Proof that 9/11 Truthers Are Dangerous and are a Threat against george bush

Yes Dave which point out to the obvious sloppiness of the commission report. I think everyone agreed with that.
 
fallout said:
Yes Dave which point out to the obvious sloppiness of the commission report. I think everyone agreed with that.
Click to expand...

Fail.

When someone is quoted in a way that suggests they disagree with themself, it's a pretty good sign that their quote has been deliberately taken out of context in order to distort its meaning. It's called 'quote mining', it's a deliberate form of dishonesty, and it's a classic example of the fact that truth is the last thing the 'truth movement' is interested in.

Dave
 
fallout said:
Yes Dave which point out to the obvious sloppiness of the commission report. I think everyone agreed with that.
Click to expand...

DRG is mentioned quite often in the links the OP points us to. DRG is even noted as 'editing' some of the information himself. Information from very early on and information touted and tainted by DRG. The idiots he convinced at that time went on to claim an inside jobby. Whats new with this OP?
 
Let's take an example, shall we? The piece quotes Bob Kerrey as saying,

Edited Bob Kerrey said:
There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
Click to expand...

Carefully edited to suggest that Kerrey doesn't believe the 9/11 Commission Report and that the Commission was denied access to... well, we don't know wat he was denied access to. What was the complete quote that this excerpt was taken from? If you look at that, things look rather different.


Real Bob Kerrey said:
There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version. I didn't read a single PDB. We didn't have access to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. We accepted a compromise, submitting our questions to him through the CIA. Now, that's not the best way to go about getting your questions answered. So I'm 100 percent certain that [bin Laden] directed that attack, but am I completely comfortable saying there was no direct Saudi involvement, or that Saddam Hussein wasn't involved in some fashion, or that the Iranians weren't involved? I'm pretty close to 100 percent certain, but I'd be more comfortable if we'd interviewed Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
Click to expand...

Gosh, what a surprise. It looks as if Kerrey was pointing out that the 9/11 Commission didn't get direct access to two specific sources out of thousands, and may have missed a few details of the external plot to attack America, but affirms that he's virtually certain that they got the basics completely right. Now, if someone was interested in the truth, why would they do a thing like editing his statement to suggest it meant something completely different?

But then, why would a group calling themselves 'the truth movement' need to bother themselves with little things like telling the truth?

Dave
 
Last edited:
parky76 said:
yeah....we really need the Mods to pre-approve any new threads here.
Click to expand...

I agree, the truthers just seem like they are pressing the random result button on google and posting it.

I mean christ though truthers, you are being limited for not being original enough in a forum that still talks about bigfoot fairly constantly. That should really tell you something about the state of your evidence.
 
But then, why would a group calling themselves 'the truth movement' need to bother themselves with little things like telling the truth?
Click to expand...

My recent experiences on the P4T and 911oz forums made it quite clear to me that the last thing they are interested in is the truth. I got banned from both with a week or two simply for pointing out basic errors in fact or math in some posts.
I got the impression thats its all really about the money now....the folks running those websites are getting income from ads, DVDs etc and let loose their attack dogs on anyone who questions the basis of their version of reality.
Its not Truth they seek but Pravda in the USSR sense.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Fail.

When someone is quoted in a way that suggests they disagree with themself, it's a pretty good sign that their quote has been deliberately taken out of context in order to distort its meaning. It's called 'quote mining', it's a deliberate form of dishonesty, and it's a classic example of the fact that truth is the last thing the 'truth movement' is interested in.

Dave
Click to expand...

You think the commission report is accurate?
 
Dave I have no doubt that most of these commissioneers thoroughly dissociates themselves from the truth movement. There's no dispute here. I thought you meant that they disagreed with each other.
 
sadhatter said:
I agree, the truthers just seem like they are pressing the random result button on google and posting it.

I mean christ though truthers, you are being limited for not being original enough in a forum that still talks about bigfoot fairly constantly. That should really tell you something about the state of your evidence.
Click to expand...

Thats just it. Limited to remaining gullible and distorting what is put infront of them to fit. Goes round in circles, they lose track,confuses the hell out of them so they slingshot back to DRG and 2002 and start all over again.
 
Jackanory said:
DRG is mentioned quite often in the links the OP points us to. DRG is even noted as 'editing' some of the information himself. Information from very early on and information touted and tainted by DRG. The idiots he convinced at that time went on to claim an inside jobby. Whats new with this OP?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that this OP is breaking news. I want to know about whether the commission report is sloppy or not, many think it is, I myself from what I read from it , agree with some sloppiness.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Fail.

When someone is quoted in a way that suggests they disagree with themself, it's a pretty good sign that their quote has been deliberately taken out of context in order to distort its meaning. It's called 'quote mining', it's a deliberate form of dishonesty, and it's a classic example of the fact that truth is the last thing the 'truth movement' is interested in.

Dave
Click to expand...

You are right about the quote mining, it is a problem. But still it doesn't demolish all those arguments presented in that truther link about the disagreement and suspicions raised against the commission report.
 
fallout said:
I'm not saying that this OP is breaking news. I want to know about whether the commission report is sloppy or not, many think it is, I myself from what I read from it , agree with some sloppiness.
Click to expand...

Even if the commission report is 100% wrong, it still doesn't mean impossible things happened on 9/11.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
My recent experiences on the P4T and 911oz forums made it quite clear to me that the last thing they are interested in is the truth. I got banned from both with a week or two simply for pointing out basic errors in fact or math in some posts.
I got the impression thats its all really about the money now....the folks running those websites are getting income from ads, DVDs etc and let loose their attack dogs on anyone who questions the basis of their version of reality.
Its not Truth they seek but Pravda in the USSR sense.
Click to expand...

You make a good point about the monetizing thing. There's no doubt that the truth movement have this problem, and it imposes serious bias. But I don't know if we could go as far as saying it's ALL about money.
 
Sabrina said:
Did he say that? Or are you putting words into his mouth, as per usual?
Click to expand...

Lol did I say he said that? I asked for his opinion, I think he's a good poster. Did I commit any crime? Ah I know, the old repression and name calling against whoever is "JAQing". :rolleyes:

And may I ask for you to present a case in which I put words in other's mouth?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom