CIA threatens "Press for Truth" producers over release of new documentary

[Childlike Empress]

So maybe there's something here but I'm going to let others do the work of uncovering it if there is.

The proof is in the pudding, Chris.

 

[dafydd]

The proof is in the pudding, Chris.

You do realize that the word proof in that statement means ''test'' and not ''evidence''? The full statement is ''the proof of the pudding is in the eating''. The truther pudding is notoriously fact free.

 

[NoahFence]

You do realize that the word proof in that statement means ''test'' and not ''evidence''? The full statement is ''the proof of the pudding is in the eating''. The truther pudding is notoriously fact free.

...evidenced by my request that CE say what "facts" he/she was talking about, and the response was the predictable facepalm gif.

These people love to talk about facts and evidence and some such, but when asked what the facts or evidence IS, they clam up.

This is called dishonesty, and is a defining trait of these people.

 

[paloalto]

Agreed. Oh, and it's ever so much easier, newton, if you just put paloalto on ignore; I did, and it's been much easier to deal with since. Willful ignorance can only be tolerated so far, IMO.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rules 0 and 12.

 

[newton3376]

Agreed. Oh, and it's ever so much easier, newton, if you just put paloalto on ignore; I did, and it's been much easier to deal with since. Willful ignorance can only be tolerated so far, IMO.

I am considering putting them all on ignore.......although in real life ignoring them is the last thing I would do.....as I said.....I am being nice on here.

I really do think this thread should be closed and any similar threads should be tightly moderated/monitored.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You do realize that the word proof in that statement means ''test'' and not ''evidence''? The full statement is ''the proof of the pudding is in the eating''. The truther pudding is notoriously fact free.

This time you fail, smartypants. You should educate yourself about the topic at hand - eight pages of thread available to digest for anybody including NoahFence - instead of following me around and correct my English. Then, when if you try to discuss what you learned and see the reaction, think back at this. Not that I think you will. But maybe Chris will.

This version dates back to the 1920s and came into common use in the United States in the 1950s.

 

[Myriad]

The proof is in the pudding, Chris.

That expression as commonly used today means, "the confirmation of the soundness of the hypothesis is in the tangible results."

Of course, that works against you when there are no tangible results.

Indictments? Public outcry? Exposés in major media? Campaign issue in a U.S. Presidential election year? Nada.

Is it possible that Americans are getting tired of manufactured outrage? Nah, that's too much to hope for. Your case is just weak and you've cried wolf for about five years too long to have any credibility now.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[dafydd]

...evidenced by my request that CE say what "facts" he/she was talking about, and the response was the predictable facepalm gif.

These people love to talk about facts and evidence and some such, but when asked what the facts or evidence IS, they clam up.

This is called dishonesty, and is a defining trait of these people.

I have asked every truther that I come across here for their full theory of the events of 911 and only received one answer, which was a total fantasy. I saw the dodge with the facepalm. No facts, we can assume.

 

[dafydd]

This time you fail, smartypants. You should educate yourself about the topic at hand - eight pages of thread available to digest for anybody including NoahFence - instead of following me around and correct my English. Then, when if you try to discuss what you learned and see the reaction, think back at this. Not that I think you will. But maybe Chris will.

I'm just filling in the time until you present some facts and a theory about 911. Then we can talk. As for proof, there is no evidence in the truther pudding, tasting (proeven in Dutch and Flemish) the truther pudding reveals that.

 

[Childlike Empress]

That expression as commonly used today means, "the confirmation of the soundness of the hypothesis is in the tangible results."

Of course, that works against you when there are no tangible results.

My post directed at Chris' comment was referring to how the last page went and what the dog was laughing at. I used it exactly as it is meant.

And I wouldn't be proud of indifference and apathy of my fellow countrymen.

 

[NoahFence]

I have asked every truther that I come across here for their full theory of the events of 911 and only received one answer, which was a total fantasy. I saw the dodge with the facepalm. No facts, we can assume.

The sad thing is there are some truthers who won't even acknowledge the twin towers! As if the entirety of 9/11 was an empty building collapsing (WTC 7). Just amazing the lengths some will go to in order to keep their fantasies alive.

 

[dafydd]

My post directed at Chris' comment was referring to how the last page went and what the dog was laughing at. I used it exactly as it is meant.

And I wouldn't be proud of indifference and apathy of my fellow countrymen.

If you mean indifference and apathy towards truther ''theories'' then one should be proud of them.

 

[beachnut]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Debate? The OP is nonsense. There is no debate because the OP is about nuts in 911 truth who think the CIA is after them; as if they had something on the CIA.

How many years in intel to you have. How many intel officers have you worked with.

The OP is about nonsense. You like to string together stuff, and then say you solved it by making up a conclusion out of your imagination. You have contributed nothing on topic to save the OP from being paranoid claptrap, made up news.

 

[carlitos]

And I wouldn't be proud of indifference and apathy of my fellow countrymen.

I'm not. I have often lamented in these pages that their obsession with imaginary conspiracies prevents 9/11 truth people from confronting real problems in society. They prefer to fight a fake conspiracy against an imaginary, all-knowing illuminati, because it's easier to attack a straw man than a real one.

 

[dafydd]

Debate? The OP is nonsense. There is no debate because the OP is about nuts in 911 truth who think the CIA is after them; as if they had something on the CIA.

How many years in intel to you have. How many intel officers have you worked with.

The OP is about nonsense. You like to string together stuff, and then say you solved it by making up a conclusion out of your imagination. You have contributed nothing on topic to save the OP from being paranoid claptrap, made up news.

Ten years of the CIA ignoring truthers. That speaks for itself.

 

[LSSBB]

I'm not. I have often lamented in these pages that their obsession with imaginary conspiracies prevents 9/11 truth people from confronting real problems in society. They prefer to fight a fake conspiracy against an imaginary, all-knowing illuminati, because it's easier to attack a straw man than a real one.

+1

 

[Childlike Empress]

I'm not. I have often lamented in these pages that their obsession with imaginary conspiracies prevents 9/11 truth people from confronting real problems in society. They prefer to fight a fake conspiracy against an imaginary, all-knowing illuminati, because it's easier to attack a straw man than a real one.

Yeah, I know what you mean, because the same easy-way-out windmill fighting is so common among the 9/11 debunker people. Maybe it's something in the water over there.

 

[dafydd]

Yeah, I know what you mean, because the same easy-way-out windmill fighting is so common among the 9/11 debunker people. Maybe it's something in the water over there.

Which windmills would these be? Debunking 911 truthers is easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[LSSBB]

Yeah, I know what you mean, because the same easy-way-out windmill fighting is so common among the 9/11 debunker people. Maybe it's something in the water over there.

Hah, we know our battles are with a real enemy. Our enemy is the "Jumping to conclusions" lynch mob thinking of all those who would hang a collective noose without real proof.

 

[carlitos]

Yeah, I know what you mean, because the same easy-way-out windmill fighting is so common among the 9/11 debunker people. Maybe it's something in the water over there.

This doesn't make sense. There are many political and other activists who post here.

Making a few 9/11 related posts at JREF is a little bit like "windmill" fighting I suppose, in that the truth movement doesn't exist except virtually. However, arguing against a failed cause that often becomes an obsession which then prevents someone from fighting a real problem is not really "windmill fighting" in that by discrediting the 9/11 truth movement, it may dissuade others from wasting their efforts on it. Every moment that a truther is handing out DVD's in Dundas Square or wherever, he could be stocking a food pantry, building a home or rescuing an abused animal.

I think of my 9/11 posts here as anti-slacktivism or anti-religion.