Non Americans. Why do you fight 9/11 deniers and terrorist apologists?

[dafydd]

My fight against the 911 delusionauts is conducted on the internet.Nobody in real life mentions it anymore,not for years now.When I step away from my keyboard,the 911 ''truth'' movement disappears. I feel sorry for the Little Grey Rabbi and his ilk,they really do need to get out and get laid more.

 

[JihadJane]

Searching for more info on the internet I came across Loose Change (after all, this was 2006) ...

Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon. The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil
was published in 2004.

But to answer the question: Because I stood on top of the WTC and it hurt me when the towers were attacked. All those trapped people...

So, if, instead, you'd stood on top of the magnificent, towering Tora Bora mountains, would you have become an Osama groupie?

Non Americans. Why do you fight 9/11 deniers and terrorist apologists?

If, by "terror apologists" you mean apologists for for the military-industrial-financial complex that is bringing about the wholesale destruction of life on Earth while terrorizing millions with high-tech weaponary, it's because I value life and freedom.

Why do you use the cheap, propagandistic terms "9/11 deniers" and "terror apologists"? Are your arguments too weak without them? Or is this some kind of rabble-rousing, cult lingo?

 

[Oystein]

...
So, if, instead, you'd stood on top of the magnificent, towering Tora Bora mountains, would you have become an Osama groupie?
...

There are no such mountains.
You must mean the Safēd Kōh ("white mountains") range. Would be magnificent and towering in many places of the world, but near the Hindukush and the other great mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, that range pales somewhat, topping at less than 5000m.
http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/TAD1010.jpg

 

[JihadJane]

There are no such mountains.
You must mean the Safēd Kōh ("white mountains") range. Would be magnificent and towering in many places of the world, but near the Hindukush and the other great mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, that range pales somewhat, topping at less than 5000m.
http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/TAD1010.jpg

Whatever! 5000m is taller than the Twin Towers and the view's better.

 

[Oystein]

Whatever! 5000m is taller than the Twin Towers and the view's better.

Not if you're hiding in a cave.

But you are right: Those of us with some personal conection to Afghanistan, Tora Bora, or people who dwelled these caves could indeed be expected to take a higher interest in the plight of that region.

And search for information, gat at the truth

And quite possibly get more and more mad at the foreigners (Al Quaida) that roam the country to help the totalitarian bastards (the Taliban).

 

[Bell]

Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon. The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil
was published in 2004.

Well, that's nice.

So, if, instead, you'd stood on top of the magnificent, towering Tora Bora mountains, would you have become an Osama groupie?

Of course not, silly. And are you suggesting that I am now a groupie of some sort?

If, by "terror apologists" you mean apologists for for the military-industrial-financial complex that is bringing about the wholesale destruction of life on Earth while terrorizing millions with high-tech weaponary, it's because I value life and freedom.

I'm talking about truthers denying that 19 terrorists hijacked four planes, crashed them and killed 2,976 people. But you knew that.

Why do you use the cheap, propagandistic terms "9/11 deniers" and "terror apologists"? Are your arguments too weak without them? Or is this some kind of rabble-rousing, cult lingo?

Not cheap. Just calling things by their names.

 

[JihadJane]

Not if you're hiding in a cave.

But you are right: Those of us with some personal conection to Afghanistan, Tora Bora, or people who dwelled these caves could indeed be expected to take a higher interest in the plight of that region.

And search for information, gat at the truth

And quite possibly get more and more mad at the foreigners (Al Quaida) that roam the country to help the totalitarian bastards (the Taliban).

And mad at all the other foreigners roaming the country (no-one seems to know who they’re supposed to be helping or why they’re there!).

Of course not, silly. And are you suggesting that I am now a groupie of some sort?

Yes. Your language suggests it.

I'm talking about truthers denying that 19 terrorists hijacked four planes, crashed them and killed 2,976 people. But you knew that.

How does that translate into "9/11 deniers"? They're not denying 9/11 happened.

The term appears to be chosen because it is reminiscent of "holocaust deniers", i.e. for propagandistic reasons rather than for its accuracy.

Furthermore, one can accept that "19 terrorists hijacked four planes, crashed them and killed 2,976 people" and still remain skeptical of the surprise attack narrative.

Not cheap. Just calling things by their names.

Perhaps name-calling would be a more precise description than "calling things by their names".

How many of people who suspect or believe that there was US involvement in the 9/11 attacks are motivated by the desire to defend and justify terrorism? Not very many! Calling them "terrorist apologists" is simply cheap politicking.

 

[Furcifer]

Furthermore, one can accept that "19 terrorists hijacked four planes, crashed them and killed 2,976 people" and still remain skeptical of the surprise attack narrative.

What narrative?

 

[GlennB]

I was taken in by the conspiracy theories at the beginning. I was very anti-Bush, marching in anti-war demonstrations and what not. I encountered that French guy's original attempts online, and later on, Loose Change. It fit so very well in with my view of Bush and his cronies as evil doers. Then it suddenly hit me that I wasn't thinking. I was just taking everything on faith.

I started looking into the claims I had heard, and found them to be bogus. To be honest, I felt betrayed and not a little stupid to have fallen for such obvious lies. Mind you, this was way back with Loose Change edition 1, whenever that was. Anyway, the more I thought about it, the angrier I became at the people who would lie like that, at the expense of gullible people like myself, and people who were easy to convince because of the political climate at the time. These people would lie about dead people for profit, and that angered me even further. That's why I'm here. I was pissed off, and I still am.

Ditto, pretty much.

 

[twinstead]

Yup. Nothing good can come from looking at 9-11 through ideological goggles.

 

[uke2se]

How many of people who suspect or believe that there was US involvement in the 9/11 attacks are motivated by the desire to defend and justify terrorism? Not very many! Calling them "terrorist apologists" is simply cheap politicking.

Quite a number of 9/11 deniers (called deniers because they deny reality) are driven by good ol' fashioned antisemitism. Perhaps we should call them neo-Nazis instead.

 

[Chorduroy]

Yup. Nothing good can come from looking at 9-11 through ideological goggles.

Or idealogical "Googles" ....

 

[twinstead]

Or idealogical "Googles" ....

Oh, very nice.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

How many of people who suspect or believe that there was US involvement in the 9/11 attacks are motivated by the desire to defend and justify terrorism? Not very many! Calling them "terrorist apologists" is simply cheap politicking.

What's that Bugs Bunny? You want to be a Looney Tune? Alright!

 

[Bell]

Or idealogical "Googles" ....

You can stay

 

[jaydeehess]

Why??

In my case its a matter of not being able to abide stupidity in the name of science and reason.
ETA: let me put it this way: I tried fundementalist Christian Baptist Church. I really really tried to believe in it but kept coming back to obvious scientific contradictions especially concerning creation. I eventually left the church.

Within a few days of 9/11/01 I was perusing my fav web forum and there was a new thread about explosives in the towers. I read the post, read the links and thought it to be up there with the Apollo hoax believers. They were showing stills of the collapse of the towers and stating that it shows material moving upward when in the same breath also linking to the video in which its obvious nothing of the sort is occuring.
So I fought back against this idiocy.
(skip ahed a bit)
I later found myself being told to go PfT , that they had solid info about how the Pentagon crash was not what it seemed.
There I found a poster who claimed, and was never contradicted by the ACE pilot Balsamo, that the flt 77 had descended much more quickly than any pilot could acheive with a large Boeing.
He arrived at this my dividing the vertical descent in feet by the number of minutes (2.5) and coming up with a descent rate that he gave as being in feet per second. I informed him that he was off by a factor of 60 instantly making many friends for life at PfT(utter sarcasm obviously).

ahhh, there is more concerning PfT but that is another subject.

I am not always right but can admit it when I am shown to be in error. What struck me about the non-believers in the commonly accepted narritive of the events of Sept 11/01, is their complete refusal to evr admit an error AND correct it. PfT left up(and still has as far as I know) their complete balls-up of physics and math, the infamous 11 g page, for months. they posted a disclaimer saying they had made some errors but LEFT THE PAGE intact!!

Others of the non-believers in the commonly accepted narritive of the events of Sept 11/01 ( many chaff at being included in the 911TM) are the same.
I cannot abide such willful ignorance and worse, the propigation of such ignorance.

I disliked GWB back when he was first running in the REP. primaries. His attacks on McCain were especially galling. This continued with his attacks on Kerry. How, I wondered, could a man who fairly obviously avoided the draft to Veitnam by joing the ANG, then could not even muster the cojones to take that job seriously, attack two men who in fact did fight on their country's behalf? This has nothing to do with my politics since I believed that the USA should never have entered that conflict in the first place but the utter gall of GWB's actions disgusted me. I then learned of his political bent, the fairly far right wing policies he believed in went against my own , typically Canadian, more center-left thinking.
Time and again though I was told by those I argued with using math and science, that I was a neo-con Bush lover.
Ah-Ha, an epiphany came to me. The non-believers in the commonly accepted narritive of the events of Sept 11/01 were generally not interested
in whether or not their arguiements or senarios make sense in a technical fashion. Their starting and ending point in drawing conclusions are driven by their political leanings and world view.
Whether they believe in a world wide Zionist conspiracy or a world wide shadow government without religious overtones, or one orchestrated from locations distant to even this planet, they begin with the requirement that 9/11/01 fit that senaio first and foremost. Math and science be damned, and invoke magical devices if need be.

Thus I post.

 

[jaydeehess]

How many of people who suspect or believe that there was US involvement in the 9/11 attacks are motivated by the desire to defend and justify terrorism? Not very many! Calling them "terrorist apologists" is simply cheap politicking.

It is a direct response to many of us being called neo-Con Bush lovers whenever a technical arguement is being lost by a non-believer in the commonly accepted narritive of the events of Sept 11/01.

I daresay that most debunkers do not actually believe that non-believers in the commonly accepted narritive of the events of Sept 11/01 are really deliberatly aligning themselves with terrorists. The term 'terrorist apologist' more of a hyperbolic knee-jerk reaction to being labeled a Neo-Con Bush lover.

 

[jaydeehess]

Whatever motivations they give and however superficially noble they sound, I don't really believe that these are their true motivations.

I can assure you that my motives posted above are exactly what drives me in this area. Not that you will believe it since you cannot envision anyone feeling that strongly, and will dismiss my protestations. After all you apparently already know what I am all about. Odd, I don't recall ever meeting you. Have you ever lived in central (that is to say in the middle along the east-west length of) Canada?

Beyond that your post goes to proving my point about political motivations being the primary, if not sole, driving force behind the non-believers in the commonly accepted narritive of the events of Sept 11/01.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I dislike 'truthers' for the same reason I dislike 'Moon hoaxers' and Holocaust Deniers. They twist, distort and lie to peddle their crap on the general public in the hope of m,aking some cash from their books, DVDs and personal appearances.
In the process they spread their lieas and dishonesty onto people who don't have enough knowledge to seperate it from fact.

 

[beachnut]

...
How many of people who suspect or believe that there was US involvement in the 9/11 attacks are motivated by the desire to defend and justify terrorism? Not very many! Calling them "terrorist apologists" is simply cheap politicking.

Because they support terrorists out of ignorance, they should not be called terrorist apologists?

Suspect "the US was involved" is based on lies, hearsay and delusions. No wonder the liars are called terrorists apologists. It is ironic because UBL takes credit freely. He need no apologies, he said he would kill Americans, he keeps his word. He does not lie, 911 truth lies and has perfected the method.

The cheap politics is 911 truth, making up lies to sell books, DVDs, and take donation. That leaves the rank and file cult members holding the bag of no evidence; ranting, "inside job".

What do you call it when someone switches the blame away from the 19 terrorists who murdered the people on 911? Do you have some evidence to support the failed ideas of 911 truth? No.

It is cool to see why people from other countries became interested in how idiotic and disrespectful the liars who make up 911 truth are. If you don't like the term terrorist apologist, use delusional liar, or fraud snake-oil salesperson.