• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Group from JREF Cheats to Discredit the 911 "truth" Cult?

little grey rabbit said:
I am shocked, shocked, SHOCKED!

I would never believe JREFers would stoop to such low tactics.....NEVER!
Click to expand...
It was not a JREF member, it was a few idiots who don't understand flying who started the ground effect delusion. Already proved. You are late, off topic and wrong. Is the triple failure post, a 911 truth special skill?
 
Last edited:
Do Truthers ever speak to other Truthers?

Because if they ever did they would realize it does not require any outside disinfo agent to inject loopy theories into their already loopy theories to make them loopy. Of course that would be an application of Ockham's razor and we already know they don't like to get too close to that.

I had actually never heard the 757s can't fly fast at a low altitude theory until very recently but while in the pub a friend of an aquaintance started babbling Truther crap which I said was nonsense:

"Oh really!" He said with his eyes bulging out, "Well maybe you could tell me what happens when a plane flies fast at low altitude..."

"What...?"

"It's wings fall off!" He declared in all seriousness.

I think it is a secret weapon of Truthers that they have claims so astoundingly stupid that they leave their adversaries speechless for just long enough to wind up the ******** machine and let fly...

"Did you know what hidden in plane sight means? It means that their plans are everywhere and can be seen but only to those with the right eyes to observe! Have you ever heard of PNAC? They put their plans right there on the Internet but noone believes it because it is hidden in plane sight! Look at this..."

He pulled out a 1000 yen note from his wallet,

"On the side of this note you see a picture of Mount Fuji, yes? But, notice, in the reflection in the lake is a completely different mountain, oh yes! What is the mountain? It's a mountain in Israel. All the money goes back to Israel, you see! The mountain has the same name as a mountain on Mars, where there is a face. Mars is the colour red. The colour of blood. There are bloodlines you see. It's all about bloodlines. Did you know the cross that the Queen of England has on her crown is the same as the Iron Cross that the Nazis wore and that that is the same as the Maltese cross as in the Knights of Malta..."

I realized there was somewhere else I needed to be so I downed my drink and left.

I was actually very disturbed at the discovery that people like that actually do walk among us.
 
Last edited:
adkinsjr said:
I've already been accused of being a government shill by several "truth" cult followers. They've actually alledged that I was being paid to support the "official narrative" on the youtube. What's frightening is that I know they aren't kidding; they really believe it's true.
Click to expand...

Get used to it.

It happens so often, I even developed a theory that predicts it.

The Truth Movement is utterly stale. Even the insults are recycled at this point.
 
R.Mackey said:
Get used to it.

It happens so often, I even developed a theory that predicts it.

The Truth Movement is utterly stale. Even the insults are recycled at this point.
Click to expand...

So very true. If I had a dollar for every time some truther nut accused me of being on the CIA/FBI/NSA payroll, I could retire! And this is on websites that have absolutely nothing to do with politics. It seems to be a standard retort.
 
The only things I can think of that come close are the afore mentioned UC prank & a few "what CT would you like to start" threads.
 
angrysoba said:
"On the side of this note you see a picture of Mount Fuji, yes? But, notice, in the reflection in the lake is a completely different mountain, oh yes! What is the mountain? It's a mountain in Israel. All the money goes back to Israel, you see! The mountain has the same name as a mountain on Mars, where there is a face. Mars is the colour red. The colour of blood. There are bloodlines you see. It's all about bloodlines. Did you know the cross that the Queen of England has on her crown is the same as the Iron Cross that the Nazis wore and that that is the same as the Maltese cross as in the Knights of Malta..."
Click to expand...

Wow, that's some seriously concentrated woo there :boggled:
 
adkinsjr said:
I've already been accused of being a government shill by several "truth" cult followers. They've actually alledged that I was being paid to support the "official narrative" on the youtube. What's frightening is that I know they aren't kidding; they really believe it's true. They'll claim that I don't have enough videos in my favorites, or I don't have enough subscriptions to be real. Truthers have the uncanny ability to make very presumptuous claims on a laughably small amount of "evidence."
Click to expand...


As R.Mackey has said, this is the point where they really show how off the deep end they are - they're trying to convince you that you are a part of some grand conspiracy, and on the basis of arguments that are just as lame as all their other ones. I mean seriously, you don't have enough subscriptions? Well, you must be a shill! That, or not a teenager. :rolleyes:



adkinsjr said:
Oh, so that's the norm around here? Let's hear it....
Click to expand...


Be careful with that one. He's a holocaust denier that thinks he's much more clever than he really is. Pretty much just like all the other deniers, actually.....
 
adkinsjr said:
I found an interesting claim in the comments of a youtube vid. I wanted to post this here to see if anyone is familiar with this claim.
Click to expand...

Actually, the whole thing is true. We've been trying to hush it up for years, but the secret's out now, so we may as well own up to it.

The sordid truth is, there is no 9/11 truth movement. There isn't actually anybody out there who thinks that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by anyone other than al-Qaeda. LIHOP, MIHOP lite, Pentacon, thermians, no-planers, Zero Net Forcers, jolters, bangers and no-claimers - none of them exist. It's all been us, all along.

Why did we do it? Well, it's obvious. We're doing it to discredit 9/11 conspiracy theorists, even though they don't exist. But it's not to further any government agenda; it's obvious that the US Government never had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, which is why nobody really believes they did. But if we didn't have any 9/11 truthers to discredit, we wouldn't need a forum to hang out in, so we wouldn't be able to post here.

So that, at last, is the final, deepest conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks: We invented the 9/11 truth movement just to keep this forum going. And now, I suppose, it's all over. And just when it was finally my turn to be the next Paul Doherty sockpuppet, too. Now I'll never get to write another Richard Gage script, or doctor another YouTube video soundtrack.

And we'd have got away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids and your talking dog!

Dave
 
I think a lot of the problem with the twoofers' debunking of the Pentagon attack is that they're assuming the terrorist pilot intended to do exactly what he did. (The silliest I ever encountered was one who said it would have been impossible to fly accurately enough to hit that precise spot on the wall. Why that precise spot, anyway? Well, that's where the hole was....)

I've always been of the opinion that the pilot was trying to crash the plane into the central courtyard of the Pentagon, which I don't believe had these super-reinforced walls, and where I imagine the carnage and damage would have been even greater. However, he came in too low too soon, and just succeeded in hitting the outer wall as he was about to crash into the ground.

I imagine crashing into a precise spot on the ground, especially the central courtyard of a low-rise building, is a lot harder than flying into the side of a whacking great skyscraper. So maybe it's no surpise that he almost missed. Coming from the assumption that he succeeded in doing exactly what he intended to do is nuts.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
I think a lot of the problem with the twoofers' debunking of the Pentagon attack is that they're assuming the terrorist pilot intended to do exactly what he did. (The silliest I ever encountered was one who said it would have been impossible to fly accurately enough to hit that precise spot on the wall. Why that precise spot, anyway? Well, that's where the hole was....)

[...]

I imagine crashing into a precise spot on the ground, especially the central courtyard of a low-rise building, is a lot harder than flying into the side of a whacking great skyscraper. So maybe it's no surpise that he almost missed. Coming from the assumption that he succeeded in doing exactly what he intended to do is nuts.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it seems that paranoid thinking along those lines is not only considered to be reasonable, but to be the only way of reasoning, by some conspiracy theorists. As paloalto so delusionally put it a few hours ago:

paloalto said:
You can draw a final conclusion from this information based on the two laws regarding actions that result in unintended consequences:

Law 1: There are no actions that result in unintended consequences, every result from actions at the CIA and FBI HQ was exactly as intended

Law2: Go back and read Law 1.
Click to expand...

It's a simple extrapolation from that sort of thinking that Hani Hanjour aimed Flight 77 at the exact spot he hit, and that hitting it an inch to the left or right would have been a failure. If you start from an insane premise like "there are no actions that result in unintended consequences", then the conclusions is more or less bound to be absurd.

And, of course, the aim of the nutter quoted in the OP is to make it look like that's our fault.

Dave
 
Last edited:
adkinsjr said:
I've already been accused of being a government shill by several "truth" cult followers. They've actually alledged that I was being paid to support the "official narrative" on the youtube. What's frightening is that I know they aren't kidding; they really believe it's true. They'll claim that I don't have enough videos in my favorites, or I don't have enough subscriptions to be real. Truthers have the uncanny ability to make very presumptuous claims on a laughably small amount of "evidence."
Click to expand...

