Why truthers are dangerouse!

[Justin39640]

If I believe that the Bush administration is guilty of whitewashing the 9/11 investigation, due to their fear of being found negligent before the 2004 elections(and subsequently losing from poor public perception), but I do not belive in any CD theories, am I a Twoofer?

You're a level headed truther then. IMO lol

Hardcore truthers muddy the waters between reasonable questions and insanity. Like how they try to lump themselves and their retarded theories together with firemen who have questions about mistakes made that led to the death of 343 of their brothers. (IE bad egress design, poor communications, etc, etc)

 

[ImANiceGuy]

I would say that's a reasonable position to consider. What's your evidence that it's true?

Dave

You want physical evidence? Sadly, I have none.

But how about the fact that Sibel Edmond's testimony was not included after it has, and had, repeatedly been found to be credible?

Zelikow's a good start as well....

It seems pretty obvious to me.....and I don't blame them. 9/11 was a result of the abysmal US foreign policy over the last 30 years. A serious investigation would have come to this conclusion.

 

[Justin39640]

So what?

Cause it was the same thing. My neighbors are dead due to someones agenda. You seem slightly disconnected from the reality of 911.

There is military action, but it's not a war on terror. It's an aggressive resource war and an industrial gangster enterprise.

What do you call it when you have a whole bunch military actions on terrorists at the same time? think about it...

What's bombing Pakistan achieving?

It's more effective than trying to read them their Miranda rights. The long arm of the law doesn't extend into lawless lands.

The poster known as JihadJane is a UK America hater but is too cowardly to admit it.

yeah I noticed

 

[funk de fino]

You want physical evidence? Sadly, I have none.

But how about the fact that Sibel Edmond's testimony was not included after it has, and had, repeatedly been found to be credible?

Zelikow's a good start as well....

It seems pretty obvious to me.....and I don't blame them. 9/11 was a result of the abysmal US foreign policy over the last 30 years. A serious investigation would have come to this conclusion.

You are wrong on those.

You do not need a serious investigation to see USA foreign policy sucked big dogs. We do not even need to go into Edmonds BS.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

You are wrong on those.

You do not need a serious investigation to see USA foreign policy sucked big dogs. We do not even need to go into Edmonds BS.

I could be wrong on the latter, it is my own speculation. However, those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it right?

I am not wrong on the former; Edmonds is nothing if not credible. No one of importance has ever said otherwise; in fact, those of importance invoked States' Secrets, twice. (Turkish lobby = criminal organization (OT))

Here's a great email documenting the White House's public deception...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13279711/...House-Assertions-of-Cooperation-Flatly-Untrue

 

[Dave Rogers]

You want physical evidence? Sadly, I have none.

Where on Earth do you get the idea that I wanted physical evidence?

But how about the fact that Sibel Edmond's testimony was not included after it has, and had, repeatedly been found to be credible?

Fine, present your evidence that it has repeatedly been found to be credible. And, since Sibel Edmonds wasn't involved until after 9/11, present your evidence that it's relevant.

Zelikow's a good start as well....

That's not evidence. That's innuendo. You'd have to present evidence that Zelikow took specific actions to influence the outcome of the investigation.

I'm not saying that the CYA theory has no merit; the mere fact that the Bush administration initially resisted the formation of the commission is itself somewhat suggestive. But it's possible to be truther in attitude and approach, even if your conclusions are reasonable, and both of the examples you've chosen are very trutherlike in that respect.

So, to answer your original question: It depends. If you're actually interested in finding the truth, you're not a truther. If all you want to do is present sophistry to reinforce your preformed conclusions, then you're not contributing anything useful to the debate even if your conclusions are right; which is, for most of us here, the essence of truthiness.

Dave

 

[Justin39640]

She's cute.
I'll listen to her. lol

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

 

[johnny karate]

If you're actually interested in finding the truth, you're not a truther. If all you want to do is present sophistry to reinforce your preformed conclusions, then you're not contributing anything useful to the debate even if your conclusions are right; which is, for most of us here, the essence of truthiness.

Wins thread.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Where on Earth do you get the idea that I wanted physical evidence?



Fine, present your evidence that it has repeatedly been found to be credible. And, since Sibel Edmonds wasn't involved until after 9/11, present your evidence that it's relevant.



That's not evidence. That's innuendo. You'd have to present evidence that Zelikow took specific actions to influence the outcome of the investigation.

I'm not saying that the CYA theory has no merit; the mere fact that the Bush administration initially resisted the formation of the commission is itself somewhat suggestive. But it's possible to be truther in attitude and approach, even if your conclusions are reasonable, and both of the examples you've chosen are very trutherlike in that respect.

So, to answer your original question: It depends. If you're actually interested in finding the truth, you're not a truther. If all you want to do is present sophistry to reinforce your preformed conclusions, then you're not contributing anything useful to the debate even if your conclusions are right; which is, for most of us here, the essence of truthiness.

Dave

haha, Dave, this is so ridiculous. (btw, just joking about physical evidence, obv)

Edmonds is a very credible person. In fact, the only people I have ever heard question her credibility are jref duhbunkers. Everyone else believes what she says.

Zelikow is a Bush party insider, and is a great choice for anyone looking for a favorable commission outcome(2nd behind Kissinger). This is admittedly, my own conjecture. Please see my previous link for evidence....

What does sophistry mean?

 

[Justin39640]

What does sophistry mean?

Google is your friend
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sophistry+definition

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Google is your friend
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sophistry+definition

I prefer dictionary.com, but that's just me.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Edmonds is a very credible person. In fact, the only people I have ever heard question her credibility are jref duhbunkers. Everyone else believes what she says.

Bare assertion fallacy. Please present your evidence that everyone but JREF debunkers (perhaps you'd like to reconsider the spelling if you don't want to be outed) believes what Sibel Edmonds says. Have you asked all of them?

Zelikow is a Bush party insider, and is a great choice for anyone looking for a favorable commission outcome(2nd behind Kissinger). This is admittedly, my own conjecture.

Which is not evidence. Your previous link suggests that the White House was obstructing the 9/11 Commission; has it not occurred to you that, if the 9/11 Commission were set up to whitewash the White House, then the White House would have no need to obstruct it?

Presenting mutually contradictory arguments as mutually supporting is, of course, another common truther tactic.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

If I believe that the Bush administration is guilty of whitewashing the 9/11 investigation, due to their fear of being found negligent before the 2004 elections(and subsequently losing from poor public perception), but I do not belive in any CD theories, am I a Twoofer?

are you a truther or a twoof?

That would really depend on several issues.
1. if you have any proof.
2. If when you ask questions and you recieven answers that show it was not LIHOP, but in fact was FUBAR do you continue to spew crap?
3. If you continue to spew innuendo and lies, then you are a twoof.

I fully believe that there were massive failures and screw ups. I do also believe that people covered up their mistakes and failures so as to not be blamed. (which is what the 9/11 commission report states).

If you hold to a position with no evidence other than wishful thinking and are willing to take crap 'evidence" or support the other lies of twoofs, then yes you are a twoof.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Bare assertion fallacy. Please present your evidence that everyone but JREF debunkers (perhaps you'd like to reconsider the spelling if you don't want to be outed) believes what Sibel Edmonds says. Have you asked all of them?

Well I've yet to hear anyone other than Jref'ers claim that she could be lying. However, I'm not going to post any links for your satisfaction; I know she's credible....as do the FBI agents who support her, the national whistleblowers organization, etc. Have you read anything on the subject?

1) Outted by you as a Truther?? Oh no!!! Guess what, your opinion of me means even less than the opinion of me held by people I actually know.

2) The White House whitewashed the 9/11 Commission, as demonstrated by their deception regarding their cooperation.

Around here you're either with us, or you're with the Terrorists....grow up, it's not so black and white.

 

[mudlark]

johnny karate

¨ I'm not aware anyone has explicitly conflated Truthers and those who merely question the official narrative. I'd like to see some posts quoted.¨

¨I asked you to quote posts where those who have reasonable doubts about what happened on 9/11 are being conflated with Truthers. Your screed about how mean people have been towards you is irrelevant to this request.¨

So which one is it?
Everyone has the right to question the Official narrative and draw their own conclusions on each and every detail given the evidence presented, the method in which it is presented and more importantly NOT presented.
Who gets to define the parameters of what one finds ´reasonable´?
I ´stumbled´ into this thread and will leave my opinion for what I personally deem ´reasonable´ for a separate thread.
My whole objection was to Von Brunn being lumped in with ´The Truth Movement´ which I saw as a gross generalisation.

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth
The 9/11 truth movement is dangerous for the same reasons that Al-Queada is dangerous. They both take in disaffected angry types like Mohammaed Attah, Ziad Jarrah, Richard Poplawski and James Von Brunn. Both groups fill these peoples heads with paranoid fairy tales about how powerful people are secretly plotting to get them, and how the day will come when there will be a reckoning, showdown or some manner of conflict with these dark and secret forces. Both groups them turn these people loose after their brainwashing to follow their pseudo-beliefs to their logical conclusion.

I have found quotes not too far from here that were disturbing to me and made my point exactly on the dehumanising effect of ridicule and ´pigeon-holing´.
Page after page of jokes about the police tasering and shooting Jim Duensing. They already had him tried and convicted. The worst of it was how some people felt it was okay to make the following comments because he was a ´twoofer´

¨Damn shame he lived.¨

Oh how I hate jackasses who use the "right turn only" lane to pass! I'd support the LV police if they shot him just for that.

¨It should be no problem for a Truther to be shot in the back in the front. The laws of physics just melt when they're around.

Also, they're all two-faced ..

I have NO sympathy for this D-Bag. None whatsoever

swear if some troofer ends up being a serial killer, they'll defend the person to the last, hypocritical losers that they are. Of course, if a "debunker" actually drew a weapon while fleeing from an arresting officer, I highly doubt you would see any non-troofer JREF members coming to their defense

¨Damn shame he lived.¨

¨its very dissapointing. indeed.¨

why didn't the cop aim for the head? always put one in the brain, I say.

why didn't the cop aim for the head? always put one in the brain, I say.

Head shots are more difficult. Too small a target and, in a twoofer, contains too little tissue crucial to motor function

Head shots are more difficult. Too small a target and, in a twoofer, contains too little tissue crucial to motor function.


indeed. had he been shot in the head, the 9-11 Sheeper would have most likely just kept on running for another mile or so.

hell, cut his head off, and he's still keep goin!!

Too bad that moron lived.

Screwloosechange had a piece on it too..

Jim Duensing, a 9-11 Fruitcake and former Nevada Libertarian congressional candidate attempted suicide by cop the other day..¨

Apparently he refused the cops' orders to put his hands on the vehicle and got tased as a result. He pulled the taser wires from his body and started to flee, grabbing for his gun as well. And got his sorry ass shot.

Now tell me this guy wasn´t dehumanised to the point where people felt that they could go so far with their comments?
Because of a label.
You yourself withdrew a comment. Mind sharing it?

 

[A W Smith]

you would be wrong.

Well I've yet to hear anyone other than Jref'ers claim that she could be lying.

A truther seems to think she was lying.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id4.html

 

[Hokulele]

Did you see those figures I´ve posted on the mental health issues?
Personally, it took me back.

Yes, I did read your post as well as several of the links. I have seen and heard such claims, and even worse from the wars in Vietnam and Korea. Heck, I have seen similar problems with those who served in WWII, supposedly one of the few "just wars". My comment wasn't that there aren't any issues with people who serve, but your assumption that all who serve will experience these problems and claims as to why.

Here is the post I originally responded to:

Does that line of reasoning include the poor kids shuttled off to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Militarism is a form of brainwashing whatever the goal. Dehumanise the enemy and the self. Kill, destroy, have no conscience. You are doing it for your country.
When they get back home they bring all those black memories with them. Whether consciously or subconsciously.
Suicide is rife. Alcoholism. Drug abuse. Violent bouts. Depression.
Of course there are elements out there who thrive on the paranoia and instability of a disillusioned ,confused younger generation but it is exactly the same instability that is being abused by military recruitment agencies.
The only difference is that one of these groups gets a uniform, guns and a permit to carry out barbaric acts.
Von Brunn was a nut. He didn´t NEED someone to push the wrong buttons. That button was already half-clicked.
What IS dangerous is the mass pigeon-holing of anybody who doubts the Official Story. tarring those people and Von Brunn with the same brush.
What should people do? Keep their heads down and stay quiet?
Not gonna happen. I thought Communism was on its last legs.

Your post made it sound as if any seviceperson, regardless of branch of service or type, is "brainwashed" and will come back with serious mental health issues. Just as you are protesting the conflating of all CTists into a single mentality, I protest your inflating of numbers and lumping all volunteers together.

You may want to compare the numbers of service people with these sorts of conditions with those in similar professions.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

A truther seems to think she was lying.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id4.html

Wrong. This particular truther dislikes Edmonds' testimony because it does nothing to concretely prove 9/11 is an inside job...(?) She is about as clear as mud.

Anyway, my assertion that Edmonds is highly credible still stands.

 

[TexasJack]

Wrong. This particular truther dislikes Edmonds' testimony because it does nothing to concretely prove 9/11 is an inside job...(?) She is about as clear as mud.

Anyway, my assertion that Edmonds is highly credible still stands.

Yet you won't provide evdience of this. What a worthless statement.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

It's not worthless at all. It's pretty common knowledge to anyone who has researched Sibel Edmonds' story....

JREF is the only place where she is slandered.