What About The Jersey Girls??

Scientologist said:
Oh yes, what about the Jersey girls who sat around and watched internet conspiracy videos and started "asking questions."

Just because the Jersey Girls are gullible retards like yourself doesn't make 9/11 a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

WOW!!! Seems victims families get as much respect around here as they do from the LC people at Ground Zero. Now I know you're smart enough to realize that without the efforts of the Jersey Girls and other families there may have never been a 9/11 Commission.

Plus answer me this...... who said anything about the Jersey Girls making 9/11 a conspiracy?? There are good questions rasied by the Jersey Girls and victims families but maybe that's too much for you to grasp since name calling seems to be your thing *******!!

Do not use 'alternative' spelling to get around the auto-censor. Also, please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and be polite and civil.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T.A.M. said:
This is a copy of my 1,000th post on JREF. It is a review on the film (brief) and some thoughts on it and the "truth" movement as a whole...


9/11 - Press for the Truth
-------------------------
I just finished watching this documentary. It is a 9/11 film that follows the pathes of the "Jersey Girls" as well as "independent researcher" Paul Thompson.

This film has been touted by almost all of the "9/11 Truth" movement as the "undebunkable" documentary for them, and that it is the ultimate film to represent their stance. Well if that is the case, than all I can say is that 90% of the people who claim to be a part of that "9/11 Truth" movement, are lying. Why do I say this. Not because the film is "debunkable", it maybe, but I do not have all the knowledge to debunk it myself. No, the reason I say they are lying is very simple. 90% of the people who we encounter at the various CT websites, the "Scholars" the "LTW Followers" the "Truth Trolls" push enormous amounts of conjecture, heresay, speculation, and downright wrong "evidence" that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the points made in this film. So any "truther" who says that this film is the best representation of what they "are about" is likely lying.

This movie does not, IN ANY WAY, make mention of, debate over, or even recognize, arguments concerning the "Controlled Demolition" or the "Missile into the Pentagon" or the "No Hijackers", or any of the hundreds of "Truth" conjectures/theories about 9/11. If you are about to watch the film expecting to find ANY of this in it, do not waste your time.

This film, I believe, is one of the more honest films, in terms of what really needs to be asked about 9/11. It begs questions on what role did "Pakistan" play in 9/11 funding. I do not claim to know, but I think that the american people are entitled to a well researched answer. It asks the questions concerning "What did the USG know about an impending attack on the US prior to 9/11" and I believe this is a question that should be answered. I believe, to a large degree, it has...if you know where to look for the info.

What this film does not do, is it does not implicate the USG in an "inside job", it does not say "Bush did it" it does not go into PNAC or any of the rediculous things we have been forced to debunk to keep the air clear in cyberspace.

I am still a full fledged debunker, don't get me wrong. I still believe the towers were brought down by Al-Qaeda Hijackers, in cohorts with OBL. I believe the Pentagon was hit by AA77, and I believe in the heroic efforts of the passengers of flight 93. What this film has done for me, is made me realize that the loons of the "truth" movement have distracted many of us from realizing that a part of their "movement" are legitimate people, with legitimate questions for their government. Now if the vast majority of their questions have been answered through the Commission report and all the other information out there, than fine, but if the victim families of the 9/11 attacks feel that the vast majority of their questions have gone unanswered, to their satisfaction, than I say they have a right to the answers.

My final thoughts are for those people that seek the "Truth" about 9/11, those that seek the "Real Truth". For those people I would say, clean your house. Get rid of all the useless junk scientists, the loony tunes, the wingnuts. Get rid of all the silly "theories" of "No Planes" and "Thermite", and "Cruise Missiles". Get rid of the LC lunatics. This, I know, would be a courageous thing to do, as the "Truth" movement owes alot of its publicity to their cockamame tall tales. Trust me though, in the end, if your cause is to win the hearts and minds of the american people, and reasonable people worldwide, you will have to keep the "Truth" house in order, and right now it is in such disarray, that it will only fade further, and further, until the world forgets there were even questions that have not been answered.

TAM
Click to expand...