Oh but we are all on the payroll - aren't you??? Maybe you should check your bank account statements for unexpected and very large deposits :)
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's a simple extrapolation from that sort of thinking that Hani Hanjour aimed Flight 77 at the exact spot he hit, and that hitting it an inch to the left or right would have been a failure. If you start from an insane premise like "there are no actions that result in unintended consequences", then the conclusions is more or less bound to be absurd.

And, of course, the aim of the nutter quoted in the OP is to make it look like that's our fault.

Dave
Click to expand...



Yes, it's exactly the same way with their obsession with WTC7: There's no way that a building could have just collapsed on its own; it had to have been a deliberate target of the attackers. With that premise in place, they then go on to find "reasons" to support the position.
 
angrysoba said:
...
"Did you know what hidden in plane sight means? It means that their plans are everywhere and can be seen but only to those with the right eyes to observe! Have you ever heard of PNAC? They put their plans right there on the Internet but noone believes it because it is hidden in plane sight! Look at this..."

He pulled out a 1000 yen note from his wallet,

"On the side of this note you see a picture of Mount Fuji, yes? But, notice, in the reflection in the lake is a completely different mountain, oh yes! What is the mountain? It's a mountain in Israel. All the money goes back to Israel, you see! The mountain has the same name as a mountain on Mars, where there is a face. Mars is the colour red. The colour of blood. There are bloodlines you see. It's all about bloodlines. Did you know the cross that the Queen of England has on her crown is the same as the Iron Cross that the Nazis wore and that that is the same as the Maltese cross as in the Knights of Malta..."

I realized there was somewhere else I needed to be so I downed my drink and left.

I was actually very disturbed at the discovery that people like that actually do walk among us.
Click to expand...

You made that up, right??? :eye-poppi
 
Oystein said:
You made that up, right??? :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

No, the incident is completely true and he did mention all of those things and a lot more. I have condensed the diaologue a bit but pretty much everything poured out at about that rate.

In fact, what was amusing is that I did manage to interject a few times with some other conspiracy/cult theories and he either believed or rejected them as pisstakes on a seemingly random basis.

I tried to explain that humans have a kind of pattern-seeking ability that tricks us into seeing things like faces on Mars just as some kids talk about seeing faces in clouds.

When I said that, he responded with, "Do you know what chemtrails are?"

WHAT???!?

"Have you ever noticed that the vapour trails soon expand to take up the whole sky?"

"What's the point?"

"These are government chemicals."

"That do what?"

"That's what I want to know."

"And corn circles?"

"Yes, that's interesting too."

But when he was going off on all the symbolism of red and white and how it represents bloodlines I ventured that Marlboro packets have thre red Ks on a white background that some people think represents KKK!

"Now, you're just trivializing things!"

He also went on about HAARP and loads of highly unlikely etymologies of words.
 
Rolfe said:
I think a lot of the problem with the twoofers' debunking of the Pentagon attack is that they're assuming the terrorist pilot intended to do exactly what he did. (The silliest I ever encountered was one who said it would have been impossible to fly accurately enough to hit that precise spot on the wall. Why that precise spot, anyway? Well, that's where the hole was....)

I've always been of the opinion that the pilot was trying to crash the plane into the central courtyard of the Pentagon, which I don't believe had these super-reinforced walls, and where I imagine the carnage and damage would have been even greater. However, he came in too low too soon, and just succeeded in hitting the outer wall as he was about to crash into the ground.

I imagine crashing into a precise spot on the ground, especially the central courtyard of a low-rise building, is a lot harder than flying into the side of a whacking great skyscraper. So maybe it's no surpise that he almost missed. Coming from the assumption that he succeeded in doing exactly what he intended to do is nuts.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Flight 77 could've crashed anywhere and the twoofers would find a reason to suspect it.

Imagine if the plane had crashed on the lawn outside the Pentagon.

Instead of missle fantasies, we would get assertions of an inside job because the plane crashed before it hit the Pentagon so as not harm the evil conspirators inside.

I can hear them now (think Jason Bermas):

Why would they hijack a plane, fly it all the way to the Pentagon and CRASH IT INTO THE GROUND?????????

That'd be pretty stupid of them WOULDN'T IT???????

Yeah well we know why, Cheney and Rumsfield were in there THAT'S WHY!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom