most truthers are not liars, which implies deliberate telling of untruths. It´s like going around calling Catholics liars, because they believe in the virgin birth.
ZEITGEIST, The Movie
- Thread starter brettDbass
- Start date
most truthers are not liars, which implies deliberate telling of untruths. It´s like going around calling Catholics liars, because they believe in the virgin birth.
Sorry Beachnut, I've only just come across the information below. You carry on calling anyone you like 'a liar', it's obvious you have earned the right!
1. Electrical and Computer Engineer, BSEE
2. Electrical Engineer, MSEE
3. Air Force Pilot (UPT T-37, T-38)
4. Airline Transport Pilot rating type B-707 B-720
5. KC-135A/Q Pilot/Aircraft Commander/Instructor
6. USAF retired (28 years)
1. Electrical and Computer Engineer, BSEE
2. Electrical Engineer, MSEE
3. Air Force Pilot (UPT T-37, T-38)
4. Airline Transport Pilot rating type B-707 B-720
5. KC-135A/Q Pilot/Aircraft Commander/Instructor
6. USAF retired (28 years)
well, yes. As far as I´m concerned, everyone accept me is a liar. What colour are my socks? Wrong! You are a liar. Etc.
Liar is a word overused in this forum, and should be replaced by "uninformed" or some other word. Mostly.
"I despise that repugnant twoofer who hates da Joos" should be a phrase never ever used again, apart from in this particular post, which is merely illustrating a point.
I'd agree that its a term in need of sparing use.
In order to call many truthers liars, we have to assume that not only are they aware of the facts, but that they accept the facts as truth and still wish to claim them to be false.
If they genuinely believe that something is untrustworthy, then they are not lieing by disregarding it or denying it. They might be uninformed (as you suggest), misinformed, labouring under false pretences, downright crazy, or any other number of things....but to be a liar they need to be deliberately trying to deceive.
When I watched the LC vs PM debate, what struck me most about it was how often one of the LC guys (Jason?) kept on (ab)using this term.
To be honest, being called a liar should be a weapon in the arsenal of the skeptic, because it allows you to once-again show that the allegations being made are purely assumptive in nature.
For a skeptic to be levelling these charges against a 'truther' suggests that they not only believe that the 'truther' secretly believes in the official account or at least accepts the evidence they claim is suspect, but (being a skeptic, and thus basing their position on evidence) can show that the alleged liar in question understands and accepts the truth of whatever topic is at hand.
Viper Daimao
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 496
See post 298 (strawman) and 310 (speculation).
Ultramedia
Student
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2007
- Messages
- 27
Bottom line, Ultra, I take you LESS seriously than the 15-year olds that usually spew the nonsense you are. You're not an intellectual, you're a narcissist... and not a very good one. No wonder you have such a low opinion of debunkers... all you spout is bunk. You've brought nothing new to the table, only the same garbage we see here every day... except a little more long-winded.
-The Pimple
I apologise for my inexperience in the art of Narcissism, perhaps I can learn something from you about it's finer point's. So far I have learned you are the type that if you don't like the reflection they see in the mirror,,
you blame the mirror.
Long winded? perhaps.
Gawd why are ALL these places so set in protocols where you can't speak extemporaneously on anything without the peanut gallery telling you you're not understanding this or that or not logical. The old flame standby when you have nothing substantive to say you imply immaturity and refer to the 15 year old analogy.
I wonder to myself just who it is you think YOU are??
The alternative?
LOL To me this a sugarcoated way of saying you're stupid in soft language and deserves the same reprisal regarding civility I got for being even less combative. Double standards exist where a biased authority rules. This place is no different I see.
Me,, I speak my mind and when I am in a formal debate Ill stick to the rules set as they are established at the beginning. Since this thread was asking opinions about a movie on the Internet, I gave mine. If you don't agree, believe me I can live with that.
I have been around the world three times and have seen many things and many places. Places that have been written about with such distortion I have become skeptical about much I see on the Internet.
I see the same patterns of engagement at truthers sites where Jrefers are treated with disdain, rudeness and generally disrespected. I don't like the way they get treated there anymore then when truthers are treated with similar sarcasm and rudeness here.
Both seem to have a more strict enforcement on civility to those who are biased towards the other.
Most in either case from either side of the issue have read much of the same things and believe what they want to believe. They disregard the rest if I may borrow the Simon and Garfunkle lyric.
When I made my first post I just gave a broad overview of what I had seen. To suggest that it was 100% wrong or words to that effect is to tell me I haven't seen it or that I haven't lived half a century. I have I can assure you and I haven't been cloistered away in some closet.
If you want to call me stupid,, just say so. I got a pretty damn thick skin. I agree with most of the opinions given in this forum and have read many threads debunking many people, things, and theories.
When I was in active duty, back then SEAL teams were called UDT (under water demolition Team) I know a lot has changed since then. When 911 hit the TV News as I was watching it live, It looked very very familiar to me. I called many of my old buddies I had been in the service with and they ALL concurred many of them saying HOLY **** that was the first thing that came to mind!. Having experience with fire science and demolition, I like to read people's thoughts on the NIST theory.
This one article I found is in harmony with many of the same concerns I have.
three w's. opednews.com/articles/gen...ef_of_nist.htm
Sorry for the link, it appears I havn't passed yet another qualification that would have helped when so many ask for proof here. Then you wonder why things get long winded. Or should I just copy paste that entire article. Nothing like a forum that demads substantiation from people making claims, then putting handcuffs on them when it comes to a links. I guess Ill have been totally indoctrinated to the terms of forum rules by 15 posts? Or is it just to weed out the flakes?
Your thoughts?
Ultra
PS: "The Pimple" lol I got to admit, I got a kick out a that one.
Last edited:
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
Hey no problem. Don't get me wrong, I'd still drink a beer with you.
If you don't like it, Ultra you know where the door is...
One could say that those who whine about the rules are just as bad.
The rules for the CT subforum were tightened because of all of the insults and name calling that began to get out of control here a few months ago. Since then, for the most part (believe it or not) things have been more civil.
You have to remember the JREF Forum is a large forum, open to the GENERAL Public, including people under 18. It is also part of the JREF site, which is a site belonging to the James Randi Educational Foundation. It is not just some guys web forum, where if he tolerates it, anything goes.
Now we are all human, and the occasional rant, or sputtering is usually tolerated, but you can't expect not to live by the rules of the forum.
I can rant with the best of them, I can cuss, I can ad hom, I can insult...trust me, but what is the point. Insulting others usually accomplishes nothing. You feel good until the person you insulted insults you back, then you get angry again, and spin off another glob of vitriol...and so on. Anyone watching, I doubt, would be impressed, and actually would react in just the opposite way, finding the door and not returning.
So bitch and whine all you want about the forum rules, like I said, it is your right, but break the rules, and people will report you, and are encouraged to do so.
TAM
One could say that those who whine about the rules are just as bad.
The rules for the CT subforum were tightened because of all of the insults and name calling that began to get out of control here a few months ago. Since then, for the most part (believe it or not) things have been more civil.
You have to remember the JREF Forum is a large forum, open to the GENERAL Public, including people under 18. It is also part of the JREF site, which is a site belonging to the James Randi Educational Foundation. It is not just some guys web forum, where if he tolerates it, anything goes.
Now we are all human, and the occasional rant, or sputtering is usually tolerated, but you can't expect not to live by the rules of the forum.
I can rant with the best of them, I can cuss, I can ad hom, I can insult...trust me, but what is the point. Insulting others usually accomplishes nothing. You feel good until the person you insulted insults you back, then you get angry again, and spin off another glob of vitriol...and so on. Anyone watching, I doubt, would be impressed, and actually would react in just the opposite way, finding the door and not returning.
So bitch and whine all you want about the forum rules, like I said, it is your right, but break the rules, and people will report you, and are encouraged to do so.
TAM
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
By the time you've made 15 posts here you're likely at least trying to make some kind of debate. If they let everyone post right off the bat, do you have any idea how many people who consider us "the enemy" would come in and post links to "their position" which were actually gay porn or viruses?
Not that either would contain any less evidence than the link they were claiming to be providing.
I gather "strawman" is some form of analogy for a flimsy argument is it? And what may I ask then, is it that I am arguing at this point, VD? I thought I was asking a fairly simple question, albeit laced with a bit of my own opinion! As for the speculation charge, isn't that like giving out speeding-tickets at the Indy 500? What are we here for , if not to speculate? I don't want to get off on the wrong foot with you here Viper, I only criticized your logic because it was the nearest post to the comments box.And because it was faulty!
Last edited:
truthers and those who support them, and irony
You have failed to make a conclusion, you did make a veiled attempt at saying 9/11 WTC looked like your demolition in the seals. You are wrong. Why veil your true thoughts?
As for the article and then at the end the pitiful advertisement for http://patriotsquestion911.com/ . The biggest collection of weak willed phonies on 9/11. Join them, be one of them, relish the lack of facts and enjoy being on of the few, one of the 9/11 truthers who make up stuff about 9/11 and disrespect those who were heroes on 9/11. It is all self critiquing.
I do not think you understood the article, it has nothing to do with 9/11 truth, and actually does not support 9/11 truth ideas. The article becomes more ironic when you find out this information was public on October 2005! Funny stuff, truthers and those who support them.
I find truther very disrespectful when you think about the event, then the lies they make up. If you think liars deserve to be treated with respect, you are making a mistake. You may lack the ability on your around the world trips to research and make rational judgments on what is factual and what are lies. 9/11 truth lacks the facts. You can be as nice as you want to liars, I think it may be reflective of your judgment and rational thinking.
You have failed to make a conclusion, you did make a veiled attempt at saying 9/11 WTC looked like your demolition in the seals. You are wrong. Why veil your true thoughts?
As for the article and then at the end the pitiful advertisement for http://patriotsquestion911.com/ . The biggest collection of weak willed phonies on 9/11. Join them, be one of them, relish the lack of facts and enjoy being on of the few, one of the 9/11 truthers who make up stuff about 9/11 and disrespect those who were heroes on 9/11. It is all self critiquing.
I do not think you understood the article, it has nothing to do with 9/11 truth, and actually does not support 9/11 truth ideas. The article becomes more ironic when you find out this information was public on October 2005! Funny stuff, truthers and those who support them.
Wrong, truther are liars because they have no facts. Liar covers a lot of ground
liar - a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly prevaricator
beguiler, cheater, deceiver, trickster, slicker, cheat - someone who leads you to believe something that is not true
false witness, perjurer - a person who deliberately gives false testimony
fabricator, fibber, storyteller - someone who tells lies
Truther are not ---
square shooter, straight arrow, straight shooter - a frank and honest person
This is not religion, it is a fact based discussion of 9/11 and the truth movement has no facts; they are full of false information; they fit the definition of Liar. Sorry, not everyone can be right, but truthers are not like Catholics, they are not like telling the true. Please prove me wrong by presenting some facts to go along with some of the top 9/11 truth ideas.
Why not start with the beam weapon, or mini nukes, or CD. Just pick one area and show me why the 9/11 truth movement is not a pack of liars.
Thermite? Oh, thermate? No planes? Bad pilots? No pilots? Terrorist did not die? Come on show me how honest the truth movement is.
(I assume everyone did their own research and the statements they make have been backed with facts! Therefore, since all truthers are not dumb as dirt, they have to be telling lies since smart humans can see the ideas of 9/11 truth are all false, not based on facts. I assume all people are very smart and rational humans, therefore 9/11 truthers are telling lies on purpose since they know the real truth about 9/11. Catch22, you can be a liar by being a smart human, only in 9/11 truth)
Noun1.
beguiler, cheater, deceiver, trickster, slicker, cheat - someone who leads you to believe something that is not true
false witness, perjurer - a person who deliberately gives false testimony
fabricator, fibber, storyteller - someone who tells lies
Truther are not ---
square shooter, straight arrow, straight shooter - a frank and honest person
This is not religion, it is a fact based discussion of 9/11 and the truth movement has no facts; they are full of false information; they fit the definition of Liar. Sorry, not everyone can be right, but truthers are not like Catholics, they are not like telling the true. Please prove me wrong by presenting some facts to go along with some of the top 9/11 truth ideas.
Why not start with the beam weapon, or mini nukes, or CD. Just pick one area and show me why the 9/11 truth movement is not a pack of liars.
Thermite? Oh, thermate? No planes? Bad pilots? No pilots? Terrorist did not die? Come on show me how honest the truth movement is.
(I assume everyone did their own research and the statements they make have been backed with facts! Therefore, since all truthers are not dumb as dirt, they have to be telling lies since smart humans can see the ideas of 9/11 truth are all false, not based on facts. I assume all people are very smart and rational humans, therefore 9/11 truthers are telling lies on purpose since they know the real truth about 9/11. Catch22, you can be a liar by being a smart human, only in 9/11 truth)
Last edited:
Out of natural curiosity, and to get a better feel of your 'mindset', can you tell me exactly how many 'competent professionals in the relevant fields' would you need to hear relating similar views to "the ANTI-OFFICIAL" party-line, before you would consider changing your minds on the subject of 9/11? Now form an orderly queue, or you won't get seen to!
bring on the experts
The 9/11 truth movement is made up of false ideas. Your "competent professional" armed with 9/11 truth's lies will be rendered complete idiots. You must be confused to think there is wiggle room in the big picture.
Last edited:
Ultramedia
Student
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2007
- Messages
- 27
Hey JACK! I don't give a rats ass WHAT YOU THINK! Furthermore I don't appreciate the innuendo or your mind reading tricks. As you can see I speak it raw and don't "veil" a damn thing.
You are just like every other vulture in here trying to make a name for himself by using the same old soft language I was talking about in my post. So weak is that so veiled is that it makes you silly to listen to. You have such a stereotyped fixed opinion on what you call truthers that anyone coming within smelling distance of it, you feel like you got to assault them with your staggering intellect and superior truth.
IF I knew what the truth was I wouldn't BE HERE ! I'm not the one telling anyone "how it went down" and NO BODY ELSE KNOWS EITHER! THATS WHY THEY CALL IT THEORY ! The fact that I know from experience a seal team of a dozen could have set those towers up to fall that way inside of two weeks bomb sniffing dogs and all means just that. I don't think that's what happened and I certainly would have NO problem saying it if I did. GOT IT?
I don't seek the approval of the jrefs in general and least of all someone with the obvious issues you have with anyone who's thought and opinions aren't in line with your thinking. ( if that's what you call it.) . You got me all figured out eh?
Then you tell me to go back to them?
to tell em what?
THAT THEY ARE ALL LIARS?
I don't even KNOW WHO THEM IS BUT YOU APPARENTLY KNOW ALL OF THEM AND ALL OF THEM ARE LIARS.
Pal Ya lost me right there.
Just for my own indulgence Ill add this,,
The only difference between you and them is that you both believe in different theories. If they happened to find out in the future that YOUR theory or Nist was entirely wrong. YOU STILL WOULDN'T BE A LIAR FOR THE SAME REASON THOSE I KNOW WHO I AM CERTAIN HAVE NEVER MET YOU WOULD NOT BE!
You want to be so presumptuous about who or what I am saying and we haven't been introduced yet. Now I won't give you the access to what would have been a better then average chance to an open mind.