I just like to state for the record that this film does add some support what I believe. Foreknowledge with no action. I in no way say this film supports the views of LC cause it doesn't. Then again I don't support the views of LC cause you see I believe 19 hijackers and Bin-Laden were involved.
 
Does anyone question why it took Bush 441 days after 9/11 to appoint the Commission to investigate?
Click to expand...

I think if you're over 10 years old you have -- or should have -- come to grips with the fact that government in general and the US government in particular is a huge, ponderous, dull-witted coagulation of MERE HUMANS who are where they are because they either mistakenly believe they were born to rule, or mistakenly believe they can correct the mistakes of those who believe they are born to rule.

Just turn on your radio and listen to the campaign ads for *any* candidate. Without exception, they glorify themselves and demonize their opponent(s). "Jim Bob Snickelfritz supports murdering innocent puppies with chainsaws. Joe Bob Cornholer says, 'not on my watch!'. This message paid for by Concerned Citizens for Joe Bob Cornholer."

My view is that the people most qualified for the job(s) very rarely aspire to government positions, because they realize the game is far too stupid and unproductive to merit their effort. They instead contribute to improving humanity through their artistic endeavors, their scientific advances, their technological innovations, their altruistic charity, their entrepreneurial acumen, and so on.

I am not a crook.

We did not (repeat, did not) trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never.

Something about going to Washington turns people into idiots. There is anecdotal and circumstantial evidence to suggest George W. Bush wasn't really an idiot before he became President.

I'm not a slobbering fan of JFK, but I can't think of a US president since JFK who wouldn't have either died of terminal nervous flatulence or else been forcibly committed to the Betty Ford clinic if he'd had to deal with the Cuban missile crisis, hot on the heals of the disasterous Bay of Pigs fiasco.

The bottom line is that the government's strongest suit is deflecting and redirecting criticism, dodging responsibility, and denying failure, incompetence, and what my grandmother used to call "Olive Drab Government Issue Dumbassedness."

After the "shoe bomber" was caught, we had government employees in airports checking the shoes of 8 year old Honkey McHonkersons with x-ray machines and bomb-sniffing dogs. If that's not the picture of failing to see both the forest and the trees, I don't know what is.

I'm sick to death of the 9/11 CTers, because their entire premise is that they wanted to go to war in Iraq --- FOR WHICH THEY WOULD EVIDENTLY NEED THE APPROVAL OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC --- so in order to gain that support they schemed a way to murder 3000-ish innocent American citizens, an act for which they presumably sought no public support.

Screw the hell out of these retards.*** They pissed me off at first, then I came to laugh at them, now they're just tedious. Bleh.






*** Don't get your little pink thong in a bunch. A "retard" can be mentally, physically, spiritually, socially, musically, and culturally retarded. Phooey upon you.
 
Edited by Darat: 
Content in breach of Membership Agreement removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Usual:

Dont be so hasty.

People take a while to warm up around here, but all that I have met are good people with good intentions. Stick around. While I am not LIHOP, I am LIHOI (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence) so at least on some level, we can relate.

TAM
 
Usual Suspect said:
Plus answer me this...... who said anything about the Jersey Girls making 9/11 a conspiracy?? There are good questions rasied by the Jersey Girls and victims families but maybe that's too much for you to grasp since name calling seems to be your thing *******!!
Click to expand...


Well, in the documentary one of the "Jersey Girls" claims there was no military response to 9/11. This is a common CT claim. It is also 100% false.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Well, in the documentary one of the "Jersey Girls" claims there was no military response to 9/11. This is a common CT claim. It is also 100% false.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Yeah 4 fighter jets to protect the whole northeastern United States. Though you are right and there was a response, 4 jets is laughable and they saved so many lives.

Anyway I've seen people here complain that CTs have no respect for the victims or their families but I've seen just as much respect shown here.
 
Usual Suspect said:
Yeah 4 fighter jets to protect the whole northeastern United States. Though you are right and there was a response, 4 jets is laughable and they saved so many lives.
Click to expand...


You can thank the administrations of the 90's for that. In the late 80's there were hundreds of fighters on alert protecting the CONUS. By 9/11 it was down to 14. They were there to protect the US from a Russian air attack. That threat was no longer considered likely.

In any event, had you done research into NORAD's response you would know they could not have stopped the attacks, even with 1,000 fighters on standby.

The attack succeeded because Americans enjoy a free society. It is as simple as that.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Regardless of what caused or allowed 9/11 to happen, regardless of which admins did what, the underlying truth is 9/11 happened on Bush and his admin's watch. They could have done everything in their power to prevent an attack, and they would still be prime targets of a blame-fest. That's the nature of politics.

As such, while I think their attempts to avoid such potential blame are shameful, I also believe they are totally understandable. And certainly do not require a sophisticated conspiracy as explanation. Simple fear of being blamed for letting the attacks happen is plenty enough.

I doubt any US President in recent years felt the weight of the job's responsibility as much as Bush did on 9/12. It is natural to think "Did we miss something?" And when you're talking about a machine as enormous as a nation of 280 million people, yes, you did miss something. No matter how vigilant you might have been, you missed something.

(Not to say they *were* particularly vigilant, but even if they were, I'd expect a similar reaction to the commission).

-Andrew
Click to expand...

What??? If the administration did everything in their power to prevent an attack, you think 9/11 would still have occured?
 
Dave1001 said:
What??? If the administration did everything in their power to prevent an attack, you think 9/11 would still have occured?
Click to expand...


Yes. Because the consequences of a free society are the government doesn't have the power to prevent such an attack.

Freedom and security a diametrically opposed. The eternal quest of civilisation is to seek a good balance between them.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Yes. Because the consequences of a free society are the government doesn't have the power to prevent such an attack.

Freedom and security a diametrically opposed. The eternal quest of civilisation is to seek a good balance between them.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

And i guess this is what the us-government is doing right now. Finding the balance. No NWO in terms of Big Brother at all...
 
In any event, had you done research into NORAD's response you would know they could not have stopped the attacks, even with 1,000 fighters on standby.
Click to expand...

Research? We don't need no stinkin' research!
 
Oliver said:
And i guess this is what the us-government is doing right now. Finding the balance. No NWO in terms of Big Brother at all...
Click to expand...


Like a pendulum, you go too far in one direction and you will swing back too far the other way.

Personally, I am undecided if the current US admin stuff is "too far" or not. I don't live in the US, so I have no first hand knowledge with it. Seems to me there's three options that are likely:

1) The current steps are reasonable, but seem extreme to a population used to a situation that was too liberal.
2) The current steps are too far the other way, and things need to be relaxed a little, though not as far as previously.
3) The previous scenario was balanced, and things should return to that way.

-Gumboot
 
Childlike Empress said:
Hey gummi, welcome back (from Uzbekistan? ;)). Do you notice that the US falled back behind the "habeas corpus act" of 1679 last week?
Click to expand...

You think that's bad, you should read what President Lincoln did concerning habeas corpus during the American Civil War.
 
Got a link?

Beside that, i like to think that evolution contains an element of progress so that a regress in human achievements of the kind that happens today in the US counts a lot more than things that happened centuries ago.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, if i understand the link and the context correctly, your remark was a joke? (sorry, my native language isn't english). Anyhow, a civil war is a completely different situation than a "war" against a hyped terrorist network and the implications of the current situation are damned serious.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Hmm, if i understand the link and the context correctly, your remark was a joke? (sorry, my native language isn't english). Anyhow, a civil war is a completely different situation than a "war" against a hyped terrorist network and the implications of the current situation are damned serious.
Click to expand...

It's only different if you want to deny that historically, civil liberties have been curtailed during times of crises, and then restored later. I don't know if you know much about the American Civil War, but if you think it wasn't 'serious' then perhaps you should do some research.

Also, the 'home front' in America during WWII was a deeply paranoid place with 'agents' and spies in every corner. Civil liberties were secondary to the war effort.

I'll take a pinch of historical perspective and a little knowledge of American history over what you bring to the table, with all due respect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom