The ongoing troofer campaign against JREF!

dommyboysinjapan said:
Stellafane,

Again, links. If they did actually say anything remotely like this I would like to see the full context. If they did outright accuse a certain person of deliberately murdering his son then I agree with you completely...
Click to expand...

Here it is. Be sure to watch the whole video; in the first part Bermas flat out lies about what Avery said, in the second part of the video starting about one minute in is Avery's actual quote in his own words. And yes, the accusation is outright.

...This is unfounded, disrespectful, and inexcusable behaviour.
Click to expand...

We finally have something on which to agree.


ETA: And I apologize for calling you "incoherent" earlier. You are in fact a good writer.
 
Last edited:
DGM,
Would you mind defining "the truth". Your not talking about controlled demolition or MIHOP right? That crap is pure fantasy and no one that was there believes it. (Yes I have fiends that were there)
Click to expand...
To me 'The Truth' means what really happened on that day. I'm not going to speculate as to what really happened but it is very clear to me (and others) that there are a lot of aspects of 9/11 that have been covered up. When you say 'no one that was there believes it, are you including, Willie Rodriguez? Was he there? Does he believe it?

Also when you say you have friends that were there do you mean people who were in the buildings or watching from a comfortable distance if you don't mind my asking?
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
DGM,

To me 'The Truth' means what really happened on that day. I'm not going to speculate as to what really happened but it is very clear to me (and others) that there are a lot of aspects of 9/11 that have been covered up. When you say 'no one that was there believes it, are you including, Willie Rodriguez? Was he there? Does he believe it?

Also when you say you have friends that were there do you mean people who were in the buildings or watching from a comfortable distance if you don't mind my asking?
Click to expand...
Both actually: And I don't mind you asking.
My friend who's wife was killed (She was on 80? floor of south tower) video taped it from battery park area and was on the phone with her at the time 175 hit and her phone went dead. I've seen the video (I'm one of only 3 that has) and it's very clear and quite disturbing. He was near the river at WFC when the towers collapsed and if any explosives went off he would hear them. I also had other friends that escaped from various areas of the WTC.
 
Last edited:
Stellafane,
Here it is. Be sure to watch the whole video; in the first part Bermas flat out lies about what Avery said, in the second part of the video starting about one minute in is Avery's actual quote in his own words. And yes, the accusation is outright.
Click to expand...
Alright. He did in fact say that. This tells me that those guys are sometimes insensitive and disrespectful. When a movement is big, it is easy to find certain members who are overzealous or even downright disrespectful. We are talking about thousands of individuals with differing personalities. I really haven't seen any evidence that this kind of behaviour typifies the sentiment of the majority of Truthers. People like Dr. Jones, Ray McGovern, Mike Ruppert, Barrie Zwicker, Jim Hoffman and Dr. David Griffin are all well spoken, mild mannered people who are in much better positions to reflect the Truther sentiment. Avery, Rowe, and Bermas are just young men who tend to underthink their own statements before making them (as young men sometimes do.) They are young and impetuous. BTW, this doesn't excuse disrespectful behaviour on their part. An apology for their insinuation about the father wanting to kill his son would indeed be warranted.

We finally have something on which to agree.
Click to expand...
Who would have thunk it.

ETA: And I apologize for calling you "incoherent" earlier. You are in fact a good writer.
Click to expand...
No worries. I have been called much worse things.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
Stellafane,

Alright. He did in fact say that. This tells me that those guys are sometimes insensitive and disrespectful. When a movement is big, it is easy to find certain members who are overzealous or even downright disrespectful. We are talking about thousands of individuals with differing personalities. I really haven't seen any evidence that this kind of behaviour typifies the sentiment of the majority of Truthers. People like Dr. Jones, Ray McGovern, Mike Ruppert, Barrie Zwicker, Jim Hoffman and Dr. David Griffin are all well spoken, mild mannered people who are in much better positions to reflect the Truther sentiment. Avery, Rowe, and Bermas are just young men who tend to underthink their own statements before making them (as young men sometimes do.) They are young and impetuous. BTW, this doesn't excuse disrespectful behaviour on their part. An apology for their insinuation about the father wanting to kill his son would indeed be warranted.
Click to expand...

That's your condemnation? Pretty pathetic if you ask me. You basically let them off the hook by citing age, then bring in the red herring of others in the movement. Why did you not cite other conservatives when talking of Ann Coulter?

Why have you not condemned Barrett yet? You asked for links and they were provided. IMO, TexasJack's point still stands - you utilize double standards.
 
