The reason for countering 9/11 conspiracy numpties

[JihadJane]

@ eeyore1954 and TjW

Why does your offensive cod psychology only apply to the beliefs of people who don't believe the official account?

 

[Tippit]

Actually, you won't find very many of them supporting truther lies. I'd love to see your stinking group left in a room with all the relatives of those who died. I'd love to see you try and tell them what you think happened. You'd be lucky to get out alive.

Bananaman.

And does the fact that mobs can lynch people make what you're saying any more true? Does that change the fact that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are sponsored by intelligence agencies? Just because you're really, really angry at Al Qaeda doesn't mean you're right, it just means you're incredulous towards other possibilities.

 

[johnny karate]

What is the relevance of the size of the list to my comment?

It's certainly relevant to this statement:

Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account.

Demonstrably proving it a falsehood and you a liar.

 

[T.A.M.]

Bananaman:

I know where you are coming from. The comments from the truthers in this thread alone kind of proves the very points you were making. Appeal to emotion, hiding behind the untouchables, are tactics used by the truth movement ad nauseum, and used here in this thread.

It is like Joe Biden said about McCain and Palin (paraphrasing),

"When you have no worthy argument on the issues, what do you do? You attack the man."

Similarly, the truthers have no valid arguments on the issues of 9/11, so now they simply attack the debunkers.

TAM

 

[johnny karate]

Does that change the fact that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are sponsored by intelligence agencies? Just because you're really, really angry at Al Qaeda doesn't mean you're right, it just means you're incredulous towards other possibilities.

Our incredulity is rooted in the fact that Truthers can't be bothered to come up with a cohesive narrative to be constructively scrutinized, as your statement above demonstrates. You say Al Qaeda is sponsored by intelligent agencies. Other Truthers say they had nothing to do with 9/11, or don't even exist. If your movement wasn't so scattershot in their claims and methodology, perhaps you would garner something other than contempt and ridicule.

 

[Spud1k]

Here is a list of 48 9/11 family members who signed a statement demanding a deeper investigation into the events of 911, who you claim are pissing on their loved one's graves and who you want to punch and spit on:

(snip)

Some people think that some aspects of 9/11 warrant further investigation. They may have a point in some instances. That doesn't mean that they all subscribe to the truther line (i.e. the government and not AQ should be blamed), so hiding behind them doesn't really defend that viewpoint.

 

[Tippit]

Our incredulity is rooted in the fact that Truthers can't be bothered to come up with a cohesive narrative to be constructively scrutinized, as your statement above demonstrates. You say Al Qaeda is sponsored by intelligent agencies. Other Truthers say they had nothing to do with 9/11, or don't even exist. If your movement wasn't so scattershot in their claims and methodology, perhaps you would garner something other than contempt and ridicule.

I neither have the ability to construct, nor do I need, a "cohesive narrative" for you to "constructively scrutinize". That would amount to pure speculation. I need merely to distrust the government and media enough to disbelieve their fables, and the official story. The idea that I need to believe the official fairytale or construct some elaborate speculation to please you or others is a false dilemma.

The fact that opinions about what happened on 9/11 are so diverse reflects the failure to know with certainty what happened on 9/11 (excluding those of you who support the official story, who know everything). When you say it's "my" movement, I have to correct you. I don't own it, no one does, or has a legitimate claim to. The fact that anyone who would question what happened on 9/11 will receive contempt and ridicule has to do with the fact that 2,974 people died that day, and that made a lot of people including me very angry. Angry people are often irrational, and questioning what happened in the face of a monolithic media storyline means that some who were characterized as heroes may not be, and that some who were characterized as villains may not be. These are more reasons for people to be angry.

None of this has anything to do with the truth of what actually happened, and as for that I'm pretty sure I will never know exactly.

 

[TC329]

I shouldn't want to punch the nincompoops, but I do.

So why do I still wish sense to be bashed into their silly heads?

Quite simply because they're pissing on the graves of those who died.

if a loved one of mine was on flight 93 and i lived hundreds or thousands of miles away i would pray that there was someone like me out there tracking down witnesses and gathering their accounts so that i could see them [in full]. if those accounts prove the government was lying to me well then i would feel a lot like the native americans i suppose...........

 

[TC329]

Some people think that some aspects of 9/11 warrant further investigation. They may have a point in some instances. That doesn't mean that they all subscribe to the truther line (i.e. the government and not AQ should be blamed), so hiding behind them doesn't really defend that viewpoint.

the "truther line" is the government is covering up evidence. that evidence would implicate members of the united states, pakistan, saudi arabia, & israeli governments.

i bet those family members agree with that statement whole heartedly.

 

[Architect]

I am a sceptic. I demand proof before reaching a conclusion.

Based upon what I know of tall building design and construction, the NIST findings are logical and well supported. This is, however, a complex field and I note inter alia that there has been discussion of some aspects of the collapse mechanism from sources such as Ove Arup and, of course, learned Universities. This has focussed on the role of fire and creep in the collapse. It has been well reported in technical journals, and considered by the wider construction community.

I have not seen anything from the 911 Truth Movement which provides a similar depth of evidence and analysis. Until that day, I see no reason to change my view and nor would I expect any other person familiar with the case to do likewise. If members of aforementioned Movement can provide such compelling evidence then please do so, noting that your predecessors have wholly failed to respond to this task.

In the meantime, I do not consider the mildly pejorative term "numpties" to be misapplied, indeed I am minded of the similarly Scottish phrase "doited" in respect of some of the posters we unfortunately encounter.

 

[CptColumbo]

I'm surprised to see a keen practitioner of the scientific method writing such rubbish and using pathetic baby language. Name these "many factions".

I have seen people in the military chain of command accused of complicity but that is very different from your collective " the Military".

Your tactics are shameful and dishonest.

I was trying to be respectful to you, but I see now that you are only interested in insulting me. I expect you to point out what was dishonest in that post or apologize.

The many factions include the no-planers (including the missile impacters and the fly by guiding another plane in), the mousad did it, the hijackers were arab but backed by the US and so on.

 

[Architect]

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose?

 

[gc051360]

I argue with truthers, in a similar way I used to argue with my little brother when we were kids.

He'd insist that he could beat me an arm wrestling. I'd say "Well, let's arm wrestle" he'd respond with "Nope. I'd beat you too bad".....and that would start about a 10 minute long argument.

I knew he couldn't beat me at arm wrestling. He knew he couldn't beat me at arm wrestling. But, for some reason...I'd engage in that argument.

Something about someone refusing to acknowledge reality, gets to me.

eta: And every truther argument follows the same pattern.

They start off with very bold assertions, that they never back up. They eventually back off of them a bit, and instead choose to grandstand on "Don't believe everything the government says!" type stuff. And then, by the next week...they are back to making the bold assertions. Which they will then back off of, and then grandstand. It's a circle. Why do I engage in it? I'm easily annoyed.

 

[JihadJane]

Bananaman:

I know where you are coming from. The comments from the truthers in this thread alone kind of proves the very points you were making. Appeal to emotion, hiding behind the untouchables, are tactics used by the truth movement ad nauseum, and used here in this thread.TAM

The "disrespecting families" charge, popular with the fire and brimstone wing of the debunker church, is one of the crudest 'appeals to emotion' known to man- and womankind. If I understand the next phrase correctly it is also "hiding behind the untouchables". Or does it only count when the other side do it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jihadjane, in real terms that list isn't very long, and further most of them would laugh at the fantasies of the truth movement.

Live with it.

Bananaman.

I can also count.

What is the source of your knowledge of what possibly 50,000** 911 family members think and feel about people who question the truth of the government's account? Do most them really mostly consider it “pissing on their loved ones” graves? If it were a relative of mine who had been murdered I'd be very keen to know who did it and why. Perhaps I'm just projecting, though, and they all feel as violent as you do.

Are you quite sure that you are not also projecting your own feelings onto Family Members and accidentally exploiting them in the process?

The “pissing on the graves of those who died” ruse appropriates the tragic status and suffering of 911 family members and is a highly manipulative, dishonest 'appeal to emotion'. It is a risky trick, though, because many family members inevitably fall into the wrong category and the "appeal to emotion" bounces straight back onto the ruser.

**jhunter1163’s gestimate, above.


--------------------------------------------------

What is the relevance of the size of the list to my comment?

It's certainly relevant to this statement:

Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account.

Demonstrably proving it a falsehood and you a liar.

The size of list I reproduced says nothing about how many family members are skeptical of the government's 911 account. Many families members of 911 victims are skeptical. Live with it, as Bananaman would say!

I’d be interested to see you demonstrate, too, how you, like Bananaman, have achieved your apparently intimate knowledge of the thoughts and feelings of so many people. Have they been studied?

I ask you use the word liar" more carefully in the future.

 

[Architect]

Something about someone refusing to acknowledge reality, gets to me

I have a natural tendancy to support the underdog. I'm no fan of the Bush administration or the American right. If there were a reason to believe that they had orchestrated or even carried out 9/11 then I'd be right up there. But there isn't, and I'm not.

I argue with them because such stupidity annoys me.

 

[johnny karate]

I neither have the ability to construct, nor do I need, a "cohesive narrative" for you to "constructively scrutinize". That would amount to pure speculation.

And it also provides you with the rather convenient position of not having to actually defend a point of view, or be consistent within that point of view.

I need merely to distrust the government and media enough to disbelieve their fables, and the official story. The idea that I need to believe the official fairytale or construct some elaborate speculation to please you or others is a false dilemma.

I provided you with no dilemma, false or otherwise. I merely made a statement of fact. Truthers often contradict themselves and each other. It makes you sound like idiots and frauds. That's why, for the most part, you are not taken seriously.

The fact that opinions about what happened on 9/11 are so diverse reflects the failure to know with certainty what happened on 9/11 (excluding those of you who support the official story, who know everything).

Opinions aren't diverse. The overwhelming majority of people seem quite content with the version of events corroborated by the evidence you deny exists. The Truth Movements inability to rally any kind of significant support in the public or the media bears this out.

The fact that anyone who would question what happened on 9/11 will receive contempt and ridicule has to do with the fact that 2,974 people died that day, and that made a lot of people including me very angry. Angry people are often irrational, and questioning what happened in the face of a monolithic media storyline means that some who were characterized as heroes may not be, and that some who were characterized as villains may not be. These are more reasons for people to be angry.

And exactly where are all these angry people? If the official version is such an obvious media-concocted sham, why can't Truthers ever seem to get a group larger than 100 or so together to protest? Why is there such a struggle to launch a new investigation? Why isn't there a single professional investigator or law enforcement official anywhere on the planet that has been able to discern and/or reveal the shocking truth behind 9/11 Truthers like yourself pretend is so blatantly obvious?

You use a vague term like "a lot of people" to make it seem as if somehow you have a consensus (that's your cue to whip out that tired, old Scripps poll), and yet Truthers fail again and again to have any significant real world impact.

Why do you suppose that is?

 

[johnny karate]

The size of list I reproduced says nothing about how many family members are skeptical of the government's 911 account. Many families members of 911 victims are skeptical.

You provided that list as proof of your claim. It was demonstrated that said proof woefully lacked the ability to back up your claim. If you have additional evidence, feel free to submit it anytime.

You continually make the following declarative statement:

Many families members of 911 victims are skeptical.

and as of yet provided absolutely no evidence to back it up. A list of less than 50 names out of thousands in no way constitutes "many". Either support your statement with evidence, retract it, or live with the fact that making an unsubstantiated claim paints you as dishonest.

I’d be interested to see you demonstrate, too, how you, like Bananaman, have achieved your apparently intimate knowledge of the thoughts and feelings of so many people. Have they been studied?

I'm not the one making statements like this:

Many families members of 911 victims are skeptical.

and am therefore not the one that needs to explain how I have intimate knowledge of what these people are thinking or feeling. Your claim, your burden.

I ask you use the word liar" more carefully in the future.

I use it very carefully, and I stand by my use of it in this situation. You made a claim. You so far have failed to support that claim. Until you do so, that makes your claim a lie and you a liar.

 

[T.A.M.]

I neither have the ability to construct, nor do I need, a "cohesive narrative" for you to "constructively scrutinize". That would amount to pure speculation. I need merely to distrust the government and media enough to disbelieve their fables, and the official story. The idea that I need to believe the official fairytale or construct some elaborate speculation to please you or others is a false dilemma.

You are right, so long as you keep any horrible accusations of mass murder to yourself. However, when you, or anyone else, crosses that line, then you damn well better have another plausible, and evidence backed theory, or you can expect the type of treatment many truthers get from this site, and no doubt from the public at large.

The fact that opinions about what happened on 9/11 are so diverse reflects the failure to know with certainty what happened on 9/11 (excluding those of you who support the official story, who know everything).

No the opinions are diverse due to overactive imaginations, and an ignorance to the facts. I suppose we could add Unicorns and leprachauns to the list of possible theories too, making it even more diverse, but no more realistic or based in fact.

When you say it's "my" movement, I have to correct you. I don't own it, no one does, or has a legitimate claim to. The fact that anyone who would question what happened on 9/11 will receive contempt and ridicule has to do with the fact that 2,974 people died that day, and that made a lot of people including me very angry. Angry people are often irrational, and questioning what happened in the face of a monolithic media storyline means that some who were characterized as heroes may not be, and that some who were characterized as villains may not be. These are more reasons for people to be angry.

There is nothing wrong with being angry about 9/11. There is nothing wrong with being angry at your government, intelligence agencies, etc...

There is SOMETHING DEFINITELY wrong with accusing people, in that govt, and in those agencies, with complicity to mass murder, without any form of hard evidence...not even much if any soft evidence.

None of this has anything to do with the truth of what actually happened, and as for that I'm pretty sure I will never know exactly.

As far as every detail is concerned, you are probably right, but I am willing to bet good money that 100, 200 years from now, the essentials of the narrative of 9/11 WILL NOT have changed.

TAM

 

[JihadJane]

I'm surprised to see a keen practitioner of the scientific method writing such rubbish and using pathetic baby language. Name these "many factions".

I have seen people in the military chain of command accused of complicity but that is very different from your collective " the Military".

Your tactics are shameful and dishonest.

I was trying to be respectful to you, but I see now that you are only interested in insulting me. I expect you to point out what was dishonest in that post or apologize.

The many factions include the no-planers (including the missile impacters and the fly by guiding another plane in), the mousad did it, the hijackers were arab but backed by the US and so on.

I have noticed that you try to be respectful to me and I appreciate it. I apologise for not expressing my outrage in less personalised way.

I find the word "twoofer" offensive, as it is intended to be, and disrespectful. Using such demeaning baby language is a form of crude, playground bullying, normally abandoned with emotional maturity. I find it hard to take anyone who attempts to reinforce their argument by pretending to have a speech impediment seriously.

I also find the tactic of equating 911 Truth with blaming the police, first responders and people in the military to be as offensive as the "pissing on graves" tactic employed in the OP. I found your language deceptive, as I attempted to explain. "The Military" summons an image of many people. Only a very small minority 911 skeptcs, if any at all, blame ordinary men and women in the military for the alleged actions of those in the chain of command or of covert operatives. As far as I'm aware not even "no-planers" do this.

I do not wish to get into a "many" debate like the one that was manufactured earlier to avoid answering my questions, but it is hard to match "many factions" with your list. Perhaps you are simply mistaken rather than being dishonest, in which case I apologise for misunderstanding. If not then I have to say that I do find misrepresentation by an "appeal to emotion", as I saw it, to be shameful and dishonest.

I saw (don't always believe your eyes!) two emotionally manipulative messages today(I paraphrase):

"How could you piss on the graves of the dead?"

Then:

"How could you blame those who put their lives on the line to serve others of being complcit in murdering us?"

In essence both the questions say something like:

"You are so morally corrupt that nothing you say is even worth considering."

or, even shorter:

"Scum!"


How is pointing at Mossad or "speculating the hijackers were arab but backed by the US" translated into "accusing the Military [see above- JJ], FDNY and NYPD of being a part of the supposed plot", especially the latter two groups?

 

[JihadJane]

You provided that list as proof of your claim.

No, I didn't. I posted it to give names to some of the faceless people Bananaman says she/he wants to hurt and humiliate in the name of the dead, in the name of the people on the list I pasted.

I wrote:

Here is a list of 48 9/11 family members who signed a statement demanding a deeper investigation into the events of 911, who you claim are pissing on their loved one's graves and who you want to punch and spit on"

(Note my emphasis!)

... in response to Bananaman's:

Actually, you won't find very many of them supporting truther lies. I'd love to see your stinking group left in a room with all the relatives of those who died. I'd love to see you try and tell them what you think happened. You'd be lucky to get out alive.

... which was a response to my:

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.