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

[Bell]

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.

Just keep being yourself, Beachnut

 

[alienentity]

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.

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.

JJ, you're way off the mark IMHO. 9/11 Truth as a 'movement' is primarily focused on trying to deny the common narrative, the scientific evidence, and generally anything else that has any involvement of the US government or its contractors.
It is most definitely a denial movement.

The denial component is so deep-rooted that if the government says 'X', Truthers say it's a lie, it's 'Y'. The movement takes the idea of skepticism into a complete denial of legitimacy for the government.

Of course you'll probably deny this, but that's what I'm talking about

On the terrorist apologia, there are enormous currents within 9/11 Truth which deny that planes ever hit the towers or Pentagon and Shanksville; that propose the hijackers are actually still alive and well.
This is self-evident if you look at the general comments seen on these threads - it's not a fringe of 9/11 Truth - it's central to the movement.

By definition, any denial of the role of the hijackers, whether their training, identity, Bin Laden's ability to be a leader (from a cave in Afghanistan) etc.. is an apology for those very terrorists.

What else can you call it? In general 9/11 Truth seeks to shift the blame from the 19 terrorists onto the US government. That's the way it is.

 

[little grey rabbit]

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.

Perhaps you should. Perhaps you should call them neo-Nazi pedophiles?

I mean we have to assert our moral superiority over the neo Nazi pedophilic 911 deniers somehow.

 

[beachnut]

Perhaps you should. Perhaps you should call them neo-Nazi pedophiles?

I mean we have to assert our moral superiority over the neo Nazi pedophilic 911 deniers somehow.

I saw your web site; y r u a neoNAZI? Y not b a proud 1? U spew lies about hisory, and 911. No evidence, instead, u use opinions based on lies, hearsay and fantasy. If u r not a neoNAZI, u r fully, i might add, over qualified 2 b 1.

Since you act like u r a 911 denier, and a terrorist apologist; y r u posting in a thread that exposes your failure? From people around the world.

 

[A W Smith]

I saw your web site; y r u a neoNAZI? Y not b a proud 1? U spew lies about hisory, and 911. No evidence, instead, u use opinions based on lies, hearsay and fantasy. If u r not a neoNAZI, u r fully, i might add, over qualified 2 b 1.

Since you act like u r a 911 denier, and a terrorist apologist; y r u posting in a thread that exposes your failure? From people around the world.

Did you just get a blackberry? I hope you are not driving while texting this, My Droid has auto complete.

 

[little grey rabbit]

I saw your web site; y r u a neoNAZI? Y not b a proud 1? U spew lies about hisory, and 911. No evidence, instead, u use opinions based on lies, hearsay and fantasy. If u r not a neoNAZI, u r fully, i might add, over qualified 2 b 1.

Since you act like u r a 911 denier, and a terrorist apologist; y r u posting in a thread that exposes your failure? From people around the world.

Beachnut, would it be too much to ask you to write the Queen's English?

 

[beachnut]

Did you just get a blackberry? I hope you are not driving while texting this, My Droid has auto complete.

I can see a car driving off into the orchard when the hair pin curve pops up. I was on a wireless; but...

Saving bits... he saves by not doing effective research (see his web site), I save by not using extra letters.

He is not capable of posting on topic; He is the topic.

 

[uke2se]

Perhaps you should. Perhaps you should call them neo-Nazi pedophiles?

I mean we have to assert our moral superiority over the neo Nazi pedophilic 911 deniers somehow.

If there was evidence indicating that any significant portion of the twoof-movement were pedophiles, then yes, we could do that. I haven't seen such evidence, though. I have seen evidence that a lot of twoofers are driven by antisemitism. It's not about asserting moral superiority, even though that clearly exists. It's about calling the little pukes by what they are.

 

[jaydeehess]

If there was evidence indicating that any significant portion of the twoof-movement were pedophiles, then yes, we could do that. I haven't seen such evidence, though. I have seen evidence that a lot of twoofers are driven by antisemitism. It's not about asserting moral superiority, even though that clearly exists. It's about calling the little pukes by what they are.

Spot on uke2se.

I do not understand why little grey rabbitt would chaff at the label neo-Nazi when it seems he actually revels in being one.

 

[Java Man]

9/11 Truth as a 'movement' is primarily focused on trying to deny the common narrative, ....

Actually more like a label placed on people who doubt in anyway the "official story". A very common and age old tactic of round them up and label them all the same to simplify the task of debunking. Thus making it easy for a great deal of "debunkers" to arbitrarily label someone as Truther and then discredit him/her without actually providing a valid support or much less so a valid reasoning.

Accusing one of being a terrorist or doubting one's professional skills and loud speaking arguments thinking that they'll stick because they sound reasonable enough. But quickly backpedal and reduce the importance of their own championed arguments when they're confronted by analysis.

Anything like this rings a bell by any chance?

 

[beachnut]

Actually more like a label placed on people who doubt in anyway the "official story". A very common and age old tactic of round them up and label them all the same to simplify the task of debunking. Thus making it easy for a great deal of "debunkers" to arbitrarily label someone as Truther and then discredit him/her without actually providing a valid support or much less so a valid reasoning.

Accusing one of being a terrorist or doubting one's professional skills and loud speaking arguments thinking that they'll stick because they sound reasonable enough. But quickly backpedal and reduce the importance of their own championed arguments when they're confronted by analysis.

Anything like this rings a bell by any chance?

911 truth cult members make it easy to label their ideas; they are all delusional, based on zero evidence. 911 truth has defined themselves as failures; 8 years and the best they can do is rant, "inside job". Their only product, delusions.

 

[carlitos]

With apologies to Robert Fisk

Actually more like a label placed on people who

...who label themselves truthers.

http://wnytruthers.org/index.php

http://www.911truther.com/

doubt in anyway the "official story".

Why the quotes? Anyway lots of us have doubt about bits and pieces of the common narrative. That's why most of us ended up here.

A very common and age old tactic of round them up and label them all the same to simplify the task of debunking.

After the 5000th new poster enters the forum with a "I'm on the fence, just asking questions" and within 20 posts is embracing every false piece of evidence in trutherdom, I for one WISH that they were telling the truth, and indeed generally give them the benefit of the doubt. And then they turn out, as in your case, to just be JAQ-ing off, in other words, a typical 9/11 "truther." Someone who won't propose a hypothesis that better explains events, but nitpicks a bunch of detail that ultimately proves nothing. Pitchforking a straw man.

Thus making it easy for a great deal of "debunkers" to arbitrarily label someone as Truther and then discredit him/her

If "arbitrary" means "every poster who won't propose a better hypothesis, and keeps asking questions and shift, shift, shifting the goalposts when their initial claims are shown repeatedly to be false," then yes. I guess so. Arbitrary. Right.

without actually providing a valid support or much less so a valid reasoning.

If a valid reasoning bit your behind, I have a hunch you wouldn't notice.

Accusing one of being a terrorist

Link please.

or doubting one's professional skills

Link please.

and loud speaking arguments thinking that they'll stick because they sound reasonable enough

.

But quickly backpedal and reduce the importance of their own championed arguments when they're confronted by analysis.

Link please. Especially to your "analysis."

Anything like this rings a bell by any chance?

No.

 

[Java Man]

...who label themselves truthers.
....
Link please. Especially to your "analysis."

No.

Speaking of the devil LOL

PS, got to give you credit though, you broke your all time record of lines in a response to me which was like 3 lines until now.

 

[carlitos]

Here is what a search on T.A.M brings up

[qimg]http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/4966/temptz.jpg[/qimg]

'Nuff said.

Northwoods Wikipedia, LOL.

 

[beachnut]

...who label themselves truthers.

http://wnytruthers.org/index.php

http://www.911truther.com/


...

Self proclaimed truthers spew lies and delusions. How can they top that level of stupidity?

They advertise Alex Jones, the personification of stupidity.


When will j man get on topic?

Speaking of the devil LOL

PS, got to give you credit though, you broke your all time record of lines in a response to me which was like 3 lines until now.

never?

 

[carlitos]

No links then?

 

[Pikachu]

I came to the subject by accident (I know no-one personally who doubts that 19 terrorists hi-jacked 4 planes etc). I have a teenage daughter who is quite bright. For years I have been insisting she USE her brain properly -trying to teach her to think critically. Working in the criminal justice system I've come to believe that thoughtlessness is the main cause of crime. That led me to websites like FSTDT and this one. I was reading for ages before I contributed and I was gobsmacked at what I read.
I first contributed I think in a jammonius thread - there was a point on legal proof I thought I could correct him on
As to why I've stayed to me it's a matter of both truth and justice - oh and not letting idiots win.
Perhaps Donne said it best

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

 

[George 152]

Beachnut, would it be too much to ask you to write the Queen's English?

He was.
at a 911 denier level...

 

[JihadJane]

JJ, you're way off the mark IMHO. 9/11 Truth as a 'movement' is primarily focused on trying to deny the common narrative, the scientific evidence, and generally anything else that has any involvement of the US government or its contractors.
It is most definitely a denial movement.

The denial component is so deep-rooted that if the government says 'X', Truthers say it's a lie, it's 'Y'. The movement takes the idea of skepticism into a complete denial of legitimacy for the government.

Is that what upsets you?

Illegitimate US clandestine operations have left a terrible swathe of bloody misery across the globe. The US government not longer represents the people, if it ever did.

Of course you'll probably deny this, but that's what I'm talking about

The belief that pursuing perpetual economic growth on a finite planet is rational, that US foreign policy is guided by a passion to spread democracy, that the "War on Terror" is about defeating "terrorism" are other examples of belief systems that could earn the "label" denialist. I'm sure you can think of hundreds more similar "movements" whose beliefs are not grounded in science.


Very few earn the label "denier". I have only seen it applied to 9/11 skeptics and global warming skeptics. In both cases this appears to an effort to discredit them by associating them with holocaust denialists. It is propagandistic rather than scientific impulse, on the lines of the taunt "The Joos did it!"

On the terrorist apologia, there are enormous currents within 9/11 Truth which deny that planes ever hit the towers or Pentagon and Shanksville; that propose the hijackers are actually still alive and well.

I suspect you are exaggerating the enormity of this current for propagandistic effect. Do you have scientific information to support your hyperbole?

This is self-evident if you look at the general comments seen on these threads - it's not a fringe of 9/11 Truth - it's central to the movement.

In what way is what is seen on these threads a scientific sample?

By definition, any denial of the role of the hijackers, whether their training, identity, Bin Laden's ability to be a leader (from a cave in Afghanistan) etc.. is an apology for those very terrorists.

Please provide your definition of "apologist".

Saying someone else might have dunnit or that they were helped isn't, by definition, an apology. To qualify as apologists they would have to actively argue for and defend terrorists. How many do this?

What else can you call it? In general 9/11 Truth seeks to shift the blame from the 19 terrorists onto the US government. That's the way it is.

Calling truthers apologists is inaccurate. It is a public relations ruse.

 

[twinstead]

Calling truthers apologists is inaccurate. It is a public relations ruse.

You are correct. I prefer useful idiots. Much more accurate.