Why truthers are dangerouse!

[Baylor]

Muslims were the same enough in the minds of enough US Americans to have enabled the US to invade Iraq with no effective US internal political opposition. The delusion still seems potent enough to allow a large number to support the prospect of killing of yet more Muslims in Iran.

JihadJane ripping a page from the Sylvia Brown playbook and playing the psychic card. Boring. Try a little harder. We are JREFers you know.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Can anyone decipher this post? My Crazy-to-English translator is on the fritz.

i think it boils down to "i know you are but what am i?"

 

[TruthersLie]

A good indicator of the "accuracy of your information would be your statement that "51% of the US public chose Bush in 2000". Even those who accept the fraud in Florida and legitimize the presidency of Bush would acknowledge the FACT that Gore won the overall popular vote. You are just another blowhard who spews disinfo with wreckless abandon and hopes that nobody notices....We all notice champy...

Really? I love da twoof... Yes gore won the popular vote.. who won the electorial college again? Oh bush. doh. I could have put 49%... did I really have to spell it out in EXACT %'s? I guess for you I might have had to.

Another example would be "Ask a muslim who did 911 they will tell you UBL & AQ"...Amazing bla bla bla.....LOL...So we are to believe that you who apparently claim to live in some US/British enclave in the middle east have a grasp on the pulse of the "muslim" public opinion

I love ignorant twoofies. No widdle twoofie. I don't live in an enclave, or a "compound." I rent a villa mixed in the middle of the neighborhood. I have a mosque right next door where I hear call to prayer 5x a day. I regularly visit with my next door neighbors who are muslims (2 are from iran, one is an emirati (rather poor because he lives in our neighborhood), and 2 lebanese... and those are just 5 of the 8 villas around ours.

Try again, and this time try to look beyond your little racist views.

.....LOL.... Cite a credible public opinion poll taken of the muslim world in general instead of just expecting everyone to accept your word as truth because you registered on the JREF as one who lives in the UAE....

Sure thing. Does Al Jazeeria count? I have all of the video taped confessions of the hijackers on al jazeeria. And I could put up other videos in arabic which they state Al Q did it. Or you can do 5 minutes of REAL research and find them yourself.

As far as reading a book or two...Maybe you should try reading a few books yourself.

Please provide ANY which support ANY twoof claim. You know with facts, figures and evidence. So far, the vast majority of them are filled with crap (look at any of the DRG "books," and if they are the boylen (sp) "books" they aren't worth toilet paper... racist antisemite rantings with NO support. tsk tsk tsk.

You really should take a research methods class. I'd offer to let you register to take ours, but it is full.

Your commentary suggests one of a person who gets all his worldviews from FOX, CNN and the like..

massive swing and a massive miss. Thank you for playing though. Generally my news source is the BBC, Skynews, and Al Jazeeria.

(I sure haven't seen any deviation in your opinions re 911 from what has been puked out by those two or any other network hacks) .And your debunking style is right out of the Davin Colburn Ben Chertoff Popular Mechanics debunkers handbook for beginners. There is not an original thought rattling around in that orb atop your shoulders...

tsk tsk tsk... really? You got flagged a few posts back... wanna try again? The funny part is that when you do the REAL RESEARCH you start with a hypothesis, then examine the data. If the data doesn't work with the hypothesis, you refine the hypothesis. You don't start with a predone conclusion and try to make the data fit that conclusion. It is bad science.

Nothing you have posted leads me to believe that YOU have any "ideas, experience or understanding of:

1. military operations

YOu might just be surprised

2. Controlled Demolitions

Most definately surprised

3. Anything else related to 9/11.

Ah, but twoof I do have several things which I do know. Beyond military operations and controlled demolitions (having experience with both), I have fantastic reading comprehension skills, and outstanding research skills. That is all you really need to get to the bottom of 9/11.

still waiting for your evidence.

Again, you are just a typical parrot for the official Bush-Cheney narrative of 911. (which has been proven false on hundreds of points) Your views can be heard 24-7 on any AM talk show. Thanks

blah blah blah. Yes... we know... you are a member of the truth movement, why won't I believe that you are telling the truth? After all you call yourself a 9/11 truther.. not a 9/11 LIAR.

Try again

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12

. This time with facts, evidence and support.

 

[stateofgrace]

Chris Bollyn and myself are PRO AMERICAN....Those that you defend are traitors to this country and have disdain for the US Constitution. You are a very confused little man....My condolences...I think Cheney is moving his whole Haliburton operation over your way after bilking the US taxpayers out of 100s of billions in fraudulant no bid contracts...That's the type of "Americans" you support & defend. Theiving Chickenhawk scum..I say they are traitors!! Enjoy your life over there as we don't need any more like you over here...Good riddance to you and Dick!!

And here it is, an almost perfect post that answers the OP, the reason why truthers are dangerous.

Thank you for answering with near perfection jmh423, maybe next time you post you could inject a touch more venom and rage to drive it home and get a perfect ten out of ten.

 

[TruthersLie]

I don't care if anyone salutes and realize that you are trying to derail. "TruthersLie" was talking about "a False Flag operation". I wonder if he will read the link and acknowledge that his rant was based entirely on a false premise. Will you?

Oh no, I read the link.

and it was hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.

a one man Head of black Ops who ran 9/11.

You are still missing the many hundreds if not thousands of other people who would HAVE to be involved (even in cells).

You miss out on the HOW to REMOTE CONTROL the aircraft (which is a major flaw in that original premise, which cannot be done with somethign like a walkie talkie/cell phone)

Since the premise is flawed and completely hilarious as sarcams, it doesn't apply.

Again, nice to see you have a sense of humor. Now pay particular attention to the list of all the people who would have to be involved (particluarly for the newest twoof fad of "nanothermite")

 

[TruthersLie]

Without controlled demolitions (fine by me):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89351

ah yes... again showing why twoofs are dangerous. Lack of critical reading comprehension skills. If you pay attention to that intellectual exercise, you will find a half dozen reasons it won't work handed to him almost immediately. And they are never countered except with a handwave of "new technology" or the "they have magic" defense.

try again.

With demolitions: (also fine by me):

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

Number of operatives unspecified.

In this scenero you are still in the MINIMUM of HUNDREDS of people with inside information. Yet not one has ever squealed. It is rather amazing, but when you listen to twoofs, that number of "shills" and "agents" rises rather dramatically doesn't it?

Muslims were the same enough in the minds of enough US Americans to have enabled the US to invade Iraq with no effective US internal political opposition. The delusion still seems potent enough to allow a large number to support the prospect of killing of yet more Muslims in Iran.

As opposed to killing more muslims in Iran for their nuclear ambitions, and the desire to create nuclear weapons?

you should know they are vastly different issues... but then again, maybe not to you.

Why do you use the terms "rag head" and jooooos"? Do you get a vicarious thrill from your faux racism?

Since I was originally answering a neonazi antisemite, I needed to be "frothing at the mouth" enough to get my point across. Apparently I did.

Faux racism? Not at all. It is called sarcasm, you should look it up.

The only people I've ever seen say anything about the "JOOOOOOSSSS" having dunnit have been over-excited people like yourself.

Really? Then you must not ever look at the majority of the truther ideas... I mean according to the truth movement (which you are a fringe part of) 40,000 jews stayed home on 9/11, There were dancing Israelis, a van full of israelis, a mural of a jet hitting a building, and Mossad agents picked up.

Can't forget the USS liberty, nor all of the other jew connections... I really do think you may want to check out your own movement to see all of the really antisemitic ideas bandied about. Just go to any 9/11 youtube video and don't worry, the twoof racism will show up.

 

[TruthersLie]

Chris Bollyn and myself are PRO AMERICAN....Those that you defend are traitors to this country and have disdain for the US Constitution. You are a very confused little man....My condolences...I think Cheney is moving his whole Haliburton operation over your way after bilking the US taxpayers out of 100s of billions in fraudulant no bid contracts...That's the type of "Americans" you support & defend. Theiving Chickenhawk scum..I say they are traitors!! Enjoy your life over there as we don't need any more like you over here...Good riddance to you and Dick!!

Again twoof. Lack of reading for comprehension skills. Tsk tsk tsk.

I am the one who lives in the UAE (you know, dubai-haliburton, etc), not Funk.

No sir, you are an antisemite bigot. Just like Bollyn.

 

[johnny karate]

Missed this lovely bit of idiocy earlier:

Without controlled demolitions (fine by me):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89351

Yeah, that's the same ridiculous thing Childlike Empress foolishly tried to pass off as as some kind of legitimate "inside job" scenario. The two of you seem to share a willingness to overlook its lack of detail or support by real-world science and technology.

But hey, when you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to dishonestly twist something into supporting your pathetic argument, you've got to take what you can get, right?

With demolitions: (also fine by me):

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

Number of operatives unspecified.

Equally stupid, if for different reasons.

Let's take a look a the section that explains the demolition of the WTC buildings:

The demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building 7 are accomplished through the detonation of high-explosive charges inconspicuously installed in all three buildings' elevator shafts, and, in the case of Building 7, small cutter charges placed adjacent perimeter columns near the building's base.

The number of explosive charges used in the Twin Towers is far less than would be employed in conventional demolitions of such large buildings, but their aggregate explosive energy is much greater. Each charge is contained in a capsule weighing about 40 pounds and encased in an impact- and fire-resistant casing similar to the casings that shield aircraft black boxes.

Each demolition charge has a detonator that goes off when it detects a radio signal that matches its unique code. Each charge is assigned to the nearest of a score of radio repeater clusters also hidden in the elevator shafts. During each tower's demolition sequence, a radio in Building 7 sends signals for the various explosive charges in rapid succession through the repeater clusters, forming a 2-level hub-and-spoke network. Software on the demolition-controlling computer allows the technicians to make last-minute changes to the programmed demolition sequences, such as to account for the positions at which the aircraft struck.

The high-explosive charges resemble conventional thermobaric devices, in which an initial charge disperses an explosive aerosol without detonating it, and a second charge ignites the aerosol, producing a strong blast wave. The delay between the dispersal and detonating charges is about five seconds, allowing the aerosol to traverse the distance between the elevator shafts and perimeter walls before being detonated. The explosive is designed to have almost no flash.

That's it.

That's the entire explanation.

No details. No specifics. Just an assertion that it wouldn't take many people to do as proof that it wouldn't take many people to do.

And for bonus points we get this:

While the attack is engineered by a core of only a dozen people, vast numbers of people facilitate the attack and cover-up, for the most part unknowingly, by simply doing what they normally do in their positions: promote and protect their agencies and the status quo. The public at large participates in the cover-up by failing to question the attack and instead believing the relatively comforting myth of bin Laden.

Again, an unsupported bare assertion fallacy with a healthy dollop of "the whole world is full of idiots and cowards" thrown in for good measure.

How anyone can offer such unadulterated nonsense as a plausible scenario for an inside job and still possess the requisite skills to operate a computer keyboard is beyond me.

 

[johnny karate]

And it should be noted that JihadJane is the proud owner of an astounding case of cognitive dissonance:

Without controlled demolitions (fine by me):

...

With demolitions: (also fine by me)

Reminds me of the scene in Rainman where a doctor asks Raymond the cost of various items, including a candy bar and an automobile, only to be told each time: "About a hundred dollars".

 

[tsig]

Can anyone decipher this post? My Crazy-to-English translator is on the fritz.

i think he means that someone somewhere disagrees with him.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You are still missing the many hundreds if not thousands of other people who would HAVE to be involved (even in cells).

Am I? How so?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Yeah, that's the same ridiculous thing Childlike Empress foolishly tried to pass off as as some kind of legitimate "inside job" scenario. The two of you seem to share a willingness to overlook its lack of detail or support by real-world science and technology.

lol.

 

[johnny karate]

Stunning rebuttal.

 

[Baylor]

Childlike Empress, do you think George Bush tried to pass of a controlled demolition as a fire induced progressive collapse in downtown Manhattan? And even if you don't, do you think it is a plausible, real-world scenario?

 

[TruthersLie]

Am I? How so?

This so.

For any of the claims of an inside job, there are at least several hundred people MINIMUM required.

Now that you are making the claims, it would help if you first laid out a coherent narrative of the events of 9/11 (which no twoof ever does... why is that? Oh because you are pulling crap out of your ass).

So first off, you tell me what your theory is, and then I'll tell you how many folks would HAVE to be involved (either completely or partially).

But the list is in the hundreds (if not thousands) when you actually look at it critically.

So when you provide a narrative which explains the events, we can go over how many people would be involved in it. (not so many if LIHOP, a LOT more if MIHOP)

 

[funk de fino]

Truthers aren't dangerous.

Nope, they are not.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”

Time to buy some high-powered, heavy barreled rifles.

“To support and defend the constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”

I guess it’s time to start Defending and supporting. They’ve made it impossible to appeal or change anything.

“for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction..”

Well, there has been quite alot of action from their side of the table, I think our side has been building for quite a while now. Time for a reaction? Near.

No siree, nothing to see here.

 

[JihadJane]

ah yes... again showing why twoofs are dangerous. Lack of critical reading comprehension skills. If you pay attention to that intellectual exercise, you will find a half dozen reasons it won't work handed to him almost immediately. And they are never countered except with a handwave of "new technology" or the "they have magic" defense.

try again.

Try again what? You asked for a citation. I gave you one. Turn off your automatic pilot, calm down and think a new thought!

In this scenero you are still in the MINIMUM of HUNDREDS of people with inside information. Yet not one has ever squealed. It is rather amazing, but when you listen to twoofs, that number of "shills" and "agents" rises rather dramatically doesn't it?

I suggest you study how covert operations work rather than blathering on about "twoofs" like a nine year old (apologies if you are nine, in which case, don't give up on your writing yet. You've got potential).

As opposed to killing more muslims in Iran for their nuclear ambitions, and the desire to create nuclear weapons?

you should know they are vastly different issues... but then again, maybe not to you.

Did you learn nothing from the last round of lying war propaganda?

Since when was desiring or creating nuclear weapons (your unproven hypothesis) a capital offense? Would you support the bombing the USA or Israel, for example?

Since I was originally answering a neonazi antisemite, I needed to be "frothing at the mouth" enough to get my point across. Apparently I did.

Faux racism? Not at all. It is called sarcasm, you should look it up.

Your careless wielding of "antisemite" as a playground insult merely serves to dilute the word's power. The same goes for your accusation of "neonazi".

Faux racism describes exactly what you are doing. Faux racism is sarcastic by definition. Do you get a thrill from writing those naughty words?

Really? Then you must not ever look at the majority of the truther ideas... I mean according to the truth movement (which you are a fringe part of) 40,000 jews stayed home on 9/11, There were dancing Israelis, a van full of israelis, a mural of a jet hitting a building, and Mossad agents picked up.

Can't forget the USS liberty, nor all of the other jew connections... I really do think you may want to check out your own movement to see all of the really antisemitic ideas bandied about. Just go to any 9/11 youtube video and don't worry, the twoof racism will show up.

You were talking about "JOOOOOOSSSS", remember, not jews.

Your dependence on seeing everything through the "movement" is very telling. Is that the limit of your boy-gang thinking? Portraying even suspicions of Israeli involvement in the attacks as "the jooooooos dunnit" shows how far beyond rational analysis into propagandistic bilge you have sunk.

 

[JihadJane]

And here it is, an almost perfect post that answers the OP, the reason why truthers are dangerous.

Thank you for answering with near perfection jmh423, maybe next time you post you could inject a touch more venom and rage to drive it home and get a perfect ten out of ten.

Weird idea of what constitutes danger!

 

[Par]

Right, so you initially gave it large about logic and now, despite much bluffing and evasion,... you’ve been caught out...

Wrong [I didn't bluff/evade]... I've never once claimed to know anything about formal logic... No, I haven't been "caught out".

What a weird little salad of lies. It’s all there in black and white for everyone to see. Everyone’s already seen it. Who could you be possibly hoping to fool – yourself?

So what is the connection betweeen your formal logic and the logic of the OP and other "Ooh look a Killer Truther! That proves Truthers are killers" logicians?

I see. You get caught blagging, then you get caught lying, and now – without as much as an acknowledgement of either – you want to forget all that and start again like nothing's happened. Well, I bet you do! In light of your seemingly effortless detachment from truth and honesty, what earthly benefit do you think I should see in continuing a normal discussion with you – let alone providing you with free logic tuition?

Do whatever you like, though your moralistic stance could be interpreted a way of avoiding answering a question I have asked you several times.

So my "moralistic stance" (i.e. my aversion to unapologetic liars) could be interpreted as a way of avoiding answering questions from – and thereby avoiding legitimising and providing free logic tuition to – an unapologetic liar. Well, yes, I suppose it jolly well could!

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Your careless wielding of "antisemite" as a playground insult merely serves to dilute the word's power. The same goes for your accusation of "neonazi".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xjbqgWkEXs

Sieg Heil JJ!