Thanks for the heads up.
I hate wasting time on prejudice morons and know it all
If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black.
Pffft Grow up and don't give me any of that monosyllabic diatribe about civility. Especially when you are twice as transparent that Veil you are talking about twice as repugnant for your prejudice and HOW DARE YOU say I have no compassion for the victims of 911! If you think I am being insensitive mocking those deaths then shame on you for saying so. Just more mind reading or was that a preconceived notion you have?
I know a personal attack when I am getting one no matter how you want to mask it. Unlike you,, Ill use a more IN YOUR FACE response.
You got it coming .
Ultra
ultra - calm down and show some facts to support 9/11 truthers
bomb sniffing dogs, thermite, call it what you want, you have fallen into the vat of kool-aid and lost your truth glasses
smart people can figure out 9/11, those who are in the truth movement say they are smart, are they then liars? (some people are easy to fool and not good at research, we can let the dirt dumb members claim ignorance)
lol, are you a truther? You sure act like one.
show me a fact, or just face it, the 9/11 truth movement has no facts to support their ideas - a list of facts please
I doubt a seal team could do it, they would not do it (they took an oath, did you forget it). Unless you are saying seal teams would kill Americans for some idiot ideas. You are making up stuff like the 9/11 truth movement does. You have missed the point, no wonder why you support the member of 9/11 truth who also make up stuff, out of the blue.
You are the one making excuses for the fact less minority of 9/11 truth; you are the one who is supporting 9/11 truth my lending them respectability. You are the one who has not researched 9/11 to figure out there is zero truth in 9/11 truth. You are the one making excuses for liars, and fools who make up stuff about 9/11. I think it is sad, and you think you are on some crusade.
I am not wrong about 9/11 truth, and you have no facts to help them prove any points they have. Thank you
bomb sniffing dogs, thermite, call it what you want, you have fallen into the vat of kool-aid and lost your truth glasses
smart people can figure out 9/11, those who are in the truth movement say they are smart, are they then liars? (some people are easy to fool and not good at research, we can let the dirt dumb members claim ignorance)
lol, are you a truther? You sure act like one.
show me a fact, or just face it, the 9/11 truth movement has no facts to support their ideas - a list of facts please
I doubt a seal team could do it, they would not do it (they took an oath, did you forget it). Unless you are saying seal teams would kill Americans for some idiot ideas. You are making up stuff like the 9/11 truth movement does. You have missed the point, no wonder why you support the member of 9/11 truth who also make up stuff, out of the blue.
You are the one making excuses for the fact less minority of 9/11 truth; you are the one who is supporting 9/11 truth my lending them respectability. You are the one who has not researched 9/11 to figure out there is zero truth in 9/11 truth. You are the one making excuses for liars, and fools who make up stuff about 9/11. I think it is sad, and you think you are on some crusade.
I am not wrong about 9/11 truth, and you have no facts to help them prove any points they have. Thank you
Last edited:
being new to this.
I just saw Zeitgeist The Movie and fell for it hook line and sinker, then I came across this web site, snice I know about James Randi (I think he's great) I want to know something. I had read a VERY long link that debunked the whole LOSE CHANGE thing, ok, I belive It's B*__s_iT, but are you people saying (it seems almost as a point of pride) that conspiricy does not happen? like when they killed Abe Lincon? or the goverments "WAR ON TERROR"? Can someone help me out with this?
I just saw Zeitgeist The Movie and fell for it hook line and sinker, then I came across this web site, snice I know about James Randi (I think he's great) I want to know something. I had read a VERY long link that debunked the whole LOSE CHANGE thing, ok, I belive It's B*__s_iT, but are you people saying (it seems almost as a point of pride) that conspiricy does not happen? like when they killed Abe Lincon? or the goverments "WAR ON TERROR"? Can someone help me out with this?
Last edited: