Inside the Truther Mind

[Tippit]

So they pre-wired the building with explosives, JUST IN CASE there might be a situation in the future where lives could be saved by blowing it up?

You have proved my point from the OP.

ETA, Johnny Karate beat me to it!

No. Maybe it was pre-wired with explosives for some other reason. There were a lot of high profile TLA government agency tenants in the building, as well as a FEMA command bunker. All I'm saying is that Silverstein's comments were sufficiently ambiguous so as to encapsulate a lot of weird possibilities. I'll try to give you an example:

Lets say NIST decided that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, and all of the news networks reported so on 9/11. Perhaps a different form of demo technology was used, not being as safe or efficient as a planned demolition requiring weeks in advance, but effective in an emergency nonetheless. Silverstein's account would be entirely consistent with that, word for word.

Here's another problem I have with Silverstein's comments which I've posted on this forum before. He claims that when the fire department called him, he, being the conscientious billionaire that he is, was concerned about the loss-of-life. He then told the fire department commander that "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it", they made the decision to pull, and then he watched the building collapse.

Since when does a fire department commander who has a responsibility for, and who is entrusted with the lives of his men take orders or suggestions from a property owner?

 

[Baylor]

So, because the building is on fire, and I see a few seconds of video where it actually collapses, you want me to make the assertion that fire caused the collapse in the first video? No can do. The building looked deformed to begin with. Maybe an earthquake hit it, causing the apparent damage and setting it on fire. Do you have a link documenting precisely what happened to the building, or did you search youtube for buildings on fire that were collapsing, and assume that fire was the cause?

This is a perfect example of truther thinking. It's amazing the length they go to in order to avoid reality. It's as if we should all take a solipsist attitude when it comes to things we don't want to learn.

I don't "assume" the fire caused the collapse. I SAW it. To assume and to see are two completely different words.

I don't need to maintain the presumption of certainty when opining about videos on the internet, though I don't doubt the building in the 2nd video was a controlled demolition.

Just like I have little doubt that fire and damage to the facade of WTC 7 did not cause it to collapse in the manner that it did.

More evidence of the truther mindset. It's like the debunkers are crocodile hunters observing the truthers (crocodiles) in their natural habitat. Notice how this one is subjectifying a building collapse. He says he has "little doubt" that fires didn't bring down the building. He also has no evidence the fires didn't bring down WTC 7

 

[Tippit]

Tippit,
Ditto. Without the delightful semantic pedantry that JJ provides, but your conclusions are pretty much the same, aren't they? You just want so badly to believe that the government did it that you'll argue angels and head of pin as long as there's a First Amendment, right?

With all due respect, I've been a "conspiracy theorist", "alternative historian", "crazy person", whatever you want to call me, long before 9/11. It all started when I read The Creature from Jekyll Island back in 1994. It was then I realized that the money system is the source of wealth condensation, poverty, war, and misery in the world. Banks run absolutely everything. There are a few families who have succeeded in lowering their formerly high profiles, fooled everyone into thinking they are run-of-the-mill billionaires, and who own nothing and control virtually everything. I've studied their histories, I've read their memoirs, I understand how they protect and cultivate their great fortunes and influence. These people make up the New World Order, and they did 9/11. "The government" wasn't responsible for 9/11, that would indict a lot of innocent people.

What you're both saying, essentially, is don't bother to argue with us because we just plain know in our own illuminated minds what happened was planned by the evil government(s).

I don't know what it would take to convince other people. In order to convince me, you'll have to convince me that everything I know about the Federal Reserve, the money system, and international banking is false. Good luck with that. You can join me in the economics sub-forum. We're having a discussion about counterfeiting, and central banking.

 

[Baylor]

Lets say NIST decided that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, and all of the news networks reported so on 9/11. Perhaps a different form of demo technology was used, not being as safe or efficient as a planned demolition requiring weeks in advance, but effective in an emergency nonetheless. Silverstein's account would be entirely consistent with that, word for word.

You're not deepening anyone's understanding about the 9/11 attacks. You're not solving any problems; you're just creating problems. This is exactly the conspiracy way of thinking.

If you're interested in building implosions, I'll gladly explain some things to you. But so far, you don't seem the slightest bit interested.

 

[tuc0]

With all due respect, I've been a "conspiracy theorist", "alternative historian", "crazy person", whatever you want to call me, long before 9/11. It all started when I read The Creature from Jekyll Island back in 1994. It was then I realized that the money system is the source of wealth condensation, poverty, war, and misery in the world. Banks run absolutely everything. There are a few families who have succeeded in lowering their formerly high profiles, fooled everyone into thinking they are run-of-the-mill billionaires, and who own nothing and control virtually everything. I've studied their histories, I've read their memoirs, I understand how they protect and cultivate their great fortunes and influence. These people make up the New World Order, and they did 9/11. "The government" wasn't responsible for 9/11, that would indict a lot of innocent people.



I don't know what it would take to convince other people. In order to convince me, you'll have to convince me that everything I know about the Federal Reserve, the money system, and international banking is false. Good luck with that. You can join me in the economics sub-forum. We're having a discussion about counterfeiting, and central banking.

lol

 

[Foolmewunz]

With all due respect, I've been a "conspiracy theorist", "alternative historian", "crazy person", whatever you want to call me, long before 9/11. It all started when I read The Creature from Jekyll Island back in 1994. It was then I realized that the money system is the source of wealth condensation, poverty, war, and misery in the world. Banks run absolutely everything. There are a few families who have succeeded in lowering their formerly high profiles, fooled everyone into thinking they are run-of-the-mill billionaires, and who own nothing and control virtually everything. I've studied their histories, I've read their memoirs, I understand how they protect and cultivate their great fortunes and influence. These people make up the New World Order, and they did 9/11. "The government" wasn't responsible for 9/11, that would indict a lot of innocent people.



I don't know what it would take to convince other people. In order to convince me, you'll have to convince me that everything I know about the Federal Reserve, the money system, and international banking is false. Good luck with that. You can join me in the economics sub-forum. We're having a discussion about counterfeiting, and central banking.

Thanks for the confirmation.
(I predate you in anti-government, anti-establishment, protests, marches, resistance, etc... by more than three decades. I just draw the line at accusations of murder when there's no proof.)

 

[Tippit]

This is a perfect example of truther thinking. It's amazing the length they go to in order to avoid reality. It's as if we should all take a solipsist attitude when it comes to things we don't want to learn.

I don't "assume" the fire caused the collapse. I SAW it. To assume and to see are two completely different words.

To claim you know with certainty the cause of the collapse of a building that happens to be on fire, after a few frames of video, is itself indicative of another mindset: Pseudo-skeptical.

More evidence of the truther mindset. It's like the debunkers are crocodile hunters observing the truthers (crocodiles) in their natural habitat. Notice how this one is subjectifying a building collapse. He says he has "little doubt" that fires didn't bring down the building. He also has no evidence the fires didn't bring down WTC 7

I have as little doubt that fire did not bring down WTC 7, as you have doubt that fire did bring down the building depicted in your 23 second film, and the same amount of evidence, give or take a few seconds of video (unless you're holding out on me).

What's amusing, at least to me, is that you can't see the hypocrisy in making knee-jerk assumptions about video evidence, and accusing others of doing the very same thing, because in one case, you don't agree with the assumption.

 

[Baylor]

To claim you know with certainty the cause of the collapse of a building that happens to be on fire, after a few frames of video, is itself indicative of another mindset: Pseudo-skeptical.

Exactly the solipsist attitude I was talking about.

I have as little doubt that fire did not bring down WTC 7, as you have doubt that fire did bring down the building depicted in your 23 second film, and the same amount of evidence, give or take a few seconds of video (unless you're holding out on me).

I have "doubt" now? Are you pretending to be psychic?

What's amusing, at least to me, is that you can't see the hypocrisy in making knee-jerk assumptions about video evidence, and accusing others of doing the very same thing, because in one case, you don't agree with the assumption.

Again, there are no assumptions; there is video evidence. The video evidence is indisputable. You are playing the solipsist card to satisfy your own prejudices.

 

[dudalb]

don't know what it would take to convince other people. In order to convince me, you'll have to convince me that everything I know about the Federal Reserve, the money system, and international banking is false. Good luck with that.

In other words I have made up my mind; don't confuse me with facts.

 

[Tippit]

Thanks for the confirmation.
(I predate you in anti-government, anti-establishment, protests, marches, resistance, etc... by more than three decades. I just draw the line at accusations of murder when there's no proof.)

I haven't made any specific accusations, I've just told you what I don't believe happened. Assuming you're like the other "skeptics" on this forum, then you've made the tacit and sometimes not-so tacit accusation that a billion-plus muslims were responsible for 9/11, at least indirectly, or due to their ideology. Furthermore, those accusations and their consequences have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, since 9/11.

You live in a fantasy world of good guys and bad guys, cowboys and indians, heroic coalition fighters, and evil arabs. So spare me the hypocrisy.

 

[dudalb]

You live in a fantasy world of good guys and bad guys, cowboys and indians, heroic coalition fighters, and evil arabs. So spare me the hypocrisy.

God, the Irony here is incredible, since almost every CTer I have encountered sees himself as a brave rebel against a vast conspriacy a la Bourne in the Bourne films or Neo in "The Matrix".

 

[Justin39640]

I haven't made any specific accusations, I've just told you what I don't believe happened. Assuming you're like the other "skeptics" on this forum, then you've made the tacit and sometimes not-so tacit accusation that a billion-plus muslims were responsible for 9/11, at least indirectly, or due to their ideology. Furthermore, those accusations and their consequences have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, since 9/11.

You live in a fantasy world of good guys and bad guys, cowboys and indians, heroic coalition fighters, and evil arabs. So spare me the hypocrisy.

i live in the real world
where 19 hijackers crashed 4 planes into 3 buildings and a field
how do i know?
cause my neighbors were murdered by them

building 7 was destroyed in the utter chaos that 911 was

nothing else

 

[1337m4n]

Assuming you're like the other "skeptics" on this forum, then you've made the tacit and sometimes not-so tacit accusation that a billion-plus muslims were responsible for 9/11, at least indirectly, or due to their ideology.

Really?

Somebody claimed that a BILLION Muslims were responsible for 9/11?

Please quote this person who claimed that a BILLION Muslims were responsible for 9/11. Whoever he is, he's pretty stupid.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I haven't made any specific accusations, I've just told you what I don't believe happened.

Cute that. Just asking questions are we?

Assuming you're like the other "skeptics" on this forum, then you've made the tacit and sometimes not-so tacit accusation that a billion-plus muslims were responsible for 9/11, at least indirectly, or due to their ideology. Furthermore, those accusations and their consequences have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, since 9/11.

Whoa! Talk about pre-conceived bias! Don't assume anything - you'll be better off. The other skeptics on this forum come from every political walk and every social strata imaginable. Massive Fail, kid!

You can always tell when fantasists have their backs against the wall because they trot out the canned rhetoric. (At least JJ is an original - I'll give her that much.)

You didn't even read my post. Well, either that or you have a serious problem in regards to reading comprehension. About once a year, much to the bemusement of a few veteran posters here, some new Twinkie accuses me of being a Bushie or NeoCon. It just shows the complete bias of the "movement".

Did you miss the part where I hinted at my credentials.... in civil rights, in the previous anti-war movement, in voter's rights, women's rights, and many others - up to and including standing against the current war? And from that you're accusing me of implying that the whole muslim world was 911 or is behind any terrorist activity. Why? Because you read a bad book in 1994?

Please provide actual quotes of my words to that effect or retract (or sit there called out as a bald-faced liar).

This is a common TMer error. You spout your anti-Bush (now anti-government) rhetoric so much that you assume automatically that everyone who doesn't believe in your warped delusions is automatically a crabgrass clipping, gun-toting, neo-paleolithic conservative, card-carrying Republican. Historically, my politics are so far left, I probably make you look like John Birch.

You live in a fantasy world of good guys and bad guys, cowboys and indians, heroic coalition fighters, and evil arabs. So spare me the hypocrisy.

Who's living in a fantasy world? I'm living in the real Disneyland - Asia. And I'm working and I'm raising a kid. Further, that's my second kid over there in the avatar - I raised another one.

And while doing all that and working for 'lo these past 43 years - if I thought there was a wrong that needed righting, I actually got out there and did something (sometimes not much, but I at least took a stand) - and I actually sacrificed for my beliefs. Have you? I doubt it. You don't even have a large enough pair to put your paranoid conspiracies on the table - you're just asking questions.

ETA: And don't call me a hypocrite. Ooooh, I hate that. You need to demonize someone you're arguing with because you're too immature to actually address the questions?

Especially considering the source - someone who very likely secretly wishes that he could live in an extended episode of The X Files. As Dudalb pointed out, The Matrix and V for Vendetta are NOT documentaries. They are works of fiction.

 

[Tippit]

Cute that. Just asking questions are we?

Apparently I've touched a nerve. Excellent.

Whoa! Talk about pre-conceived bias! Don't assume anything - you'll be better off. The other skeptics on this forum come from every political walk and every social strata imaginable. Massive Fail, kid!

You can always tell when fantasists have their backs against the wall because they trot out the canned rhetoric. (At least JJ is an original - I'll give her that much.)

And most of you have the same thing in common - douchebaggery. If I'm a "fantasist", can you be a douchebag?

You didn't even read my post. Well, either that or you have a serious problem in regards to reading comprehension. About once a year, much to the bemusement of a few veteran posters here, some new Twinkie accuses me of being a Bushie or NeoCon. It just shows the complete bias of the "movement".

Did you miss the part where I hinted at my credentials.... in civil rights, in the previous anti-war movement, in voter's rights, women's rights, and many others - up to and including standing against the current war? And from that you're accusing me of implying that the whole muslim world was 911 or is behind any terrorist activity. Why? Because you read a bad book in 1994?

Please provide actual quotes of my words to that effect or retract (or sit there called out as a bald-faced liar).

I read your post. Your "leftist" polarized-political bullcrap cred means zilch with me, I'm not a leftist. I'm just a conspiracy nut. If you want credibility with me, muster up an independent political thought.

9/11 and all of the BS that is associated with the whole terrorist paradigm is the source of all of the violence that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

You support the basic premise underlying the paradigm that is responsible for widespread death and destruction of arabs, but you have the nerve to accuse me of making false accusations.

This is a common TMer error. You spout your anti-Bush (now anti-government) rhetoric so much that you assume automatically that everyone who doesn't believe in your warped delusions is automatically a crabgrass clipping, gun-toting, neo-paleolithic conservative, card-carrying Republican. Historically, my politics are so far left, I probably make you look like John Birch.

That would be a compliment. Thank you.

And while doing all that and working for 'lo these past 43 years - if I thought there was a wrong that needed righting, I actually got out there and did something (sometimes not much, but I at least took a stand) - and I actually sacrificed for my beliefs. Have you? I doubt it. You don't even have a large enough pair to put your paranoid conspiracies on the table - you're just asking questions.

One thing is for sure, I've wasted a huge portion of my life getting ridicule for my beliefs on forums like this, and for what? And by the way, no matter how much you've sacrificed for your beliefs, if you're wrong, then guess what you're part of the problem. That goes for me and everyone else, too.

ETA: And don't call me a hypocrite. Ooooh, I hate that. You need to demonize someone you're arguing with because you're too immature to actually address the questions?

Especially considering the source - someone who very likely secretly wishes that he could live in an extended episode of The X Files. As Dudalb pointed out, The Matrix and V for Vendetta are NOT documentaries. They are works of fiction.

I'll call a spade a spade. Now that we've gotten the pleasantries out of the way, why don't you tell me exactly how much of the bogus War on Terror you support, and how many innocent people need to get bombed before we finally capture the Dr. Evil of 9/11, Osama Bin Emmanuel Goldstein?

 

[Tippit]

Really?

Somebody claimed that a BILLION Muslims were responsible for 9/11?

Please quote this person who claimed that a BILLION Muslims were responsible for 9/11. Whoever he is, he's pretty stupid.

I'm sorry. Maybe it was one-hundred million.

Nineteen, one-hundred million, one-billion, what difference does it make!

 

[Foolmewunz]

Apparently I've touched a nerve. Excellent.

Apparently you misunderstood the derision in that line. That wasn't a nerve, that was Mr. Happy you touched. You should have your glasses checked more regularly.

And most of you have the same thing in common - douchebaggery. If I'm a "fantasist", can you be a douchebag?

A common symptom of fantasists: Cannot deal with the criticism so resort to name-calling. My accusation of you being a fantasist is based on your posts. Your counter is name calling.
And there is no truth to that accusation.
> Bartender, can I have a vinegar and water please?

I read your post. Your "leftist" polarized-political bullcrap cred means zilch with me, I'm not a leftist. I'm just a conspiracy nut. If you want credibility with me, muster up an independent political thought.

How would you know what an independent thought is? And you don't know me from squat, but you now shift from delusions that I'm a right wing apologist to delusions that I am.... well, honestly, I can't figure out what "leftist polarized-political bullcrap" actually means, but I'm sure it was an accusation.

9/11 and all of the BS that is associated with the whole terrorist paradigm is the source of all of the violence that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Was it? Really? You know, I seem to recall all sorts of things in the papers over the last 60 years about other problems in quite a few of those countries.
Now, if you meant to actually say that the administration of the time used 911 as an excuse to further their own agenda? That would perhaps be a sensible and supportable statement. A whole lot of people might disagree with you, but a whole lot would concur.

You support the basic premise underlying the paradigm that is responsible for widespread death and destruction of arabs, but you have the nerve to accuse me of making false accusations.