Last edited:
DGM,
I'm sorry about your friend's wife.

You seem like a reasonable person so let me give you an analogy that I think represents the attitudes of the people who are skeptical of the alternative theories of 9/11 (particularly the notion of c.d.)
Suppose a young woman were to go to the police and tell the police that while she was at a dance club, she was assaulted by three guys who had groped and fondled her. Suppose in the police investigation five witnesses testified that they had seen exactly that. Would it be an acceptable course of action for the police to say, "I'm sorry we have only five witnesses that can verify your story and 127 other people who were in the same place at the same time who didn't see this happening to you so we choose to accept their story because the 127 who didn't see or hear anything certainly invalidates the ones who did. Go home, we are not going to investigate your complaint?"

My point is there are people who were there on that day that say without doubt that there were bombs in the building. They were there too. Should we ignore them?
 
Last edited:
Disbelief,
That's your condemnation? Pretty pathetic if you ask me. You basically let them off the hook by citing age, then bring in the red herring of others in the movement. Why did you not cite other conservatives when talking of Ann Coulter?

Why have you not condemned Barrett yet? You asked for links and they were provided. IMO, TexasJack's point still stands - you utilize double standards.
Click to expand...

I simply haven't gotten to Barrett yet. That's all. The link was a big site and I couldn't find the exact comment that was apparently so contentious. Just give me a while to read it through or better yet, give me a direct quote from Barrett. You seem pretty quick on the draw saying that I "utilize double standards" even though I said that Avery and Bermas' age doesn't excuse their behaviour and that they should apologize. What more would you expect?

Sheesh, and they call ME a conspiracy theorist.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
To elaborate dbij, I don't necessarily think belonging to the truth movement makes you a troll. Misguided or fundimentally dishonest? Oftentimes. Exhibiting a confrontational demeanor due to lack of social skills that gets justified internally by labelling everyone else "sheep?" No question. But simply belonging to the movement doesn't make you a troll.

Coming here and bringing up issues that a simple search could have shown we've discussed to death, and then getting testy when we point that out and don't give special attention to each and every one of you as though it's being brought up for the first time ever? And ignoring the parts of the answers that were asked for simply because they inconviently demolish the completely baseless fantasies you guys have let fester for so long?

And worst of all, pulling this on a skeptic's forum where the whole point is to think critically and use logic? And without even attempting to confront the issues head-on and just responding we're either sheep, shills, or "duh-bunkers" who refuse to give any credence to ANY evidence which goes against our pre-concieved beliefs in a stunning display of displacement syndrome? And have the audacity to do this when the only "evidence" you've ever had were youtube videos, out of context quotes, badly translated international news articles, and science formulas that have never once passed peer review (and yes, that includes the one Dr. Jones would love to pass off as doing so)?

Yeah, that's trollish. Do all of those apply to you specifically? No. But you earned your wings early on by comparing your fictional conspiracy with the very real problem of pedophelia. It's that sort of convoluted thinking and retarded sense of moral equivilency which makes me not only want to dismiss your movement out of hand, but spit in the face of anyone I see holding a 9/11 sign.

Also, SAN DIMAS FOOTBALL RULES!!
rock.gif
 
Last edited:
dommyboysinjapan said:
To me 'The Truth' means what really happened on that day...

... it is very clear to me (and others) that there are a lot of aspects of 9/11 that have been covered up. ...
Click to expand...
Phony junk ideas do not constitute a conspiracy. You lack facts and evidence to prove or even suspect a cover-up it is in your head and it ends there. Over 6 years, and your accusations are still false and lack a base in reality.

You have no evidence to support this. Just typical no fact truth movement rant based on what? Nothing.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
My point is there are people who were there on that day that say without doubt that there were bombs in the building. They were there too. Should we ignore them?
Click to expand...

The problem is these people were not ignored. Their stories don't all agree. You need to take the collective and justify it with the physical evidence when you deal with eyewitnesses. Rodriguez has changed his story and even refused to tell his story unless he was paid (To the loose change crew). This is not how you build credibility. I understand your point but none of these witnesses actually saw anything.

Take the ever changing story of Mr McPadden, (the countdown rescue guy). He went from hearing what sounded like a "rhythmic count" to hearing the count down from 10.

Bottom line is, can you show me an account that jives with the physical evidence but does not show obvious hidden agendas (or simple confusion)? I've yet to see one.
 
Last edited:
dommyboysinjapan said:
Disbelief,

I simply haven't gotten to Barrett yet. That's all. The link was a big site and I couldn't find the exact comment that was apparently so contentious. Just give me a while to read it through or better yet, give me a direct quote from Barrett.
Click to expand...
I disagree, as you just need to scroll down a bit and there are multile examples of Barrett's calls for executions.

dommyboysinjapan said:
You seem pretty quick on the draw saying that I "utilize double standards" even though I said that Avery and Bermas' age doesn't excuse their behaviour and that they should apologize. What more would you expect?

Sheesh, and they call ME a conspiracy theorist.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Please. You made sure that you conditionalized your "condemnation" of them by bringing up there age. You also tried to bring up others in the TM who did not do such things. Why is that? The question was specifically about AVery and Bermas, not the others. So, I would have expected you to condemn their actions, like you said you would, without attaching any strings or conditions. That is why I said you exhibited a double standard.
 
Last edited:
dommyboysinjapan said:
DGM,
I'm sorry about your friend's wife.

You seem like a reasonable person so let me give you an analogy that I think represents the attitudes of the people who are skeptical of the alternative theories of 9/11 (particularly the notion of c.d.)
Suppose a young woman were to go to the police and tell the police that while she was at a dance club, she was assaulted by three guys who had groped and fondled her. Suppose in the police investigation five witnesses testified that they had seen exactly that. Would it be an acceptable course of action for the police to say, "I'm sorry we have only five witnesses that can verify your story and 127 other people who were in the same place at the same time who didn't see this happening to you so we choose to accept their story because the 127 who didn't see or hear anything certainly invalidates the ones who did. Go home, we are not going to investigate your complaint?"

My point is there are people who were there on that day that say without doubt that there were bombs in the building. They were there too. Should we ignore them?
Click to expand...

Do you think that they might have mistaken what they thought were bombs with something that sounded and felt like bombs, like many did on that day? How many of these people have actually experienced a bomb going off in a building before? Use the search function, there were plenty of reasons of what they actually felt and heard.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
DGM,
I'm sorry about your friend's wife.

You seem like a reasonable person so let me give you an analogy that I think represents the attitudes of the people who are skeptical of the alternative theories of 9/11 (particularly the notion of c.d.)
Suppose a young woman were to go to the police and tell the police that while she was at a dance club, she was assaulted by three guys who had groped and fondled her. Suppose in the police investigation five witnesses testified that they had seen exactly that. Would it be an acceptable course of action for the police to say, "I'm sorry we have only five witnesses that can verify your story and 127 other people who were in the same place at the same time who didn't see this happening to you so we choose to accept their story because the 127 who didn't see or hear anything certainly invalidates the ones who did. Go home, we are not going to investigate your complaint?"

My point is there are people who were there on that day that say without doubt that there were bombs in the building. They were there too. Should we ignore them?
Click to expand...

DBJ, this analogy is seriously flawed. who is the girl alleging the groping in 9/11? who for that matter are the witnesses?
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
DGM,
I'm sorry about your friend's wife.

You seem like a reasonable person so let me give you an analogy that I think represents the attitudes of the people who are skeptical of the alternative theories of 9/11 (particularly the notion of c.d.)
Suppose a young woman were to go to the police and tell the police that while she was at a dance club, she was assaulted by three guys who had groped and fondled her. Suppose in the police investigation five witnesses testified that they had seen exactly that. Would it be an acceptable course of action for the police to say, "I'm sorry we have only five witnesses that can verify your story and 127 other people who were in the same place at the same time who didn't see this happening to you so we choose to accept their story because the 127 who didn't see or hear anything certainly invalidates the ones who did. Go home, we are not going to investigate your complaint?"

My point is there are people who were there on that day that say without doubt that there were bombs in the building. They were there too. Should we ignore them?
Click to expand...

This is an absurd analogy. To point out a few flaws. The families and survivours of Sept 11th aren't bystanders witnessing a crime, they are victims of the crime, and unlike a passing witness have an active desire to bring the truth to forefront.

To suggest that the family support groups and survivor support groups have been simple passive in accepting the offical story is contemptous. Family members have attended trials, commission hearings and congressional investigations. You are implying that these people aren't interested in finding the truth behind the horrendous manner of their loved ones death.

DJB, do you really think the 911 truth movement is credible in spite of barely having anything approaching single digit supporters, among family members? Don't you think these tens of thousands of people should be at the forefront of the truth movement, if there claims had any credibility? Do you think that William Rodriguez is the most significant spokesperson for "truther victims", yet he has been exposed as a lying fraud who switches his story extensively? (if you have researched 911 for as long as you claim, you would be aware of his contradictory states)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom