Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ha! My wife and I have a phrase for this: "negative... progress... negative... progress..." (said in a robotic PA-announcer voice). For any occasion where you end up with more work to do than when you started. Like, you're trying to get to the Interstate but you make a wrong turn and end up farther away. Or when you start mowing the lawn but the mower hits a rock and part of the blade chips off and cuts your leg and you have to go bandage up the cut and buy a new blade before you can finish the lawn.

Negative Progress of the Truth Movement:

2006: "Thousands of people marching at Ground Zero show we are achieving our goals."

2007: "A few celebrities making pro-CT statements about 9/11 show we are achieving our goals."

2008: "The results of easily floodable Internet opinion polls show we are achieving our goals."

2009: "Our conspiracy theories still being discussed on a conspiracy theories forum shows we are achieving our goals."

negative... progress... negative... progress...

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
I must say that the supporters of the bush administration attacks on 9/11 seem far more concerned about the numbers of Truth Movement people than the Truth Movement people themselves. I mean look at this forum- how many of you guys are there to stop a dozen or so Truthers from making a case ? Would it be as many as three hundred ?....maybe five hundred ?

Obviously there would be no need for any of you guys if we were not here. I reckon we are fighting odds of at least twenty to one. And not having too many problems either.

Maybe you need to recruit some more manpower ?
 
Last edited:
2006: "Thousands of people marching at Ground Zero show we are achieving our goals."

2007: "A few celebrities making pro-CT statements about 9/11 show we are achieving our goals."

2008: "The results of easily floodable Internet opinion polls show we are achieving our goals."

2009: "Our conspiracy theories still being discussed on a conspiracy theories forum shows we are achieving our goals."

Causes Myriad to post more and more and more...
 
bill smith said:
I must say that the supporters of the bush administration attacks on 9/11
Click to expand...

how would you like it if we accused you supporting Al Qaeda's attacks on 9-11?

would you enjoy being called a terrorist and a traitor??

lay off the baseless and defamatory accusations bud.
 
parky76 said:
how would you like it if we accused you supporting Al Qaeda's attacks on 9-11?

would you enjoy being called a terrorist and a traitor??

lay off the baseless and defamatory accusations bud.
Click to expand...

Read my signature.Guilt by association. It would make an interesting court case. In fact it MAY do at some point.
 
bill smith said:
I must say that the supporters of the bush administration attacks on 9/11 seem far more concerned about the numbers of Truth Movement people than the Truth Movement people themselves. I mean look at this forum- how many of you guys are there to stop a dozen or so Truthers from making a case ? Would it be as many as three hundred ?....maybe five hundred ?

Obviously there would be no need for any of you guys if we were not here. I reckon we are fighting odds of at least twenty to one. And not having too many problems either.

Maybe you need to recruit some more manpower ?
Click to expand...

You know bill smith, you are perfectly free to start that new investigation. Nobody is stopping anyone. My feeling is that truthers are the ones impeding on themselves, deliberately, because by definition science favors the ones who get it right, and they know they have got nothing right.
 
bill smith said:
Read my signature.Guilt by association. It would make an interesting court case. In fact it MAY do at some point.
Click to expand...

Sure... and when will that be?

BTW, Moussaoui has been found guilty in court of terrorism connected to 9/11, and since you are defending conspiracy theories that deny the involvement of Al Qaeda, are you then complicit by association?
 
Pardalis said:
Sure... and when will that be?

BTW, Moussaoui has been found guilty in court of terrorism connected to 9/11, and since you are defending conspiracy theories that deny the involvement of Al Qaeda, are you then complicit by association?
Click to expand...
I not only deny the involvement of Al-Quaeda, I deny the very existence of Al-Quaeda as the American government has portrayed it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTTgpsAs4_c&feature=related BBC Clip
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I not only deny the involvement of Al-Quaeda, I deny the very existence of Al-Quaeda as the American government has portrayed it.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question, are you therefore guilty by association?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
What an innocent soul you are.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in souls.

You implied it would make an interesting court case if the people who are being silent about the so-called conspiracy (aka the debunkers) could be charged for the crimes of 9/11 by "guilt by association".

If you distrust the US Supreme Court, then which "court" were you talking about?
Bill Smith said:
Read my signature.Guilt by association. It would make an interesting court case. In fact it MAY do at some point.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Listen to the clip again for the facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTTgpsAs4_c&feature=related BBC Clip
Click to expand...
So you don't want to explain why you trust the programme on one point, but ignore it on another? Okay, I'll answer for you. It's because of your double-standards: anything that supports your argument is to be swallowed wholesale, everything else is to be ignored.

Moving on, what "facts" are you referring to here? The "fact" that al Qaeda was invented post-the 1998 embassy bombings?

Unfortunately it's garbage. Al Qaeda was referred to by the State Department in a 2006 statement:

Bin Ladin gained prominence during the Afghan war for his role in financing the recruitment, transportation, and training of Arab nationals who volunteered to fight alongside the Afghan mujahedin. By 1985, Bin Ladin had drawn on his family's wealth, plus donations received from sympathetic merchant families in the Gulf region, to organize the Islamic Salvation Foundation, or al-Qaida, for this purpose.
http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/state/archive/august/sd4_8-15.htm
Click to expand...

So the idea that al Fadl came up with this himself isn't "fact" at all.

How about the "fact" that "there's no evidence that bin Laden used the name al Qaeda to refer to the name of a group until after 9/11."

No evidence? Here's bin Laden:

The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/index.html
Click to expand...

Established "a long time ago"? You can say he's got it wrong, if you like, but the claims that there's "there's no evidence that bin Laden used the name al Qaeda to refer to the name of a group until after 9/11" is just as questionable.
 
Pardalis said:
I don't believe in souls.

You implied it would make an interesting court case if the people who are being silent about the so-called conspiracy (aka the debunkers) could be charged for the crimes of 9/11 by "guilt by association".

If you distrust the US Supreme Court, then which "court" were you talking about?
Click to expand...

Ideally something on live TV with lots and lots of pre-publicity. Scrutiny helps to keep them honest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom