| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
 Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: Truthers; the Real Sheeple. |
 |
|
Truthers often refer to those who accept the official/obivious explanation for events of 9/11 as 'sheeple'. Consider the following video. Shepherd Alex Jones (who warrants an aide to hold an umbrella over his exalted fat head), his collie running the perimeter and a fl ock* of truthers doing what Alex Jones wants.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrgZ4_CABio
Baaaaaaaaa
* The site swear detector has filtered out the word for a group of sheep.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear oh dear A#, this really is some weak-ass schitola you're peddling lately.
It's almost as if you are expecting some individuals who visit this site to feel 'responsible' for the actions of some individuals far, far away because they too don't believe the US Government's story about what happened on 9/11.
Haven't you got some myths about 19 hijackers and how three skyscrapers being disassembled down to the very last floor happens absolutely naturally to be propagating, or something?
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not at all Chek, my target audience are the fence sitters. I've said that before. Whether or not card carrying truthers feel 'responsible' for the behaviour of card carrying truthers across the pond is less important but I'm happy if a truther recognises something in that behaviour that makes them consider their position.
How far far away is London? In another weak-ass schitola post I pointed out the WACUK attack* on an old man. Applauded by truthers on this site.
* More of an 'attack' than a contrary internet post that qualifies as an 'attack' in truther world.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthernSoul
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Grimsby
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | three skyscrapers being disassembled down to the very last floor happens absolutely naturally to be propagating, or something? |
Naturally? You missed the part about the jet liners huh?
_________________
NorthernSoul
Super Secret NWO Agent
Lt in charge of FEMA Death Camp Delta 2
Call 0800 310 310 to find out where there is an NWO recruitment center near you! Join Today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NorthernSoul wrote: | | chek wrote: | | three skyscrapers being disassembled down to the very last floor happens absolutely naturally to be propagating, or something? |
Naturally? You missed the part about the jet liners huh? |
Not at all. The airliners destroyed five floors apiece.
It's the 90+ or 70+ others (depending on the building) - especially those floors nearer ground level - that bother me.
And of course Building 7 was never hit by a plane, or anything else that could have caused simultaneous symmetric failure.
But then maybe you're one of those 'engineers' like A#M who finds nothing remarkable about total and absolute multiple collapses, and like Ringo Starr sang in another context 'are certain it happens all the time'.
They're just not known to mankind.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | Not at all. The airliners destroyed five floors apiece.
It's the 90+ or 70+ others (depending on the building) - especially those floors nearer ground level - that bother me.
And of course Building 7 was never hit by a plane, or anything else that could have caused simultaneous symmetric failure.
But then maybe you're one of those 'engineers' like A#M who finds nothing remarkable about total and absolute multiple collapses, and like Ringo Starr sang in another context 'are certain it happens all the time'.
They're just not known to mankind. |
That's all very well, but where is the paper that disproves Bazant's analysis? Where is the clamour from the scientific community disputing the NIST report?
All there is is sniping from non-experts who can't even collate their facts into a viable critical form.
You're also being disingenuous here - you know full well that nobody finds the twin tower collapses 'unremarkable', so why suggest otherwise? There is no dispute that the collapses are without precedent, but this does not necessarily mean that they were CD - to make such a direct connection is illogical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | chek wrote: | Not at all. The airliners destroyed five floors apiece.
It's the 90+ or 70+ others (depending on the building) - especially those floors nearer ground level - that bother me.
And of course Building 7 was never hit by a plane, or anything else that could have caused simultaneous symmetric failure.
But then maybe you're one of those 'engineers' like A#M who finds nothing remarkable about total and absolute multiple collapses, and like Ringo Starr sang in another context 'are certain it happens all the time'.
They're just not known to mankind. |
That's all very well, but where is the paper that disproves Bazant's analysis? Where is the clamour from the scientific community disputing the NIST report? |
You are aware that Bazant's analysis was prepared within 48 hours?
