvement in the greatest crime in history? And why are they doing so?

 

[metamars]

For someone who claims to be smart you really are pretty dumb when it comes to english.

Sub-human

1. Below the human race in evolutionary development.
2. Regarded as not being fully human.
3. Less than human or not worthy of a human being.

Any questions?

You forgot to mention that untermensch, which is German for "sub-human", is also the term the Nazi propagandists used to describe

Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, Soviet Bolsheviks, and anyone else who was not an "Aryan"

Those first three groups, of course, were primary targets for the Nazi regime extermination camps.

Which raises the question, "Would you like to throw the people that you identify as 911 "sub-humans" into gas chambers, and then bake their remains in ovens?"

Do tell.

 

[~enigma~]

You forgot to mention that untermensch, which is German for "sub-human", is also the term the Nazi propagandists used to describe



Those first three groups, of course, were primary targets for the Nazi regime extermination camps.

Which raises the question, "Would you like to throw the people that you identify as 911 "sub-humans" into gas chambers, and then bake their remains in ovens?"

Do tell.

Actually I mentioned the definition. You are speaking of a nazi ideology and a philosophy that you wholly embrace as an anti-semite.

 

[metamars]

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

 

[Darat]

Just had my attention brought to this thread by a report, reading the last page or so and most of it is full of breaches of the Membership Agreement and a lot of the rest is puerile junk. I am setting the thread to [Moderated Thread] status.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[jaydeehess]

Only parts...

...and I wasn't talking about physical modelling. I was talking about reconstruction: finding real bits of the building from selected parts of the building and putting them back together again.

Hardly my fault that you cannot express yourself well enough.

OK, how much of the building and exactly how does one 'put back together' multi-ton steel columns, beams and trusses that are quite bent out of original shape in the first place?

Many of the pieces were also not readily identifiable as to their exact location. The markings were a combination of stamped or painted identifiers. So there is a very good chance that such a reconstruction of the debris would be missing many parts. One could in theory then computer map each of those structural members and, if you know where they came from, assemble them on a computer screen in a exploded(no that does not mean explosives) view and possibly then determine fairly closely how they bent. The wrnech in this is that they are also likely to have undergone many impacts with other debris as they fell and when they hit the ground. So pray tell, how does one account for that damage?
If al you want is to look for signs of explosives then it is completely unneccessary to do this reconstruction of debris since you would be looking for very tell tale, specific damages to the members. THAT was done, there WERE NONE!

My words, indeed, which, despite my later clarification, you still apparently misunderstand, perhaps due to your own lenses or desires. I wasn't implying that skin color is related to ability. I was highlighting a political reality.

Are you denying that the alleged hijackers were brown while US military/intelligence machine is predominantly controlled by whites?

Perhaps you missed me asking you if there was a non-bigoted reason why this skin colour would make a difference at all.
Perhaps you missed the part where I stated that history shows that the PLO did in fact hijack several airliners all on the same day, fly them all to the same location in the desert and then blow them up. In addition to that I pointed out that in Israel and in Iraq it is not considered beyond the realm of probability for persons to get weapons past tight security and then perfprm a suicide mission in that 'secure' zone.

If you have a point then make it.

 

[JihadJane]

Hardly my fault that you cannot express yourself well enough./QUOTE]

"Reconstruct" is an unamgiguous word.

OK, how much of the building and exactly how does one 'put back together' multi-ton steel columns, beams and trusses that are quite bent out of original shape in the first place?

Many of the pieces were also not readily identifiable as to their exact location. The markings were a combination of stamped or painted identifiers. So there is a very good chance that such a reconstruction of the debris would be missing many parts. One could in theory then computer map each of those structural members and, if you know where they came from, assemble them on a computer screen in a exploded(no that does not mean explosives) view and possibly then determine fairly closely how they bent. The wrnech in this is that they are also likely to have undergone many impacts with other debris as they fell and when they hit the ground. So pray tell, how does one account for that damage?

I get the impression that you are making up these theoretical objections as you go along and know even less about investigating building failures than I do

If al you want is to look for signs of explosives then it is completely unneccessary to do this reconstruction of debris since you would be looking for very tell tale, specific damages to the members. THAT was done, there WERE NONE!

Documentation, please.

Perhaps you missed me asking you if there was a non-bigoted reason why this skin colour would make a difference at all.
Perhaps you missed the part where I stated that history shows that the PLO did in fact hijack several airliners all on the same day, fly them all to the same location in the desert and then blow them up. In addition to that I pointed out that in Israel and in Iraq it is not considered beyond the realm of probability for persons to get weapons past tight security and then perfprm a suicide mission in that 'secure' zone.

If you have a point then make it.

I was pointing out that the so-called "War on Terror" is white against brown.

 

[jaydeehess]

Hardly my fault that you cannot express yourself well enough./QUOTE]

"Reconstruct" is an unamgiguous word.

No it isn't, it can mean to construct a building using the same techniques and type of materials used in the original construction, OR as you would have it, to reassemble the parts of the now broken structure.

Quote:
OK, how much of the building and exactly how does one 'put back together' multi-ton steel columns, beams and trusses that are quite bent out of original shape in the first place?

Many of the pieces were also not readily identifiable as to their exact location. The markings were a combination of stamped or painted identifiers. So there is a very good chance that such a reconstruction of the debris would be missing many parts. One could in theory then computer map each of those structural members and, if you know where they came from, assemble them on a computer screen in a exploded(no that does not mean explosives) view and possibly then determine fairly closely how they bent. The wrnech in this is that they are also likely to have undergone many impacts with other debris as they fell and when they hit the ground. So pray tell, how does one account for that damage?

I get the impression that you are making up these theoretical objections as you go along and know even less about investigating building failures than I do

Odd that you would rail on against NIST and not have bothered to read it. They cover the markings on the structural members and the fact that many were unidentifiable.

Quote:
If al you want is to look for signs of explosives then it is completely unneccessary to do this reconstruction of debris since you would be looking for very tell tale, specific damages to the members. THAT was done, there WERE NONE!

Documentation, please.

This has been covered many times in these pages. Try the sticky threads of this forum.

Quote:
Perhaps you missed me asking you if there was a non-bigoted reason why this skin colour would make a difference at all.
Perhaps you missed the part where I stated that history shows that the PLO did in fact hijack several airliners all on the same day, fly them all to the same location in the desert and then blow them up. In addition to that I pointed out that in Israel and in Iraq it is not considered beyond the realm of probability for persons to get weapons past tight security and then perfprm a suicide mission in that 'secure' zone.

If you have a point then make it.

I was pointing out that the so-called "War on Terror" is white against brown.

,,,, and?? What is the significance of that? seems like getting an answer from you on this is similar to the difficulty one might have in trying to nail jell-o to a wall.

 

[Baylor]

Documentation, please.

 

[twinstead]

UNLovedRebel, you know all those investigators and experts in that video are government shills. Look for God's sake, many of them are AMERICANS, and you what THEY are like...