There you go, again. Just what basic premise do you think I support? You're pulling rhetoric out of your little Paranoia For Beginners textbook. Stop looking for convenient labels for people and start posting facts.

That would be a compliment. Thank you.

Oooh, now it gets interesting!

One thing is for sure, I've wasted a huge portion of my life getting ridicule for my beliefs on forums like this, and for what? And by the way, no matter how much you've sacrificed for your beliefs, if you're wrong, then guess what you're part of the problem. That goes for me and everyone else, too.

What part of what problem. You're spouting rhetoric, again. Do you have Abbie Hofmann's old protest button collection from the 60s and you just pull a slogan out every now and then. (I do like it when people cite Eldrige Cleaver, unknowingly, though.)

I'll call a spade a spade. Now that we've gotten the pleasantries out of the way, why don't you tell me exactly how much of the bogus War on Terror you support, and how many innocent people need to get bombed before we finally capture the Dr. Evil of 9/11, Osama Bin Emmanuel Goldstein?

Why do you keep going back to the assumption that I (or the majority of posters here) support the War on Terror.
Do you need to see it in another language? Would that help?
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE WAR ON TERROR. I support the idea that terrorism is a huge problem, but I think that what is termed the War on Terror is horribly misguided in perhaps irreversibly misapplied. That does not make me a blue-stater or red-stater. It makes me the possessor of my own thoughts on the matter. (Hmm, I thing you were asking about just that, weren't you?)

Why'd you find it interesting, clever, or necessary to throw in "Goldstein"? Are you stressed and just trying to throw in nonsensical names, or is a pattern beginning to emerge?

 

[Baylor]

Why'd you find it interesting, clever, or necessary to throw in "Goldstein"? Are you stressed and just trying to throw in nonsensical names, or is a pattern beginning to emerge?

It's a 1984 reference, which means tippit has succeeded in his goals in bogging down this discussion into irrelevancy. Everytime a truther is able to turn a discussion about 9/11 into a discussion about political opinions, it's a small victory for 9/11 truth; a victory they enjoy so much. Neither tippit nor JihadJane has the slightest clue about engineering or physics. That's why they love to bring down the "OCT" down to their level, as if arguments from ignorance mean something.

 

[1337m4n]

Nineteen, one-hundred million, one-billion, what difference does it make!

I'm sorry, was that supposed to be a question? I'm confused, because I can't find a question mark anywhere in that sentence.

In any case, you're the one who made up the "billion" number.

Why did make the following claim:

Assuming you're like the other "skeptics" on this forum, then you've made the tacit and sometimes not-so tacit accusation that a billion-plus muslims were responsible for 9/11, at least indirectly, or due to their ideology.

?

 

[Tippit]

How would you know what an independent thought is? And you don't know me from squat, but you now shift from delusions that I'm a right wing apologist to delusions that I am.... well, honestly, I can't figure out what "leftist polarized-political bullcrap" actually means, but I'm sure it was an accusation.

It means you probably watch the political "discourse" on CNN with great interest, and perhaps occasionally switch to Faux News in order to foam at the mouth over Bill O'Reilly. It means you subscribe to a bankrupt political paradigm designed to divide people over the most superficial of issues, and cause people to defend the most contemptible of criminals in the name of partisanship. Congratulations, you're a "leftist", with a long history of leftist ********. Now what.

Was it? Really? You know, I seem to recall all sorts of things in the papers over the last 60 years about other problems in quite a few of those countries.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I was referring specifically to the people slaughtered by the US military, and "coalition" forces.

Now, if you meant to actually say that the administration of the time used 911 as an excuse to further their own agenda? That would perhaps be a sensible and supportable statement. A whole lot of people might disagree with you, but a whole lot would concur.

The administration hasn't changed. The agenda served by 9/11 wasn't owned by Bush.

Why do you keep going back to the assumption that I (or the majority of posters here) support the War on Terror.
Do you need to see it in another language? Would that help?
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE WAR ON TERROR. I support the idea that terrorism is a huge problem, but I think that what is termed the War on Terror is horribly misguided in perhaps irreversibly misapplied. That does not make me a blue-stater or red-stater. It makes me the possessor of my own thoughts on the matter. (Hmm, I thing you were asking about just that, weren't you?)

What makes terrorism a huge problem? Assuming the fantasy that 19 angry arabs did 9/11 were true, how many muslims do you think they represented, and what would you do with them?

If you support the idea that terrorism is a huge problem, then what do you propose we do about this huge problem, other than declaring a War on Terror?