Which may or may not indicate several things, with lack of peer review being the most obvious. As for the scientific community (whatever that is - does it have an address that you can write to?) there are some scientists not at all happy with the conveniently circumscribed investigation into the New Pearl Harbour. Just in case you were trying to give the impression dissent doesn't exist.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-Simul taneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilit yofControlledDemolitionHypothesisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemi stryWTC.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initi ation_impossible.pdf
| Alex_V wrote: | All there is is sniping from non-experts who can't even collate their facts into a viable critical form.
You're also being disingenuous here - you know full well that nobody finds the twin tower collapses 'unremarkable', so why suggest otherwise? |
Because all I seem to notice in this neck of the woods is effort after effort to play down what happened and overtly promote acceptance of the OCT.
| Alex_V wrote: | | There is no dispute that the collapses are without precedent, but this does not necessarily mean that they were CD - to make such a direct connection is illogical. |
On the available Official Evidence, we would never know because NIST unilaterally and conveniently decided that the causes and process of total destruction was outside their remit. To decide that initiation of collapse was sufficient, without taking the unprecedented nature of all three collapses into account, is negligent if not criminally negligent.
Luckily others have not been so easily fobbed off and the campaign to correct that continues to grow.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | You are aware that Bazant's analysis was prepared within 48 hours? Which may or may not indicate several things, with lack of peer review being the most obvious. |
That does not mean that it is erroneous. Bazant has released subsequent papers with a more considered view of his initial appraisal.
As I'm sure you're aware, Bazant's initial paper, revised since, and (apparently) checked and endorsed by other professionals, has appeared in many different journals, and has to my knowledge not been disproved. It has been criticised I agree, but not disproved. I think it's very important to stress that. There is a very clear challenge to scientists who disagree with its findings - you must disprove its hypothesis!
I agree with you that there are criticisms, most notably from Gordon Ross. I welcome any attempt to pursue Ross's criticisms within the scientific community - none seems to have been forthcoming so far. Are you suggesting Bazant's paper is wrong because it has been criticised on a website?
| Quote: | On the available Official Evidence, we would never know because NIST unilaterally and conveniently decided that the causes and process of total destruction was outside their remit. To decide that initiation of collapse was sufficient without taking the unprecedented nature of the collapse into account is negligent if not criminally negligent.
Luckily others have not been so easily fobbed off and the campaign to correct that continues to grow. |
Your opinion is your own, but I think NIST have been consistent and very clear on why their investigation centred on collapse initiation. Personally I don't think negligence comes into it - should they have vastly expanded their report for no obvious benefit because somebody published some criticism of Bazant on an obscure website?
Of course if NIST had expanded their report to cover the collapse, perhaps along the lines of Bazant, would you be satisfied? Of course not - you are claiming criminal negligence on principle, not for any provable reason. You think that it is a cover-up, so anything NIST didn't do is part of the cover-up. A ludicrous approach imo.
Do not fool yourself about the state of play. NIST published a report on collapse initiation, and Bazant and Seffen have published hypotheses on the collapse itself. They have been criticised left, right and centre on conspiracy websites, but there is no formal challenge to any of the three's basic findings. While that is the case, the truth movement have no right to make any superior claims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | How far far away is London? In another weak-ass schitola post I pointed out the WACUK attack* on an old man. Applauded by truthers on this site. |
By "attack" I take it you mean asking questions? Well let me "attack" you:
How old would Hitler have had to get before he was absolved of all crimes?
Your sole argument for attacking WACUK on this is that Dearlove is "old" as though there is some cut off point where someone committing war crimes is just fine and dandy.
And before you say "alleged war criminal blah blah blah" - NO. Not alleged - the crime was carried out on live TV for the world to see. The only way the crime would be alleged is if there was any doubt the war happened - is that your claim? Are you an Iraq War TV Fakery proponent? Do you believe “Shock and Awe” was computer generated?
Try actually reading the relevant material - the Kellog-Briand Pact, The Nuremburg Principles, The UN Charter and The Statute of Rome. There is absolutely no margin of error in the statement that the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are illegal and that conduct ancillary to the crimes is equally punishable - including being the head of an intelligence agency which cooperated with a policy of fixing the intelligence around the policy.
The government, the intelligence services and certain civil servants are, to the letter of the law, war criminals. But according to you - there should be amnesty granted to the over 50s? Perhaps you could organise a "murder night" at the local bingo hall where pensioners (no longer bound by the usual moral and legal restrictions which apply to the rest of us) could gather to cull some innocent children - be sure to hang around outside to make sure no nasty policemen come to "attack" them with handcuffs...
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The only way the crime would be alleged is if there was any doubt the war happened - is that your claim? Are you an Iraq War TV Fakery proponent? Do you believe “Shock and Awe” was computer generated? |
Can you prove the Iraq war happened?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Can you prove the Iraq war happened? |
What proof and in what format would satisfy you?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh i'm just asking questions.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| paul wright wrote: | | You've no reasonable answers so stop it and f*ck off |
I'm old-fashioned, but to me that's flat-out rude. Can I draw your attention to points 1, 5, 6, 7 and 10 of the rules and principles to participation on the forum?
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=99
Particularly as you are someone who has called for my expulsion in recent times, this comes across as rank hypocrisy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes of course it is. I'm fully aware of that and the Rules
Still, I'm a little bit fed up with the flat-earthing Critics continuous assault on the core here as being a little bit stupid and unscientific
What is the purpose other than to tie people up in nonsensical roundabout arguments?
We're nearly seven years from the root of the current phase, and if people haven't got the point by now, they are unlikely to until they're herded into camps or destroyed by catastrophe
I can't imagine why anyone would spend hours arguing the toss over a forum like this, other than they've got a given agenda of their own, a severe personality disorder or too much time on their hands and an obsessive need to bicker. Or a combination, or something else
I'm not rude by nature but get sick of these aggressive intrusions
So respond in likewise or rather simple and frank terms
BTW I don't believe I ever argued for your expulsion, still perhaps you're right. In which case I apologise. I don't like expulsions much and there are other ways to terminate endless point-scoring
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emmanuel
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 434
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can see what Paul wright is suggesting.
Yes these petty arguments are quite tiresome.
Alex Jones, has the potential to help those who know that 911 was an inside job make real changes in their lives instead he allows them to become dependent on him and become addicted to fear.
The chanting at these events only gives u a sore throat ive found.....
For those who are less sheepish, dont give up hope  Real activism in your daily life and maybe chanting the names of the Lord my only suggestion.
_________________
www.freecycle.org
www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com
http://www.viking-z.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Emmanuel wrote: | I can see what Paul wright is suggesting.
Yes these petty arguments are quite tiresome.
Alex Jones, has the potential to help those who know that 911 was an inside job make real changes in their lives instead he allows them to become dependent on him and become addicted to fear.
The chanting at these events only gives u a sore throat ive found.....
For those who are less sheepish, dont give up hope Real activism in your daily life and maybe chanting the names of the Lord my only suggestion. |
We disagree on Alex Jones potential. He has shown no potential for any sort of rational discourse whatsoever - this is why he limits his contribution to tub-thumping and radio show ranting and away from any sort of legitimate discourse on the issues.
And in response to Paul Wright, I think it is useful to point these things out in critics corner - what else is this forum for but to criticise the sacred cows of the truth movement at large? These may be petty arguments to you, but to me Alex Jones is a shyster and a fraud - not so inconsequential as it happens. You may want to sweep the issue under the carpet, but the truth will not be silenced so easily!
Likewise my exchange with Chek here, which they seems to have excused themselves from. Why am I wrong to support Bazant and NIST, when no formal challenge to their work exists within the scientific community? Why are you right to dispute their credibility and work on principle, based on (flawed imo) criticism of them published on a website somewhere? Surely my position here is far more credible and reasonable on this matter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | There is absolutely no margin of error in the statement that the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are illegal and that conduct ancillary to the crimes is equally punishable - including being the head of an intelligence agency which cooperated with a policy of fixing the intelligence around the policy.
|
So now you are saying that these 2 wars are illegal and on the people who took part shoudl be tried as war criminals?
So Iraq not meeting obligations to 17 UN Resolutions did not happen? It is not as if Iraq had attacked other innocent counries with no warning beofre is it? If they had used chemical weapons before it would be different to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
