First responders and 9/11 truth, what's the link?

[Pardalis]

One of the most despicable things the TM is doing is using the issue of the first responders health problems caused by the 9/11 dust to advance their own political and ideological agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwOgEZghrYM


Near the end, around 7:13, the fellow is saying that: "the 9/11 first responders health issues will eventually help to advance the 9/11 issues because eventually questions will be asked of how concrete can be turned into dust, how did windows disintegrate into dust, how were we contaminated like we did, ruining our careers, our lives and our families and our health." (paraphrasing)

Watching this video I have only sympathy for this guy, and I think it is a valid issue that needs to be addressed. My problem is with the little creep who is behind the camera, filming him, the little truther douchebag using this poor guy's health problems and trauma to further his own little sick and brain dead agenda.

I know alot of twoofers are demented, and others have simply been swept away in this idiotic movement because of their hatred for Bush and his policies. But there is no excuse for this. Truthers, forget about your delusional CD theories, your no plane nonsense and mentally retarded missile theories. If you want to do something constructive help this guy with his cause, but don't use it to continue to lie about 9/11.

Ahhhh, that felt good, I needed to vent.

So, do any truthers here would like to respond and tell me if they understand how disconnected these two issues are and if they see how despicable their movement is for doing this? I mean, are you so blinded by infatuation with your own cretinous theories that you can even see what you are doing?

Here I go again, better stop writing.

 

[T.A.M.]

hey, I just noticed you passed 10,000 posts recently as well...congrats.

As for the OP,

I find the use of such an important issue, a LEGITIMATE issue, to further the pack of lies that is 9/11 truth to truly be one of the most disgusting things they have done.

I dunno what more to say about it...simply wrong!

TAM

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I fail to see the relevance of these men featured in LCFC. It has no bearing on what it is attempting to uncover, and only furthers the very real possibility the film is only a fight against the fictional authority.

 

[T.A.M.]

There is no relevance. Seeing that they were gaining little to no support, the LC:FC boys decided to do what so many of their fellow truthers now do...

THEY attach themselves to a group that garnishes LEGITIMATE appreciation and sympathy, so that their film will be harder to attack/debunk.

TAM

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Talking of the illnesses these men face, I noticed that Dylan's signature on the old LCF forum lifted a quote from Gravy in an absurd manner.

"No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."
-Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007

And then in tiny letters for the important stuff, and massive letters for the quote mined part....

"I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."
-Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001

Reminds me of Krusty: 'Uh oh. I said the loud part quiet and the quiet part loud'.

However, the lad is very easy to read. The very first thing he always does after a television special on his group, is jump to the protection of the Jersey Girls' allegiance to his cause. He simply cannot bear any of those directly affected by the events to come out in (Often strong) opposition to his cause, so slips himself into these people to gain some protection. If his evidence was strong enough, he would find such criticism irrelevant.

 

[Alt+F4]

A few points here:

1. If the the government was behind 9/11 then it would have made sense to say the air was unhealthy to further the fear factor. Saying the air was ok only brought more people down on the pile, furthering the chance that evidence of a CD would be found. Doesn't make any sense from a conspiracy view point.

2. Even if the federal government said the air down there was 100% toxic it wouldn't have mattered at all. Members of the FDNY were searching for member of their own, they wouldn't have stopped the search no matter what.

3. The vast majority of 9/11 first responders were/are members of the FDNY and I've yet to see believe in the conspiracy lies so the troofers are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[LashL]

Shhhh. Don't burden the poor little idiots in the truth™ movement with reality. They cannot fathom, comprehend, or deal with reality.

 

[Gravy]

Talking of the illnesses these men face, I noticed that Dylan's signature on the old LCF forum lifted a quote from Gravy in an absurd manner.

"No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."
-Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007

And then in tiny letters for the important stuff, and massive letters for the quote mined part....

"I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."
-Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001

The problem is, the EPA specifically said the air at Ground Zero was not safe to breathe. Someone told me about Avery's signature when this was brought up by JAMartell, and I emailed Avery and challenged him to show me where any agency declared the air at Ground Zero safe to breathe, in contradiction to the official statements that it wasn't safe to breathe. He did not reply. He did the same thing regarding NORAD exercises on 9/11: created a signature that mocked me, on an issue he was 100% wrong about, then refused to answer my challenge.

 

[MarkyX]

Everytime I hear this stupid argument, I always bring up two things:

- First Responders being ill does not prove bombs were placed in the towers, flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon, or Flight 93 phonecalls were fake.

- These people disagree with your ********, so why are you supporting them?

It just calls the argument dead after that point.

 

[LastChild]

Every time I hear this stupid argument, I always bring up two things:
- First Responders being ill does not prove bombs were placed in the towers, flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon, or Flight 93 phonecalls were fake.

No it doesn't but so what? Does your pretend debunking of anything make the official version correct by default?

- These people disagree with your ********, so why are you supporting them?

They disagree with what? That certain people are liars? Do they really?

It just calls the argument dead after that point.

Really? I guess it's too bad for Nixon the Watergate burglary wasn't just written off as a simple breaking and entering. It's funny how debunkers seem do know exactly what a thorough investigation would lead to and what it wouldn't before it's ever even started.

 

[DGM]

No it doesn't but so what? Does your pretend debunking of anything make the official version correct by default?



They disagree with what? That certain people are liars? Do they really?



Really? I guess it's too bad for Nixon the Watergate burglary wasn't just written off as a simple breaking and entering. It's funny how debunkers seem do know exactly what a thorough investigation would lead to and what it wouldn't before it's ever even started.

Would it be "pretend debunking" because the "truth" movement only has pretend evidence?

 

[Par]

No it doesn't but so what? Does your pretend debunking of anything make the official version correct by default?

It is not our responsibility to prove the “official version” correct. Remember, as a conspiracy theorist, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[LastChild]

It is not our responsibility to prove the “official version” correct. Remember, as a conspiracy theorist, the burden of proof is on you.

Well then I guess that would explain why the debunkers never seem to prove anything. So what is your responsibility?

 

[Par]

Well then I guess that would explain why the debunkers never seem to prove anything.

If that were true, then yes, that would be the reason.

 

[LastChild]

Would it be "pretend debunking" because the "truth" movement only has pretend evidence?

It's pretend debunking because even if you do debunk something it doesn't make the official version correct by default. All this so-called debunking amounts to is a deliberate distraction from an inadequate version of events and an unwillingness to try and support that version on its own.

 

[Par]

It's pretend debunking because even if you do debunk something it doesn't make the official version correct by default. All this so-called debunking amounts to is a deliberate distraction from an inadequate version of events and an unwillingness to try and support that version on its own.

It is not our responsibility to prove the “official version” correct. Remember, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[1337m4n]

It's pretend debunking because even if you do debunk something it doesn't make the official version correct by default. All this so-called debunking amounts to is a deliberate distraction from an inadequate version of events and an unwillingness to try and support that version on its own.

Too bad for you the "official version" has been proven correct many times over and you have naught but arguments from ignorance and incredulity to show otherwise.

 

[pomeroo]

It's pretend debunking because even if you do debunk something it doesn't make the official version correct by default. All this so-called debunking amounts to is a deliberate distraction from an inadequate version of events and an unwillingness to try and support that version on its own.

Has your evil movement called into question ANY of the conclusions reached by serious researchers? Has it produced a shred of evidence for any of its farfetched claims?

After you were crushed flat by the Osama Conundrum, it was great the way you ran away only to reappear with the same vacuous drivel. You must win lots to converts to the dumb side.

 

[DGM]

It's pretend debunking because even if you do debunk something it doesn't make the official version correct by default. All this so-called debunking amounts to is a deliberate distraction from an inadequate version of events and an unwillingness to try and support that version on its own.

And still you can't find anything wrong (with the OS whatever that is) that you can support. Why is that?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

It's pretend debunking because even if you do debunk something it doesn't make the official version correct by default.

its called debunking, not "proving the official story correct"

you should probably look up what "bunk" is, and what the prefix "de" means