How disrespectful can truthers be?

[SteveAustin]

You have proof it was a truther?

So, I assume that since you have accused "truthers" of vandalizing this memorial that you actually have proof of this right?

Please post your proof!!

This wouldn't be the first time for what could be called "false flag vandalism", this is actually quite common where someone tries to frame someone else for a crime.

 

[jaydeehess]

One of the hallmarks of the TM. "Its a false flag op!!"

Ranks right up there with the idea that any physical evidence that contradicts the TM has been 'planted'.

Put simply, unless there is evidence to the contrary it stands to reason that those who promote the contention that 911 was an inside job are those who did the deed.

 

[SteveAustin]

{snipped disinfo rambling}

Put simply, unless there is evidence to the contrary it stands to reason that those who promote the contention that 911 was an inside job are those who did the deed.

Why?

I mean there is no evidence one way or the other, but please explain to those of us who are not as intelligent as you why it has to logically be a truther!

Edit: Oh ya I forgot, JREF Debunkers like to come to their preferred conclusions before any real investigation has taken place.

If you think that because the vandalism said "inside job" that that means it had to be a "truther" then I can understand why you fall for the government lies with regard to 9/11, you simply uncritically believe what they tell you to believe. Of course no cop worth his badge is going to assume it was a "truther" until he has done a complete investigation, but no one has ever accused JREF Debunkers of being logical or rational.

 

[1337m4n]

Why?

I mean there is no evidence one way or the other, but please explain to those of us who are not as intelligent as you why it has to logically be a truther!

Edit: Oh ya I forgot, JREF Debunkers like to come to their preferred conclusions before any real investigation has taken place.

If you think that because the vandalism said "inside job" that that means it had to be a "truther" then I can understand why you fall for the government lies with regard to 9/11, you simply uncritically believe what they tell you to believe. Of course no cop worth his badge is going to assume it was a "truther" until he has done a complete investigation, but no one has ever accused JREF Debunkers of being logical or rational.

Who BUT a Truther would spray "911 Was An Inside Job" on property?

Your "disinfo" crap doesn't fly. "Disinfo" agents (IF they existed--they don't, except in your imagination) would ideally be trying to minimize public curiosity about 9/11. Spraying "9/11 Was An Inside Job" on a memorial does not accomplish that goal. Nor would it serve the goal of making the Truth Movement look bad, because

1) To those already familiar with the Truth Movement, the Truth Movement is already as low as it can get
2) To those not already familiar with the Truth Movement, the words "inside job" wouldn't mean anything.

So there's simply no reason why anyone BUT a Truther would've done this. I suppose technically it could've been a thousand monkeys with typewriters spray paint cans for all we know, but the odds that it was anyone BUT a Truther are astronomically low.

 

[SteveAustin]

Who BUT a Truther would spray "911 Was An Inside Job" on property?

{snipped disinfo rant}

So your proof that it was a truther is simply to say "well who else would do something like that?"

Gotcha. Again I say no wonder you fall for the government lies.

Hey you know maybe it was a truther, but maybe it was a debunker that did it so he could post some crap about truthers and generally insult them.

Until an investigation is done to find out who actually did it jumping to conclusions only makes you look silly and irrational and makes your whole Debunker movement look bad.

 

[johnny karate]

Why?

I mean there is no evidence one way or the other, but please explain to those of us who are not as intelligent as you why it has to logically be a truther!

Because the statement tagged on the memorial is promoting a 9/11 conspiracy theory, and people who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy theories are far too inconsequential for anyone to bother to frame with "false flag vandalism" (*snicker*).

If you think that because the vandalism said "inside job" that that means it had to be a "truther" then I can understand why you fall for the government lies with regard to 9/11, you simply uncritically believe what they tell you to believe. Of course no cop worth his badge is going to assume it was a "truther" until he has done a complete investigation, but no one has ever accused JREF Debunkers of being logical or rational.

First of all, no cop is going to "investigate" a random tagging. Secondly, if they did, the absolute first place they would start looking is with the most likely suspects. If someone tagged "I enjoy ice cream", the police would begin their investigation with people who enjoy ice cream. Of course, it would take a particularly sharp investigative mind like your own to figure out it was actually a conspiracy perpetrated by the anti-ice cream movement to discredit those who enjoy ice cream.

Also, "false flag vandalism" (*snicker*). I just wanted to say it one more time. I don't think that will ever stop being funny.

 

[SteveAustin]

Because the statement tagged on the memorial is promoting a 9/11 conspiracy theory, and people who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy theories are far too inconsequential for anyone to bother to frame with "false flag vandalism" (*snicker*).

So then you have proof that it was a truther? Or are you doing the same thing as all the other debunkers on this thread and "assuming" it was a truther because you want to bash truthers?

First of all, no cop is going to "investigate" a random tagging.

Of course not, but your reply is trying to insinuate that that is what I believe is classic debunking 101 (check the list of "38 ways to win an argument" , heck now that I look at your entire post I realize that your entire post fits into one category or anther of those 38 ways)

Secondly, if they did, the absolute first place they would start looking is with the most likely suspects. If someone tagged "I enjoy ice cream", the police would begin their investigation with people who enjoy ice cream. Of course, it would take a particularly sharp investigative mind like your own to figure out it was actually a conspiracy perpetrated by the anti-ice cream movement to discredit those who enjoy ice cream.

This is completely irrelevant rambling and is intended to confuse you more. Of course the first place the cops would look is with people who enjoy ice cream, are you implying that the most likely suspects are always the guilty party? Seems that is what you are trying to imply here, and any cop or lawyer or judge would laugh in your face if you told them that.

So why say they would start their investigation with "people who enjoy ice cream" (meaning "truthers" if we are going to go back on topic) and not then say that once they have investigated them they would then move on to others who have motive to frame "truthers", because if you are completely impartial you will realize that a "debunker" trying to frame a truther has every bit as much motive to vandalize a memorial as a "truther" might have.

Also, "false flag vandalism" (*snicker*). I just wanted to say it one more time. I don't think that will ever stop being funny.

Which number is that from the "38 ways to win an argument"? I mean it adds nothing to your argument and only makes you look petty and it makes my argument look all the more valid.

 

[T.A.M.]

So your proof that it was a truther is simply to say "well who else would do something like that?"

Gotcha. Again I say no wonder you fall for the government lies.

Hey you know maybe it was a truther, but maybe it was a debunker that did it so he could post some crap about truthers and generally insult them.

Until an investigation is done to find out who actually did it jumping to conclusions only makes you look silly and irrational and makes your whole Debunker movement look bad.

Oh you so pwned him. You got him real good. Run along now and brag to your friends on one of the truther forums.

TAM

 

[SteveAustin]

Oh you so pwned him. You got him real good. Run along now and brag to your friends on one of the truther forums.

TAM

Off-topic post to try and recover for the "debunker movement" noted.

Talking down to me really does not make you look any better either TAM, it makes you look petty and small as well.

Did you have anything substantive to add to the conversation or was this just a drive by insult?

Can you post some proof that it was a truther that vandalized the memorial?

 

[beachnut]

...
Gotcha. Again I say no wonder you fall for the government lies.

...

What government lies on 911.

... the dolt put a back-wards E type symbol for J as if he was doing the B first in the wrong place... So the real problem is...

911TruthLies can't spell or think rationally.
911TruthLies ran out of paint.
911TruthLies cult members are dyslexic and out of paint.
911TruthLies can't spell, think rationally, are dyslexic, ran out of paint and are disrespectful evidence free frauds.

Take your pick.

... Gotcha. Again I say no wonder you fall for the government lies. ...

You fall for idiots making up lies about 911... good job.

You have delusions and you can't point out anything about the 19 terrorists doing 911. The plot is too complex for you to comprehend.

Take planes, hit buildings. Way too complex for your cult of faith based hearsay, lies and moronic delusions.

You are disrespectful blaming people because you are ignorant on 911 issues and you lack evidence.

 

[SteveAustin]

What government lies on 911.



You have delusions and you can't point out anything about the 19 terrorists doing 911. The plot is too complex for you to comprehend.

Take planes, hit buildings. Way too complex for your cult of faith based hearsay, lies and moronic delusions.

You are disrespectful blaming people because you are ignorant on 911 issues and you lack evidence.

Off topic dodge noted...

Do you have any proof that it was "truthers" that vandalized the memorial?

 

[beachnut]

Off topic dodge noted...

Do you have any proof that it was "truthers" that vandalized the memorial?

Gotcha? is on you ... for not condemning the vandalism; why? Because you wanted to display your anti-intellectual delusions on 911. You have to make a false-flag statement and look for the CT side. You spew some smokescreen and get out your standard "Government lies" on 911, that you will never explain or support with evidence.

This was like a trap set for you to fall into the pit of 911 ignorance again.

Instead of condemning the vandalism you jump up and apologize for it and try to cover it up as a false-flag event. You like your delusions on 911 and are sorry the poor idiot was dyslexic, ran out of paint and has sloppy handwriting.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Hey you know maybe it was a truther, but maybe it was a debunker that did it so he could post some crap about truthers and generally insult them.

Highly unlikely, if only because it is far too easy to insult truthers by using direct quotes (say, from this very thread, for example...) rather than going to the trouble of defacing a memorial.

 

[waypastvne]

Do you have any proof that it was "truthers" that vandalized the memorial?

Paint chips from this vandalism were analyzed and no traces of thermite were found.

Draw your own conclusions.

My conclusion = This Was Not A False Flag Vandalism

 

[dudalb]

After seeing the activities of We Are Change, the antics of Alex Jones and Other Truther Spokesman and what we see on the interenet everyday for the NWO to conduct a "disinfo" campaign against Truthers is idiotic. The Truthers do a fine job of totally discrediting their stupid movement themselves.

 

[dudalb]

Well, in going over this thread I see that the truthers that have responded have made no apologies for their brethern's defacing this monument.

Just excuses.

Somethings are just plain wrong and should be acknowledged as such.

Funny, that was the Truthers reaction to the now infamous Wheelchair Incident.
That, and accuse the girl in the wheelchair and her parents of being part of a "disinfo" campaign.

 

[T.A.M.]

Off-topic post to try and recover for the "debunker movement" noted.

Talking down to me really does not make you look any better either TAM, it makes you look petty and small as well.

Did you have anything substantive to add to the conversation or was this just a drive by insult?

Can you post some proof that it was a truther that vandalized the memorial?

Given the tone in many of your posts on this site, throughout your stay, I would not be pointing fingers with respect to condescension or pettiness.

I was not covering for anyone. I noted your transparent attempt to try and turn around on people here, what you perceive to be a persecution of truthers and their claims, in terms of providing evidence etc...

I am sure the comments on this particular topic were not posted for the purposes of having an intellectual debate on the matter, which is why I found it rather petty and juvenile for you to try and say,

"look, you guys are doing exactly what you accuse the truthers of...making a claim with no evidence to back it up".

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Do you have any proof that it was "truthers" that vandalized the memorial?

Paint chips from this vandalism were analyzed and no traces of thermite were found.

Draw your own conclusions.

My conclusion = This Was Not A False Flag Vandalism

Nice!

TAM

 

[abenja1]

Funny, that was the Truthers reaction to the now infamous Wheelchair Incident.
That, and accuse the girl in the wheelchair and her parents of being part of a "disinfo" campaign.

Not to mention posting the personal info of the family. Remember Tweeter's comment on this forum: He said they deserved it.

 

[SteveAustin]

Gotcha? is on you ... for not condemning the vandalism; why? Because you wanted to display your anti-intellectual delusions on 911. You have to make a false-flag statement and look for the CT side. You spew some smokescreen and get out your standard "Government lies" on 911, that you will never explain or support with evidence.

This was like a trap set for you to fall into the pit of 911 ignorance again.

Instead of condemning the vandalism you jump up and apologize for it and try to cover it up as a false-flag event. You like your delusions on 911 and are sorry the poor idiot was dyslexic, ran out of paint and has sloppy handwriting.

Further off-topic dodge noted.

Again I ask, do you have any proof that the vandalism was done by "truthers"?

If you go off topic again I will have to start reporting people to the Mods as this is getting ridiculous