It's CTists, not CTers.

So we deny the official story, we deny everything?

you dont just deny the story, you deny the EVENT, you deny flight 93 crashed, you deny flight 77 crashed, many CTers (not sure if you are one of them or not) deny flights 11 and 175 crashed

jimmy walters even says all the passengers are still alive and working for the govt, he denies their DEATHS, how is that any different from holocaust deniers?
 
i often wonder, and no CTers has yet given me a straight answer (suprise surprise)

why bother faking a 757 crash in shanksville? why not just crash a 757 there? why bother doing anything at all? the WTC and pentagon werent enough the neocons had to blow up a field for no reason to further their plans? if its about making "heroes" why not have them take over the plane and land safely? then you could trot out your heroes whenever doubts are raised
I tell you what, I'm going to start a thread about this.
 
lying again?

If you deny the story, you deny the event.

Example:

A friend comes up and tells you he just got a diet coke from the gas station. If you say his story on buying the diet coke was a lie and he made it up(Faking in other words), then you are then deneing that the event took place.

Even though:
-He has the diet coke
-Has the recipt for it
-And you watched it happen
 
Last edited:
Do you believe the official story, or take it as fact?
I take it as the official story, which for my money has to include at least one official covering his ass. The official story has many parts, so it comes down to cases regarding what parts are more credible than others.

The material elements of 4 aircraft that went down are hardly worth pissing and moaning about.

The real issues at hand are the lapses in pursuit of terrorists, and a variety of decisions made subsequent to 9-11 where official government rhetoric has been, at times, uncannily self contradictory.

IMO, you and the Loose Change crowd and the gentleman from Texas A & M are chasing the wrong bogey, Killtown. Jones is simply the "braying of an ass" with an advanced degree.

The issues worth pursuing now aren't the aircraft that went down. We can't bring those people back to life. Your concern with the Mossad, under the table deals, failures in competence, deliberate misdirection on war aims, why we went to Iraq over 9-11, the rhetoric that supported the war, and long term US strategy and policy, are far more worthy of examination than pissing away time and effort on simply verifiable occurrences.

I read the whole bloody NIST report. I can't find any evidence of anything other than a month's long effort to do good engineering analysis. The NTSB reports, albeit late, likewise. What gets me is the fact that you presume those hundreds of folks were all in on a plot to lie to you. Keeping a secret is insanely difficult when multiple people are involved, as your example of the five Israeli agents would show, if you read and believed your own sig.

Since I had friends in the Pentagon that day, who were in the E-Ring, I don't waste my time with "it was a missile" crap due to how grossly uninformed one has to be to take that tack. A Tomahawk missile can't penatrate as far into the Pentagon as the plane did, nor do as much damage, even loaded with high explosives.

So, if you are serious about uncovering a government cover up related to the war in Iraq, to the war in Afghanistan, or to the holes in our system that allowed 9-11 to happen, or a Mossad based conspiracy to set America up for that attack, spend your time following that trail: here's a hint, you'll have to do a lot more legwork to come up with data, facts, and corroboration, but it may be worth it.

Flight 93 is getting you nowhere.

DR
 
If you deny the story, you deny the event.

Example:

A friend comes up and tells you he just got a diet coke from the gas station. If you say his story on buying the diet coke was a lie and he made it up(Faking in other words), then you are then deneing that the event took place.
More like a bank gets robbed and the FBI say armed bandits with no assosiation with the bank or employees did it, but we think some of the bank employees were in on it. We don't deny the bank was robbed.

So your "9/11 denier" slogan is pure stupidity on your guy's part.
 
Can you guys not be so funny?

I just got a tooth pulled and it was rather nasty. My mouth hurts like crazy when I laugh. :(

-Andrew
 
More like a bank gets robbed and the FBI say armed bandits with no assosiation with the bank or employees did it, but we think some of the bank employees were in on it. We don't deny the bank was robbed.

So your "9/11 denier" slogan is pure stupidity on your guy's part.

While that is an interesting little counter-analogy,which seems to just show you have this great mistrust with the FBI, also you ignored the last bit of mine about the evidence.

Quick definition of denial.

To declare untrue; contradict.
To refuse to believe; reject.
To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.

You refuse to believe the story is up to you. But, the evidence is so abundant that it wasn't an inside job you just refuses to believe no matter what. This then leads to to the conclusion of you guys been a 9/11 denier.

Sure could type the whole title out. But, the reason we don't type out everything and just shorten it to 9/11 denier is because it is long and word and is not needed to get the point across.
 
how about "9/11 skeptics", wouldn't that be more accurate? We are "skeptical" of the official 9/11 story.
 
how about "9/11 skeptics", wouldn't that be more accurate? We are "skeptical" of the official 9/11 story.

skeptics should be open to all possibilities, i have yet to meet a CTers who even considers the notion that they might be wrong
 
I'm cool with "CT," I just don't get "9/11 denier." Sounds like we think the attacks never occured or something.

"CT" shouldn't be used to mean "conspiracy theory" and not "conspiracy theorist" as it might get confusing.

Denier is used as conspiracy theorists are denying the official 911 narrative. In that sense it is somewhat pejorative.
 
Funny, I feel the same way about OCTs.

i actually made a thread on the LC forums stating how i would feel if i was wrong, and asked how people there would feel if they were wrong, it was deleted and i was banned (not before several CTers assured me they could not be proven wrong)

sounds more like a religion than a "truth" movement
 
Wow, If I read this thread first, I would express my thoughts on the point in another way. Because I understood CTists as Counter Terrorist
 

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