• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

kookbreaker said:
One more liar goes into the ignore file, only to be removed when banned for being a sock puppet.
Click to expand...


That was my first thought, but I'm wondering if it's more likely that this one got wind of, or noticed, Mark's "return" and decided it would be a great chance to make a name for themselves by "taking on the man".
 
like tenpins. one by one the truthers fall back to the safety of their ineducable ignorance. Not a single question answered. not a single alternative 9/11 time line posted. let this thread stand to illustrate how far 9/11 conspiracy theorists have to retreat from a movement they called their own only 2 years ago. Is it any wonder they no longer show up at demonstrations? lest someone snap a cell phone picture of them and shove it in their face when they attempt to deny they are part of any "truth movement'. Its the latest "truth" strategy. it is no longer an "info war' it is a "claim nothing" war. hold no beliefs, take no stand. use generalizations, use vagueness, keep debunkers occupied with semantics and quote mined nonsense, and just troll troll troll,
 
mchapman said:
Who elected them "leaders"? I sure didn't.
Click to expand...

Those people are amongst the friggin' most influential members of the entire "Truth" movement, you puerile simpleton. You cannot deny this, so you commit once again a no true Scotsman fallacy, as if only the people you approve of are real Truthers. On top of this, any major member of the "Truth" movement who holds beliefs only slightly more bizarre than your own is automatically disinfo to you. Pathetic.

You are as intellectually dishonest and utterly transparent as you ever have been, Paul.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mchapman said:
You seem to have missed the people I mentioned. Mike Ruppert lecturing on PNAC et al in october 2001. Meyssan starting the pentagon theories in early 2002. Neither of these are anti semetic. You are making it up that holocaust deniers started the 911 truth movement. It's a convenient strawman you created early on when you saw that you didn't have facts. What an awful way to abuse the suffering of Jews in incidents like the holocaust.
Click to expand...


did you just screw up and refer to a post by your sock in this very thread?

Brannagyn said:
I considered asking you what naming them would do to your views but I fear I already know the answer. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Anyway…

The pre-existing and widespread anti-globalization movement realized from the get-go that 9/11 was going to have a major international ramifications and that despite it being a terrorist incident a military response was likely. It was elements of these groups led by people such as Carol Brouillet and Kevin Danaher that first approached Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, in November 2001, urging for a Senate enquiry into discrepancies and oddities they saw in the official version of events. This group learnt of and joined forces with others such as the Citizens for a Legitimate government. By January 2002 Barry Zwicker had produced the first major tv enquiry into the official version, the Great Deception. Other early proponents of investigation (and far more central than whatever anti-semite fringe existed) included Peter Dale Scott, Nafeez Ahmed and Michel Chossudovsky, none of whom seem to come up much here. There was also Michael Ruppert and the good ol’ whipping boy Alex Jones. I’m sure some are slipping my mind and that those more closely involved could name many more, suffice to say implying that the roots of the ‘truth movement’ were among ‘prominent anti-semites’ without pointing out the much more central figures is either ignorant or deliberately deceitful. Your choice which.
Click to expand...

Please do not make accusations of sock puppets.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
That was my first thought, but I'm wondering if it's more likely that this one got wind of, or noticed, Mark's "return" and decided it would be a great chance to make a name for themselves by "taking on the man".
Click to expand...

There's been a couple of comments that have been used so much before they might as well have a TM attached.
 
mchapman said:
Ooooh somebody is still sore that they were exposed as a liar.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that if you just keep repeating it that eventually someone is bound to accept what you say?

I am not a liar- I do not lie. There's no need for me to lie. You, on the other hand, talk about this "absolute proof" all the time- ironically as a scapegoat for having to provide a shred of evidence for your claims or answer any questions.

I asked you to quote where you claim I lied, and you never answered me. You are unable to prove- as you said- that I am a liar... making you the liar.
 
A W Smith said:
did you just screw up and refer to a post by your sock in this very thread?
Click to expand...

....its like watching Edward Norton during the reveal of Fight Club. Please stop hitting yourself in the face.

Pardalis said:
So to recap, the Truth Movement is not a movement, and it has no leaders?
Click to expand...

since edited to...

Pardalis said:
The Truth-Movement-Which-Is-Now-For-Some-Reason-Not-A-Movement will never do anything. Quite funny actually.
Click to expand...

And just when it looked like you were making a reasonable requestion for clarification.

When people with disparate views and socio-political goals share an interest in a single subject it is generally not enough to class them all as members of the same movement and yet that is what is done constantly on these forums. While there are groups whose sole focus is 9/11 truth there are many others for which those issues are only peripheral to wider concerns. Despite this, all are classed within these forums as part of some all-encompassing movement. I've made the point elsewhere that the majority of people have views that straddle the divide and it is blatantly foolish to seek to create and then reinforce perceptions of a division, but many here seem to prefer a black and white take on things. It does very little to add to the perception of such people as rational or critical thinkers.

(refering to Ruppert, Peter Dale Scott, Nafeez Ahmed and Michel Chossudovsky, etc.)

Gravy said:
That's because only a handful of the hundreds of truthers who've posted here have ever cited those people or their work....By far the most influential 9/11 conspiracy platform has been Loose Change 2nd Edition....Your claim that the people you listed above are "far more central" than that is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Apart from further displaying that prominent 'debunkers' have little to no awareness of the actual roots of the 'movement' they critique and base their views on the groups of people they came into contact with long after the push for independent enquiry into the events of 9/11 began (unless Roberts was refering to the Loose Change 2001 edition) its hardly surprising that the people here quote Alex Jones or LC to a much greater extent than the far more diligent scholars who actually dominate the field. The level of sincere, open-minded, critical discussion on display here is negligible and those seeking it must surely be better served elsewhere. Thankfully it took me less than two weeks to realise this fact.

Its a little sad to see people who are evidently intellectually capable, dedicating so much time and effort to chipping away at arguments that remain sidelines to the only truly important CT, i.e. whether the attacks were instigated or allowed to happen by the US government. At its minimum scope this CT requires the collusion of only a few dozen individuals, has no bearing on the actual events of 9/11 itself (and thus 99.9% of things discussed here) and, as yet, has no hard evidence either way. The circumstantial evidence is more than enough to justify further investigation of the Bush Administration, PNAC and the role of the intelligence services and yet regardless of the fact that this CT cannot be debunked by you (innocent until proven guilty is the only strong argument), you continue to group all who question the official version of events into a single body and do your best to belittle and denigrate them as a whole.

I'm unsure what pleasures you get from attacking CTs about the collapse of the towers or cell phones . Maybe many (though clearly not all) of you do it out of an honest sense of service to the truth and I'm am sincerely appreciative of those who are selfless in their pursuit of rational analysis of the several incidents which, at least initially, struck many as bizarre oddities or who seek to put an end to inaccurate nonsense (or well-intentioned but flawed CTs). As such I'll continue, for a while at least, to read threads here outlining the errors in DRG's thinking or the contradictory claims of Willy Rodriguez. At the same time, many here seem deliberately set on creating a wholly false dichotomy that not only leaves anyone with a truly open mind caught between two opposing factions of dogmatic zealots. It also reflects poorly on the forum as a whole and its claim to be a home to critical thinking.

Its very easy to recognize a man convinced of the utter veracity of his views. Such people do not often attract the interest of those seeking honest discourse and, when it does happen, it is generally not long before the wiser man departs, leaving the other to pontificate from their soapbox in peace.

This isn't a characterization of the forum as a whole, just what seems to be its worst element.

Anticipating queries as to my own departure time, I would estimate "soon enough", though this should not be taken as any reflection of my wisdom, which, as should be patently obvious, is lacking in many regards.
 
Brannagyn said:
And just when it looked like you were making a reasonable requestion for clarification.

When people with disparate views and socio-political goals share an interest in a single subject it is generally not enough to class them all as members of the same movement and yet that is what is done constantly on these forums.
Click to expand...

The problem with the "truth movement", is that in order to achieve its stated goals (a new investigation), it absolutely needs to be an organized movement, with somewhat of a hierarchy. Otherwise they'll never accomplish anything.

That's why they can't be taken seriously, they say they have devastating evidence, and yet they can't seem to organize themselves to show that evidence to the proper authorities. This greatly betrays their true nature, which is not a movement for truth, but an ideology of denial.
 
Last edited:
forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4001613&postcount=32

A post I made a few weeks ago, that I think would benefit some truthers who post in this thread. At least the ones who aren't trolls.

There's this idea that anyone who thinks the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is bunk is just some idiot who belives everything "the government" tells them. I'm not sure where it comes from, really, but it would serve the conspiracy theorists well to abandon that idea, especially when it isn't backed up by evidence and is only an assumption, as it is here.

That sort of thinking quickly becomes a way do dismiss anything you don't agree with, because you've decided any who tells you what you don't want to hear can't be trusted; this is ironic for obvious reasons.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom