The PF9/11 Truth Video

Childlike Empress said:
Wait a minute - you admit that Reheat's piece is junk science?
Click to expand...

What? No. What I admit is that CITs own witnesses contradict CITs conclusions. They ALL say that an airliner hit the pentagon. CIT claims otherwise and bases that solely on those same eyewitnesses unreliable recollections of the flight path.

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable when it comes down to the finer details, especially over time. There is solid physical evidence that a 767 hit the pentagon ranging from tons of debris strewn both inside and outside the building to the DNA of the passengers. There is zero physical evidence supporting any of CITs insane claims. The final approach that CIT claims is physically impossible based upon the actual physical evidence found at the scene. Period. It's severely lacking in physical substance. Period. There is no "There" there. CIT is full of simple minded pudding-heads who sucker other like minded folks into buying their insane crap (and DVDs).
 
angrysoba said:
Just a quick question, BCR, if you're John Farmer then was I correct in saying you are not Truther or do you consider yourself to be a Truther?
Click to expand...

No, I am a Truther ... I'm just not an idiot.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Oxymoron
Click to expand...

No it is not. A truther is someone who does not believe that the government has been completely open and/or forthcoming in regards to the events of 9/11. In my years of research on the issue, I am more convinced of that than I was at the beginning.

The problem is, truther has become synonymous with conspiracy theorist. Not all truthers are conspiracy theorists. It is just that simple minded folks like to lump them all into one basket :D
 
CITidiots will never understand what corroboration of evidence means. There have been some 200 confessions of murdering Jon Benet-Ramsey. Does that means 200 people killed her? Of course not, but the CITidiot method would pick out the ones that satisfy their agenda, without that critical corroboration of physical evidence.
 
BCR said:
A truther is someone who does not believe that the government has been completely open and/or forthcoming in regards to the events of 9/11.
Click to expand...

I find that definition a little too broad to be useful. As a general rule, I don't think any government has ever been completely open and/or forthcoming about anything. I would expect most intelligent people at least to suspect something similar, because every government requires a certain amount of its actions to be kept confidential. A truther, in the sense it's normally used here and by the 9/11 truth movement, is more commonly defined as someone who has a positive belief that the US Government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, whether actively or passively. I wouldn't expand it to cover people who think arses have been covered after the fact.

Dave
 
BCR said:
No it is not. A truther is someone who does not believe that the government has been completely open and/or forthcoming in regards to the events of 9/11. In my years of research on the issue, I am more convinced of that than I was at the beginning.

The problem is, truther has become synonymous with conspiracy theorist. Not all truthers are conspiracy theorists. It is just that simple minded folks like to lump them all into one basket :D
Click to expand...

You should probably find a different term to describe yourself as then. It's akin to calling yourself gay because not because of your sexual preference but because of your outlook on life. You can bemoan the fact that gay has become synonymous with homosexual, but that really doesn't change anything. ;)
 
twinstead said:
You should probably find a different term to describe yourself as then. It's akin to calling yourself gay because not because of your sexual preference but because of your outlook on life. You can bemoan the fact that gay has become synonymous with homosexual, but that really doesn't change anything. ;)
Click to expand...

No, truther works for me. I don't let the biases of others dictate who I am.
 
BCR said:
No, truther works for me. I don't let the biases of others dictate who I am.
Click to expand...

It's just a word, but suit yourself. Personally I don't think the government using CYA on 9-11 is very surprising, but it's a long shot away from the accusations the government gets from "truthers".
 
n my years of research on the issue, I am more convinced of that than I was at the beginning.
Click to expand...
So apart from details what 'truth' are you seeking?

As far as I can see you have as much 'truth' as those that claim Thermite.
 
Dave Rogers said:
A truther, in the sense it's normally used here and by the 9/11 truth movement, is more commonly defined as someone who has a positive belief that the US Government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, whether actively or passively. I wouldn't expand it to cover people who think arses have been covered after the fact.

Dave
Click to expand...

And in that lies the problem the '911 truth movement' has. That is why I quite publicly disassociated myself with the '911 truth movement'. I have the same problem with them that I have with some 'debunkers', observational bias. I don't mind exploring different hypotheses, as long as they are open and honest considering all of the data. In other words, I prefer to let the data, all of it, not just the cherry-picked segments that fit my bias, drive my conclusions.

I am very proud of the work I did for Mark Gaffney's book 911 Mystery Plane. I've obtained a lot more data since the book was released and actually negated some of Mark's speculation in the book, which he definitely assents to. I am going to help him with his upcoming book which deals with 'black technology' and how it might have been used in the events of 9/11. That one is sure to raise a few eyebrows.

However, I collaborate with people from across the spectrum of bias as most folks here are aware of. I deal whenever possible with people who were directly involved with the events and there is one former commission staffer with whom I regularly correspond and vet a wide range of stuff with. Darn, the smart John Farmer even cited me in his book!

I do believe firmly that some 'conspiracy theories' are government driven to accomplish exactly what you are referring to. By feeding the mindset of groups like P4T and CIT, the '911 truth movement' discredits itself with the promotion of blatant craziness. So I asked myself why? Why deny the existence of the videos from the Pentagon event? Why let the CT frenzy feed on flawed NTSB information? Finally I am starting to get glimpses of the why, but darn, I have to save something for my book :D
 
BCR said:
I don't let the biases of others dictate who I am.
Click to expand...

Nobody's talking about your personal identity; we're talking about the definitions of words, which can only be set by consensus. If I were to call myself a Republican, despite the fact that I had never voted for the Republican party, had always staunchly disapproved of all Republican party policies, and had never been eligible to vote for a Republican candidate due to being a foreign national who had never lived in the USA, and you pointed out that my self-description is misleading because it disagreed with the universally accepted definition of the term "Republican", it would be a little unreasonable of me to claim that you were dictating who I am.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Nobody's talking about your personal identity; we're talking about the definitions of words, which can only be set by consensus.
Click to expand...

Not true sir. Words (titles) have meanings independent of those who may wish to re-define them by 'consensus'. Those of us who join a movement define our agenda and terms. Just because another group wishes to redefine those terms does not negate the original meaning, but only to those within the group redefining the terminology. I am active in the tea party movement, and you definitely must be aware of the redefinition efforts involved there (teabagger ring a bell?).

But that is okay, I've been labeled as a 'government agent', 'disinfo agent', 'debunker' and a whole host of other things by folks at P4T and CIT (such as 'liar' and a bunch of rule 10 names).
 
Last edited:
BCR said:
Man, are you serious?
Click to expand...

Yes, completely serious. I think you are determined to find something just like any other 'truther' and I think you choice of name for yourself is completely apt.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Yes, completely serious. I think you are determined to find something just like any other 'truther' and I think you choice of name for yourself is completely apt.
Click to expand...

Why thank you. I try very hard to do just that and have been very successful at it. Glad someone finally noticed :D
 
Last edited:
BCR said:
Not true sir. Words (titles) have meanings independent of those who may wish to re-define them by 'consensus'. Those of us who join a movement define our agenda and terms. Just because another group wishes to redefine those terms does not negate the original meaning, but only to those within the group redefining the terminology.
Click to expand...

Uh, oh, now you sound like a FOTL ;)


:boxedin:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom