Is this your way of accepting that your examples of "many" 9/11 families and survivors questioning the facts were wrong?
No, it's my way of restating my original point.
I have trouble understanding your point. When you are challenged about whether the family members you picked are really questioning the facts, it appears that you change your mind about what you are trying to prove. It seems that you then tried to establish that you were merely upset about something that Bananaman said on a completely separate thread. You offer unsupported numbers and then say that they aren't important. People ask you specific questions about the quotes you copy and paste and you don't answer them.
Perhaps your trouble (and maybe others' confusion too) stems from not having grasped the context of my statement which was, indeed, made "on a completely separate thread". Perhaps you should look at that thread before commenting further. My statement from that thread was introduced to this thread by Comsat Angel ( comment #6).
I haven't offered any "unsupported numbers". It is not up to me to answer questions that I consider to be deliberate red herrings/straw men.
Then you want to drop the whole subject of 9/11 victims and their families even though that's what this thread is about.
I'm quite happy to talk about the subject 'til Kingdom (or moderators) Come. I was suggesting that 911 victims' families shouldn't be callously appropriated, in the manner of Bananaman, for juvenile pissing competitions (i.e.: “Nah nah! My Movement's better than your Movement”, “Liar! Liar! Pants on Fire!” etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------
This seems to be a mea culpa- or at least as close as you're capable of giving one... you still wanted to throw everyone under the bus with you. Since the original context of this whole argument started with you attempting to claim that the family members do indeed follow or support the so-called "Truth Movement" and then failing to provide anything to substantiate that- it's only you doing the pissing.
Take your own advice and don't pretend to speak for the families in the future.
The original context of this argument started with Bananaman claiming to speak for 911 Families and detailing the violent acts s/he felt like committing in their defence. I pointed out that this commonly deployed Appeal to Emotion was flawed because many 911 families would also be his/her potential victims
The rest is history, or maybe, pisstory! Take your pick.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations you've actually admitted to a lie... er, "mistake". Now all you have to do is admit the "mistake" you made when you claimed "many" family members are skeptical of the official version. A claim, despite all your sophistry and verbal meanderings, that is still completely unsubstantiated.
You see what you want to see.
Your hilarious Mother Superior persona bears a large measure of responsibility for my flaming pants mistake. When I read her overblown rhetoric my vision is often blurred by tears of laughter!
You cited that webpage as a "supporting reference" for your claim that many 9/11 family members are skeptical of the official version. There is nothing of the kind either there or in the above quoted material.
I cited one comment not a ”webpage”. Kubiak's perception supports mine.
I'm not interested in Kubiak's opinion on the matter any more than I'm interested I'm yours. What we're looking for here is facts, not opinions.
You seem almost infinitely, surreally interested in my opinion!
You can also carry on looking for your precious “facts”
infinitely because, without a survey, there aren’t any available. All we have is the opinion of those who have talked with 911 families, the publicly expressed opinions of various 911 families and the variously substantiated opinions of onlookers like you and me.
There are many reasons why many skeptical 911 families would not want to put their names into the public domain, some of which I’ve mentioned above. You can probably think of some others yourself. If not, get back to me and I’ll give you some help.
Originally Posted by JihadJane:
On the contrary, I have been singing the same tune throughout the thread. I have displayed no interest in amassing names or numbers whatsoever.
Except for the part where you said this:
Originally Posted by JihadJane:
"Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account" is an honest statement. Prove otherwise. I have provided supportive references.
What have "supportive references" got to do with “amassing names or numbers”?
Or in a following post where you actually provided a list of names.
You asked me for a list so I gave you one.
Originally Posted by JihadJane:
My point wasn’t that my comment “is being misunderstood" but that its full meaning is being expediently ignored.
Really?
Yes
Because I thought this was your point:
Originally Posted by JihadJane:
"Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account" is an honest statement.
You want to pretend that your statement was taken out of context, and thus its actual meaning misrepresented by us mean ol' debunkers, and yet there you are in the above quote defended your "out-of-context" statement as it stands.
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?
Stop it! You're making me cry!
Are you “ol’”? You all seem so young!
Here is the context of “Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical...” statement:
Quite simply because they're pissing on the graves of those who died.
Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account. Perhaps you better inform them to their faces that they are pissing on their loved ones' graves.
