• 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.

What is a truther?

RedIbis said:
Of course not. There is no difference at all. People who believe that space beams brought down the towers are the same as those who are skeptical of NIST's WTC 7 report because it is not supported by any physical evidence. No difference at all. That should be obvious.
Click to expand...

Just so we're clear, Red, there's nothing wrong with being skeptical...

...but when you blatantly ignore evidence and make **** up, you've entered Truther CountryTM.
 
twinstead said:
Ah. Sarcasm. What a concept. So do we call you a skeptic and the crazy people truthers?
Click to expand...

He is not skeptic. Ignorance in the field of science and entertaining stupidity (such as Flight 93) is not skepticism.

Correct me if I am wrong, it was truthers themselves that coined the name. So why are "debunkers" responsible for it holding a negative connotation?
 
This is the definition of truther for me:

A person who believes that a conspiracy was responsible for the events on 911 that is NOT the conspiracy involving AQ and 19 Muslim men hijacking the planes.
 
twinstead said:
Fundamentally, I consider people truthers if they don't believe that 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked 4 airliners and crashed them.

I also think most LIHOP scenarios make somebody a truther too.
Click to expand...

+1

RedIbis said:
Of course not. There is no difference at all. People who believe that space beams brought down the towers are the same as those who are skeptical of NIST's WTC 7 report because it is not supported by any physical evidence. No difference at all. That should be obvious.
Click to expand...

What do you call someone who claims "Silverstein made out like a bandit on 9/11" yet fails to back it up?
 
RedIbis said:
Truther is a prejorative to conflate all skepticism toward the official story under a tidy banner that holds the skeptic responsible for any and all assertions by anyone else skeptical of the official story.
Click to expand...


The "official story" is a pejorative used to conflate all of the reports and studies done by various groups of the attacks on September 11, 2001 under a tidy banner so as to dismiss all of them categorically, rather than evaluating each on its own merits.

Furthermore, labeling is a cheap rhetorical tactic that's rejected in any reputable debate or debate forum...
Click to expand...


Indeed.
 
Last edited:
DC said:
When someone merely has some doubts and does only think a new Investigation should be done, but other than that does not favor any of the theories avaible?
Click to expand...


That would depend on what doubts they are harboring, and why they think the existing investigations aren't conclusive. If they are harboring doubts solely due to political implications, and not due to technical expertise, then yes, I would consider them a conspiracy theorist*.




* - I don't use the term "truther", personally. Although the irony is delicious, the term itself can cause confusion outside of the narrow circle of people who deal with this specific conspiracy theory.
 
RedIbis said:
Of course not. There is no difference at all. People who believe that space beams brought down the towers are the same as those who are skeptical of NIST's WTC 7 report because it is not supported by any physical evidence. No difference at all. That should be obvious.
Click to expand...

People who waffle about physical evidence, only to deny when given it, are truthers.
 
Sabretooth said:
I imagine a truther as:

- One who doesn't know how to think for themselves.
- One that will only accept items as "evidence" only if it discredits official explanations.
- One who automatically discredits evidence if they don't understand how it works.
- One who doesn't want to admit being wrong, despite glaring evidence to the contrary.


I may add some more...
Click to expand...
- They set goalposts all over the place and move them should anyone actually meet one of the goals. You have pictures of hijackers going through security? We want pictures of hijackers actually hijacking. You have computer models of collapse initiation? We want computer models of the entire collapse. You have pictures of plane parts? We want serial numbers and installation logs for every part on every plane.

No piece of evidence presented is enough, but if only you had just this one little thing it would convince me.
 
A person who denies, in an overall sense, the otherwise universally-accepted account of the attacks of 9/11, either knowingly or unknowingly, based on a combination of one or more:

- preconceptions
- outright falsehoods
- half-truths
- misrepresentations of facts

for reasons of one or more: ignorance, pleasure, profit or political gain.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
The "official story" is a pejorative used to conflate all of the reports and studies done by various groups of the attacks on September 11, 2001 under a tidy banner so as to dismiss all of them categorically, rather than evaluating each on its own merits.




Indeed.
Click to expand...

You might have a point if I've referred to a person as "Official Story" but since I haven't your post is bizarre.
 
RedIbis said:
Truther is a prejorative to conflate all skepticism toward the official story under a tidy banner that holds the skeptic responsible for any and all assertions by anyone else skeptical of the official story.

Furthermore, labeling is a cheap rhetorical tactic that's rejected in any reputable debate or debate forum, except for jref, apparently.
Click to expand...

Well, except for the problem that the "Truth" movement is the one that created the moniker. But yeah, if we just ignore that part......
 
Indeed. The word "truther" is now a pejorative because people who have been lying openly for 10 years started calling themselves "truthers".
 
A miserable little pile of secrets! But enough talk...HAVE AT YOU!!!
 
RedIbis said:
Truther is a prejorative to conflate all skepticism toward the official story under a tidy banner that holds the skeptic responsible for any and all assertions by anyone else skeptical of the official story.
Click to expand...

This is a good example of one of the defining characteristics of a truther: the inability to understand the nature of skepticism. Truthers believe that the only possible skeptical stance towards the generally accepted narrative is to examine it for inconsistencies and, having convinced themselves that these inconsistencies exist, to reject it in favour of a continuum of conjecture, every element of which would collapse when subjected to any kind of skeptical enquiry. They are unable to concede that a rational skeptical position may be that, on examination of the evidence, the conventional narrative appears largely consistent, that no alternative narrative has been suggested that approaches such a level of consistency, and that therefore the conventional narrative should be accepted pending further evidence. More succinctly, a truther is someone who takes a position of denialism over the conventional narrative of 9/11, but characterises that position incorrectly as one of skepticism.

Dave
 
I've noticed two ways that the media use the term "truther," which of course blurs the distinction between them.

The first, the sense familiar in this forum, is disputing the sequence of physical events on Sept. 11 that ended with the complete or partial destruction of several buildings and at least one airliner. I don't have to name names here.

The second refers to people who, regardless of their views on the first issue, believe that the government has not examined the right political questions regarding the events: what caused it, how it could have been prevented, whether the policies of the last 10 years have had the intended result.

Whenever I catch CNN in a waiting room somewhere I can always count on them to say something completely disgraceful. Last time it was Ray McGovern being hauled out of Hillary Clinton's speech for standing up. CNN reported, very snobbishly and dismissively, that he was a truther. As far as I can tell his "truther" activities are limited to the second sense, although he has associated with truthers in the first sense. (Politics makes strange bedfellows as always.) CNN spent about 20 seconds on that report, then spent several minutes hawking a new battlefield robot that didn't work on the set.

Maybe there are people who are OK painting political debate and make-believe games with the same brush, but I'm not one of them.
 
I don't believe in the label "Truther" personally. It is an oxymoron. The only labels I will use for them are "Twoofer", "Fantasist", "Nutter", "Wacko", etc. If you refer to them as "truthers" without putting quotations around the "truth" portion you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Truther is a prejorative to conflate all skepticism toward the official story under a tidy banner that holds the skeptic responsible for any and all assertions by anyone else skeptical of the official story.

Furthermore, labeling is a cheap rhetorical tactic that's rejected in any reputable debate or debate forum, except for jref, apparently.
Click to expand...

Aren’t truthers the people that originally came up with this term?
 
DC said:
What exactly is a truther? From when on can one be called a truther?
Click to expand...

A truther only stays inside the 911 event they do not branch out as much to other conspiracies. Truthers believe that the 911 was not done by Islamic extremist who are pissed off by the United States for support of Israel and the long term US Military in Saudi Arabia, that set the spark of AL Qaeda to attack the United States in means to set the fear of millions. but they believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by the government, in part as an excuse to increase domestic control in preparation for the NAU*North American Union* takeover, while also pillaging the lands of the middle east of oil and opium.

A little defined definition of what a truther is or at least the organization of 9/11 truth even though it is only a weasel word to begin with. Some Truthers stand on the end of Layman in the beginning not knowing much about the event, but when one assumes to hear a side they tend to look at it as an easy way to explain something and accept it without even the vagueness of what people research on the other end. A good recommended for them is to research independently without reciting sources that they know.

Of course there are those truthers who have accepted without question and ignore anyone who question their own theory because they are either shills or people who will accept anything the government wants them to hear*I laugh when I hear this*. Like all other things appeal to lack of evidence is pretty straight forward with them. There is not a good recommend for them basically because they believe their own theory and anything that discounts their own theory is evidence of the conspiracy taking place.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom