JihadJane
not a camel
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 91,177
"We will kill 9/11 CT skeptics after 9/11 Truth comes out."
- Thread starter oldhat
- Start date
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
Do you mean the Jo Cressy who within hours of Brainster pointing out to her the preponderance of Holocaust deniers among the twoofers crated a Holocaust-denying, "official" 9/11 story affirming sock puppet in the SLC comments section?
Do you mean the Jo Cressy who created a google account to impersonate Pat "Brainster" Curley and make it appear as though he turned twoofer resulting in Alex Jones's lap dog Paul Watson publicly humiliating himself when he declared Cressy's sock legit?
Do you mean the Jo Cressy who created yet another debunker sock puppet at google in order to post an graphic rape-torture-murder fantasy scenario targetting herself when she determined she wasn't getting enough attention at SLC?
Do you mean that Jo Cressy?
JihadJane
not a camel
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 91,177
No, the other one.
Galileo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,368
prove that the guy who posted the message did these things.
You know, doubting everything and anything that comes from a Federal, State, or local government source, really doesn't require much thinking.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Do bright people have any evidence of their assertions, JihadJane? Or do they just spout nonsense and expect everyone to accept it?
I'm waiting for any evidence that the general uprisings come this summer, JihadJane.
did JihadJane say this? please provide a link to his post so i can laugh while i eat my cantaloupe.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Just follow the exchange between myself and JihadJane.
the what???? lolol
i worry about people who love to use acronyms that only they understand.
JoeyDonuts,
Well, what became the 9/11 truth movement actually started out as a bunch of people who noted (actual or apparent) irregularities in what happened on 9/11 and the government's story into the events of 9/11.
From there it would seem that the movement began to embrace crazier and crazier theories. At first the theories I heard was the government let it happen, which when you consider how much the government has benefitted from 9/11, it didn't seem all that odd. Then from there it evolved to the planes being electronically taken over, to the planes had no people on them and were simply drones and the calls were somehow "duplicated". Then they claimed the trade-centers were demolished with controlled demolitions. At first I actually believed these theories, probably due to the fact that I didn't know as much as I do now, and the people who presented these theories were very convincing, many had a variety of credentials including some who were professors. The theories became increasingly crazy though, some people claimed the planes were holograms and there were no planes on 9/11, and even people in the movement wanted to quickly isolate themselves from these individuals and believed this was orchestrated by the government to throw doubt on the whole credibility of the movement. After awhile I remember thinking about this and I just wondered -- what if the whole thing about he controlled-demolition, and the planes being remote controlled were false and themselves were created to cast doubts as to the credibility of anybody who had any questions about what happened on 9/11.
Then you see even crazier stuff, such as Nano-Thermite, and the fact that certain individuals within the movement have begun to act increasingly erratic (I rarely believed much of what Alex Jones said even when I believed in the controlled-demolition thing), even individuals who previously didn't act too crazy began to act more and more erratic, ones that already were wacky have become wackier and wackier, and their followers have become increasingly advocating acts of violence. The percentage of those advocating violence at the beginning of the truth movement was very very little, and usually they were quickly denounced, but the percentage of those advocating violence has increased exponentially with time and those denouncing violence (And to be clear -- this includes myself.) has decreased a lot. Now truthfully, even now, I think the amount of people in the movement that have advocated violence is way larger than those who would actually carry out violence (I personally think very few would actually do anything), but at least one or two people have carried out violent acts which their CT-beliefs were a culprit.
It almost sounds like the original "movement" (To explain events that happened on 9/11 and explanations made regarding 9/11 by the government that did not add up) was infiltrated and hijacked by what you would call agent provocateurs and steered, and prodded towards it's current state.
I wouldn't be surprised if something fishy happened on 9/11. I don't think buildings were imploded, or that the airplanes were holograms and stuff, but there are a number of things that seem off. The head of the FBI at the time said he didn't want to hear another thing about a terrorist plot, the anthrax in the mail, the fact that high ranking democrats and various figures in the media were given the stuff, the fact that the anthrax was made in our labs, and that the guy who allegedly did it died just before allegations about it came forward (in other words, nobody can refute or confirm what he did, he's dead) -- Then after 9/11 a CIA agent met Osama Bin Laden allegedly in a hospital... why would he meet him and talk to him, and not arrest him or kill him? With that said, a movement with a mission to expose all of what happened on 9/11 (that was the original intention), would obviously not be thought of fondly by a government that may have done something unethical or even illegal.
The Executive Branch, ultimately. I mean if they hypothetically did something fishy on 9/11, they'd be motivated to discredit, and manipulate a group dedicated to finding the truth. The Executive Branch, FBI, CIA, all have expertise in the use of Agent provocateurs
Any group, particularly any large group dedicated to explaining events on on 9/11 and explanations in regards to 9/11 that didn't seem to or didn't add up.
Probably true, but I don't particularly care.
INRM
Well, what became the 9/11 truth movement actually started out as a bunch of people who noted (actual or apparent) irregularities in what happened on 9/11 and the government's story into the events of 9/11.
From there it would seem that the movement began to embrace crazier and crazier theories. At first the theories I heard was the government let it happen, which when you consider how much the government has benefitted from 9/11, it didn't seem all that odd. Then from there it evolved to the planes being electronically taken over, to the planes had no people on them and were simply drones and the calls were somehow "duplicated". Then they claimed the trade-centers were demolished with controlled demolitions. At first I actually believed these theories, probably due to the fact that I didn't know as much as I do now, and the people who presented these theories were very convincing, many had a variety of credentials including some who were professors. The theories became increasingly crazy though, some people claimed the planes were holograms and there were no planes on 9/11, and even people in the movement wanted to quickly isolate themselves from these individuals and believed this was orchestrated by the government to throw doubt on the whole credibility of the movement. After awhile I remember thinking about this and I just wondered -- what if the whole thing about he controlled-demolition, and the planes being remote controlled were false and themselves were created to cast doubts as to the credibility of anybody who had any questions about what happened on 9/11.
Then you see even crazier stuff, such as Nano-Thermite, and the fact that certain individuals within the movement have begun to act increasingly erratic (I rarely believed much of what Alex Jones said even when I believed in the controlled-demolition thing), even individuals who previously didn't act too crazy began to act more and more erratic, ones that already were wacky have become wackier and wackier, and their followers have become increasingly advocating acts of violence. The percentage of those advocating violence at the beginning of the truth movement was very very little, and usually they were quickly denounced, but the percentage of those advocating violence has increased exponentially with time and those denouncing violence (And to be clear -- this includes myself.) has decreased a lot. Now truthfully, even now, I think the amount of people in the movement that have advocated violence is way larger than those who would actually carry out violence (I personally think very few would actually do anything), but at least one or two people have carried out violent acts which their CT-beliefs were a culprit.
It almost sounds like the original "movement" (To explain events that happened on 9/11 and explanations made regarding 9/11 by the government that did not add up) was infiltrated and hijacked by what you would call agent provocateurs and steered, and prodded towards it's current state.
I wouldn't be surprised if something fishy happened on 9/11. I don't think buildings were imploded, or that the airplanes were holograms and stuff, but there are a number of things that seem off. The head of the FBI at the time said he didn't want to hear another thing about a terrorist plot, the anthrax in the mail, the fact that high ranking democrats and various figures in the media were given the stuff, the fact that the anthrax was made in our labs, and that the guy who allegedly did it died just before allegations about it came forward (in other words, nobody can refute or confirm what he did, he's dead) -- Then after 9/11 a CIA agent met Osama Bin Laden allegedly in a hospital... why would he meet him and talk to him, and not arrest him or kill him? With that said, a movement with a mission to expose all of what happened on 9/11 (that was the original intention), would obviously not be thought of fondly by a government that may have done something unethical or even illegal.
The Executive Branch, ultimately. I mean if they hypothetically did something fishy on 9/11, they'd be motivated to discredit, and manipulate a group dedicated to finding the truth. The Executive Branch, FBI, CIA, all have expertise in the use of Agent provocateurs
Any group, particularly any large group dedicated to explaining events on on 9/11 and explanations in regards to 9/11 that didn't seem to or didn't add up.
Probably true, but I don't particularly care.
INRM
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
Perhaps. There's always going to be irregularities. Nothing that has ever been investigated in the history of mankind has ever been completely explained to the satisfaction of everybody who might look at it. Not an indication of nefarious intent - evidence of an investigation by humans who give it everything they've got - but miss things sometimes. This was all compounded by fog-of-war, and no single agency wanting to be ID'd as the one that dropped the ball. It seems that Richard Clarke was the only one with the stones to admit responsibility and take some ownership of the multiple-point intelligence and coordination failure pre-9/11.
The ranks swelled with crazier and crazier people - all who attach their pet "spin" to the story. Take "Dr." Judy Wood. She had been noodling with the Hutchison bunkum before 9/11. Or take the flip side - look at Dylan Avery. He got a taste of fame and noteriety. He couldn't afford to be wrong about 9-11. Keep up the charade, and the checks keep coming in. This is also Alex Jones' stock-in-trade, don't ever forget that.
You have a hypothesis. Quick now, what's the next step?
The percentage of violent truthers has always remained small relative to the entire movement. However, as the movement's lost steam and numbers in droves as people began to get turned off by the pseudo-science, and the generally disrespectful tone of the movement's "pied pipers," those who remained are the 'hardcore' ones. The ones who have so much of their self-worth tied into 'raging against the machine' they will reject anything and anyone that goes counter to that worldview. They've shown a marked and dangerous disconnect from their friends, family - they've cut themselves off from all support groups save for the Truth Movement.
This is classic cult psychology. Alex Jones, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and Dylan Avery all know it and are counting on it to keep their bank accounts on the up and up.
It's been a long time since COINTELPRO was active. I don't know if you noticed, but J. Edgar Hoover is no longer the head of the FBI. You have any idea what the manning situation is like at the Bureau? They are busy, busy people. It's ridiculous to believe they assigned resource to a team designed to disrupt a bunch of loony conspiracy theorists. Once again, if this is true, you've made the Impossibly Large ConspiracyTM that much larger, and far less likely to remain secret. You don't surrender your conscience when you join the FBI, or any other government organization. Sure there are bad apples, but I challenge you to show me any group where this isn't the case. The FBI does remarkably well in its mandate - and did one hell of a lot better getting information out of high-value War on Terror detainees then the CIA did.
Something fishy did happen, or weren't you paying attention? An international terrorist cabal carried out the worst single terrorist attack in human history. They left breadcrumbs, and in my opinion, a sufficient trail to disrupt the attacks had our intelligence services not been greedy, nepotistic, and headstrong to a fault. They failed us, and I don't think they've ever forgotten it. Or ever will.
Source?
Ummm, yeah they can. Sufficient evidence exists that implicates Bruce Edwards Ivins as the sole perpetrator of the attacks. He fabricated evidence, implicated coworkers, defeated a polygraph test - he also stood to gain financially from proliferation of anthrax vaccination.
He also wouldn't be the first perp to off himself when the jig was up.
Source?
Evidence? And I mean contemporary. As I said before COINTELPRO hasn't been active in a long, long, time.
Good. Because they'd accuse you of the same thing - and then you'd see firsthand the reason why the Truth Movement ate itself. It's founded on paranoia.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Kudos, Joey D!
INRM deserved an answer if only because I believe we're watching one slip beneath the waves and it might be a good idea to pull him back up on the life raft.
INRM, you've displayed a concerted belief, in numerous posts and threads, that governments can do no good and are quite likely, in fact, at the root of all evil. I know I've seen lucid thought from you, though, so you're not blind to reason. Yet, you seem to have blinkers on in this particular area.
Frankly, I was you for many years. I took my political and philosophical differences with the government and extrapolated them into a belief that they were capable of doing anything. I'm not saying that you're basing your concerns in fantasy - as I don't believe my own were.
I lived through the McCarthy Era, the Civil Rights Era, the VN War Era, etc... The anti-communist fever of the 30s, 40s, and 50s was very real. I also knew veterans of the labor movement from the turn of the previous century up through the 50s. The things that were done in the name of stopping Communism (really "stopping labor" from where I stand) in the first half of the 20th century bred in me an inherent distrust for anything out of the mouths of or halls of the government.
And, frankly, I still start out any examination of any political (local, national, international or geopolitical) issue looking first through my own skeptic-tinted glasses. But being a skeptic means being a skeptic about the things that my side stands for, also. If I found myself again making arguments as you are, solely based on conjecture, connect the dots, and personal incredulity, I hope I'd stop myself in midstream.
INRM deserved an answer if only because I believe we're watching one slip beneath the waves and it might be a good idea to pull him back up on the life raft.
INRM, you've displayed a concerted belief, in numerous posts and threads, that governments can do no good and are quite likely, in fact, at the root of all evil. I know I've seen lucid thought from you, though, so you're not blind to reason. Yet, you seem to have blinkers on in this particular area.
Frankly, I was you for many years. I took my political and philosophical differences with the government and extrapolated them into a belief that they were capable of doing anything. I'm not saying that you're basing your concerns in fantasy - as I don't believe my own were.
I lived through the McCarthy Era, the Civil Rights Era, the VN War Era, etc... The anti-communist fever of the 30s, 40s, and 50s was very real. I also knew veterans of the labor movement from the turn of the previous century up through the 50s. The things that were done in the name of stopping Communism (really "stopping labor" from where I stand) in the first half of the 20th century bred in me an inherent distrust for anything out of the mouths of or halls of the government.
And, frankly, I still start out any examination of any political (local, national, international or geopolitical) issue looking first through my own skeptic-tinted glasses. But being a skeptic means being a skeptic about the things that my side stands for, also. If I found myself again making arguments as you are, solely based on conjecture, connect the dots, and personal incredulity, I hope I'd stop myself in midstream.
JoeyDonuts,
Perform experiment and collect data. Of course I can't think of any type of ethical, and/or reasonable experiment to conduct to refute or confirm the hypothesis
Foolmewunz,
I don't actually believe that governments can do no good and are the root of all evil. I do believe *some* governments are corrupt and often engage in corrupt, unethical, and illegal acts.
I do try to be rational, believe it or not...
More or less a similar position to what I hold. Especially under certain administrations. You must understand the past eight years have done very little to encourage trust in government and almost everything to encourage distrust in it.
As did government conduct under Bush's administration. Many of Obama's policies, though, are in line with Bush's though, use of excessive secrecy, defending Bush policies, and proposing preventive detention. Bush's administration did very little to inspire trust, and Obama is very quickly earning my distrust.
I suppose that is a reasonable thing.
INRM
Perform experiment and collect data. Of course I can't think of any type of ethical, and/or reasonable experiment to conduct to refute or confirm the hypothesis
Foolmewunz,
I don't actually believe that governments can do no good and are the root of all evil. I do believe *some* governments are corrupt and often engage in corrupt, unethical, and illegal acts.
I do try to be rational, believe it or not...
More or less a similar position to what I hold. Especially under certain administrations. You must understand the past eight years have done very little to encourage trust in government and almost everything to encourage distrust in it.
As did government conduct under Bush's administration. Many of Obama's policies, though, are in line with Bush's though, use of excessive secrecy, defending Bush policies, and proposing preventive detention. Bush's administration did very little to inspire trust, and Obama is very quickly earning my distrust.
I suppose that is a reasonable thing.
INRM
Last edited:
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
Anyone see "Law and Order" last night? Kinda on the same topic. Delusional conspiracy theorist kills those who thinks are "after him".
P.s. Joeydonuts has the best avatars!! love the 'stach dude!
P.s. Joeydonuts has the best avatars!! love the 'stach dude!
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
You seem to be ignoring the bald fact that every signle solitary event in modern(and not so modern) history has a conspiracy theory about it.
For eg;
The two shuttle disasters-conspiracy theories
Every widely publisized aircraft crash - conspiracies
Point is that it is completely unnecessary to fashion a disinformation because there seems to be an element of the human population that will use there own personal incredulity (how can a modern, functional jetliner just drop out of the sky and isn't in suspicious that it occured where no one saw it go down?) as the starting point from which to create a conspiracy theory.
What then occurs is that various persons of this persuasion develop their own pet theories and promote them. When conflicting theories come up many will rail against them because it would require that one's own theory be incorrect.
Thus the back and forth accusations of "disinfo".
A prime example is the CiT. They refer to any TM group that disagrees with their own particular contentions as dis-info. Anyone who disagrees with them is labelled as a probable 'agent'.
If however the CiT are the disinfo then what of the backing of PfT for CiT? Is PfT also disinfo? Is Woods, one of the farthest 'out-there' contentions (space-a-beams) also disinfo? IRC, the CiT and PfT both believe so.
In fact I daresay that you will not find a TM sub-group that does not have another subgroup refering to it as disinfo.
All this then was set up in order to discredit the small group that claimed that the administration allowed an attack by Islamic militants to go forth rather than intercept it. This done in order to garner war in two countries only one of which would have anything at all to do with the attacks.
Kind of makes 95% of the entire TM disinfo. Makes Avery, Balsamo, Ranke, Jones and Jones etc. all disinfo- or just plain very very wrong.
Yet if LIHOP is indeed the truth there are precious few who promote that theory exclusively .
Further still a LIHOP could easily be blamed on incompetance and infighting/non-cooperation of the agencies that should have intercepted the plot.
Hate to say it but this entire thread is really pointless. We claim to be the critical thinkers and rational ones yet we post stupidity like this sinking to their level? Would someone kindly explain the point? Some of you have said you post this stuff for the benefit of undecided lurkers. Besides my not believing that there are undecided lurkers let me ask you what they are supposed to think about the mass of threads that amount to nothing more than namecalling and character assasination. I told you guys that I once believed in LIHOP and one of the MAJOR reasons i left the TM was because they did nothing but make fun of debunkers only because they believed differently. Of course I understood their arguments were based on half-truths and unscientific to say the least. Now it seems that some of the "debunkers" here are practicing what was strongly condemned when the TM on other forums did it. Kinda ironic wouldn't you guys agree?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, and that is why I now do try to avoid the namecalling and piling on. I do try to address the point made by the TM'er who posts. Though sometimes I cannot help myself, I admit.
