| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
 Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 3:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="Stefan"] | Alex_V wrote: | | Quote: | | How many have died because the 9/11 attacks were blamed on Al Qaeda terrorists? |
How many what?
Civil liberties? Rights? A whole lot.
Innocent people? Hundreds of thousands if not over a million in Afghanistan and Iraq. How many more to follow? Incalculable.
From DU radiation? Millions of unborn babies.
The argument that going along with the official story is harmless and questioning it dangerous is quite simply insane, ignorant, or both... |
We were both making the same point. This goes back to the false assumption that any critic of the truth movement actually supports Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, or the changes in domestic policy. I don't support either of those, so please don't assume that I do.
What I am saying here is that we have seen how America's response to 9/11 has led to retaliatory action, involving the death of many innocents. This does not mean that the OT is wrong necessarily, but it shows that the issue is not just a benign debate carried out on internet forums. It is a life and death issue.
So the question is, what would the truth movement consider justified in the certainty that 9/11 was an inside job? If I knew beyond any doubt that Bush carried out those attacks on his own people, would I be justified in shooting him in the head? Galloway has been asked similar questions about Iraq - would Iraqi insurgents be justified in trying to assassinate Tony Blair. He said that they would be justified, and I have to say I agree with him totally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | I personally don't see any reason why truthers are any more included to do crazy stuff than anyone else. Plenty of people who think governments, banks, corporations, individuals etc are inherently evil descend on London every Mayday without mass killing. I don't preclude, say, Nico Haupt losing his nonsense and going on the rampage with an uzi, but I don't think it's intrinsically any more likely than with, well, an animal rights activist.
I used to do hunt sabs years ago. All the violence was directed at us!
Now I've said all that, there'll probably be a UK truth riot or something. |
You wouldn't be concerned that a hunt saboteur or an animal rights activist would step too far and do physical harm to somebody? I am, and those are causes I believe in. The difference between 9/11 and these other protests is that 9/11 truth is very straightforward - a crime has been committed with distinct perpetrators. It is not a cause fought on a point of principle - it is more specific than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wasn't accusing you of supporting, I was suggesting you were overlooking it for the benefit of your argument.
Believe me, there is far more to loose by asuming the OTC is right - the fantasy of a violent group coming out of 9/11 Truth is a pretty weak risk assessment in comparison to the unprecedented attack on our way of life and the massive bloodshed overseas which typifies the war on terror.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: | I personally don't see any reason why truthers are any more included to do crazy stuff than anyone else. Plenty of people who think governments, banks, corporations, individuals etc are inherently evil descend on London every Mayday without mass killing. I don't preclude, say, Nico Haupt losing his nonsense and going on the rampage with an uzi, but I don't think it's intrinsically any more likely than with, well, an animal rights activist.
I used to do hunt sabs years ago. All the violence was directed at us!
Now I've said all that, there'll probably be a UK truth riot or something. |
You wouldn't be concerned that a hunt saboteur or an animal rights activist would step too far and do physical harm to somebody? I am, and those are causes I believe in. The difference between 9/11 and these other protests is that 9/11 truth is very straightforward - a crime has been committed with distinct perpetrators. It is not a cause fought on a point of principle - it is more specific than that. |
I think you're disproving your own reasoning here Alex.
Extremism is an unfortunate tendancy found in a small proportion of the population - the extremist will find any cause they need to express their zealotry. You gave animal rights as an example - we have also seen extremists of every kind, from anti-abortionist christians blowing up clinics to budhists setting themselves on fire.
So why single out 9/11 Truth?
Let's take your admission that at one point you felt so passioately about animal rights the thought of extremism crossed your mind. Glad to hear you backed down on that. But did you start thinking animals should be tortured and experimented on? I doubt you did.
You are linking an extreme response to a view to the view itself, as though the options were:
Beleive in the rights of animals and commit violent acts - believe animals should be tortured and lead a peaceful law abiding life.
You know your self this is not the case.
So why suggest the options with 9/11 are:
Believe the official story is wrong and commit violent acts - believe the official story is true and lead a peaceful law abdiing life.
I doubt that you do think that, but that is where you logic is leading.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | I wasn't accusing you of supporting, I was suggesting you were overlooking it for the benefit of your argument.
Believe me, there is far more to loose by asuming the OTC is right - the fantasy of a violent group coming out of 9/11 Truth is a pretty weak risk assessment in comparison to the unprecedented attack on our way of life and the massive bloodshed overseas which typifies the war on terror. |
Which is all the more reason for us to all waste less time on the disputed theories of the 9/11 truth movement, and more time on real political issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah the old "focussing on real issues" line - Alex you should realise by now - we all think 9/11 REALLY WAS commited with the involvement of figures within the US government as a pretext for everything since.
What "real issues" should we focus on? Should we perhaps wait for a war to be a dead-certainty then go and march up and down with placards and feed our egos a little before the bombs start dropping? Yes that's been going swimmingly so far hasn't it?
Two main points:
1.
Opposing, say, the Iraq war - very common position, very sane view. Most will say "SH had nothing to do with 9/11 - why aren't we trying to find OBL" - IOW - war itself is fine, if a solid argument can be made tying the war to "Al-Qaeda" - note the far less objection to the still utterly illegal and self-serving Afghanistan policy. Same goes for civil liberties - tell people that "Terror Legislation" is used primarily against normal people, that the CCTV we have in London means we can be tracked everywhere, that ID cards are a tool of control and tracking of the population - "Well we've got to do SOMETHING about the terrorist threat".
Until the myth that "another 9/11 hangs over our heads and we've got to act to stop it happening" there will be no stopping this war of terror, and the leftists who are happy enough to play along with the deceptive memes and then go out for a stroll with placards on the eve of war and doing more bad than good.
2.
9/11 Truth will UNITE people. Leftists have harboured under the illusion that if they keep protesting wars eventually they will stop. The problem has always been that we are a small proportion of the population and always will be.
10% Left wing
10% right wing
80% I don't do politics lets go shoe shopping
No change will happen until we are all on board against this agenda.
Even the 80% who couldn't give a f*ck about whats going on in the world beyond heat magazine and soap operas think they know what happened on 9/11, repeats the line we've been hypnotised with "9/11 changed the world".
Left, right and apolitical together will be enraged to discover the truth - that 9/11 happened TO change the world, and not in Islamic extremists favour - in the favour of western governments and corporations who are now happily swooping in and destroying any chance for resistence the people ever had.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | Extremism is an unfortunate tendancy found in a small proportion of the population - the extremist will find any cause they need to express their zealotry. You gave animal rights as an example - we have also seen extremists of every kind, from anti-abortionist christians blowing up clinics to budhists setting themselves on fire.
So why single out 9/11 truth? |
Because this is a 9/11 truth forum?
Are you suggesting that because extremism occurs around other heated topics, that the potential should be ignored with 9/11 truth?
| Quote: | ...why suggest the options with 9/11 are:
Believe the official story is wrong and commit violent acts - believe the official story is true and lead a peaceful law abdiing life.
I doubt that you do think that, but that is where you logic is leading. |
But I have never said that the truth movement, necessarily, will descend into violent extremism. I have merely expressed a concern that it might. Heck, I support West Ham, and that has been used as a cause for violence many times over the years. It happens, and to suggest that the 9/11 truth movement, with much more emotive and life-threatening prophecies of doom, is somehow safe from such developments, is naive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | | Ah the old "focussing on real issues" line - Alex you should realise by now - we all think 9/11 REALLY WAS commited with the involvement of figures within the US government as a pretext for everything since. |
Fair comment - I didn't mean to doubt your convictions. Perhaps it is my own convictions I am doubting, in wasting my time arguing against people I don't agree with, rather than emphasising what I DO believe in.
| Quote: | | What "real issues" should we focus on? Should we perhaps wait for a war to be a dead-certainty then go and march up and down with placards and feed our egos a little before the bombs start dropping? Yes that's been going swimmingly so far hasn't it? |
Are you suggesting more direct action? What does the truth movement do at present, other than march with placards?
| Quote: | 1.
Opposing, say, the Iraq war - very common position, very sane view. Most will say "SH had nothing to do with 9/11 - why aren't we trying to find OBL" - IOW - war itself is fine, if a solid argument can be made tying the war to "Al-Qaeda" - note the far less objection to the still utterly illegal and self-serving Afghanistan policy. Same goes for civil liberties - tell people that "Terror Legislation" is used primarily against normal people, that the CCTV we have in London means we can be tracked everywhere, that ID cards are a tool of control and tracking of the population - "Well we've got to do SOMETHING about the terrorist threat".
Until the myth that "another 9/11 hangs over our heads and we've got to act to stop it happening" there will be no stopping this war of terror, and the leftists who are happy enough to play along with the deceptive memes and then go out for a stroll with placards on the eve of war and doing more bad than good. |
This is all well and good on the assumption that 9/11 was an inside job, but I don't believe that. The thing is, that without all these conspiracy theories about 9/11, you and me could march together against terror legislation or the Iraq war. They get in the way.
| Quote: | | 9/11 Truth will UNITE people. |
No it won't. Because until 9/11 truth starts being logical for people like me, who started as a floating voter so-to-speak, it will never take hold as a cause.
As I said on another thread, I believe this is why this UK movement is splintering, and some are choosing to support general anti-war protests rather than specific conspiracy theorists. I could support Make War History, but I could never support 9/11 Truth as it stands today.
| Quote: | Leftists have harboured under the illusion that if they keep protesting wars eventually they will stop. The problem has always been that we are a small proportion of the population and always will be.
10% Left wing
10% right wing
80% I don't do politics lets go shoe shopping
No change will happen until we are all on board against this agenda. |
But it won't happen - you are fighting a losing bettle. This idea of a swelling popular movement is * before it even starts. "Britain's Got Talent" has more hold on people's hearts as you say.
| Quote: | Even the 80% who couldn't give a f*ck about whats going on in the world beyond heat magazine and soap operas think they know what happened on 9/11, repeats the line we've been hypnotised with "9/11 changed the world".
Left, right and apolitical together will be enraged to discover the truth - that 9/11 happened TO change the world, and not in Islamic extremists favour - in the favour of western governments and corporations who are now happily swooping in and destroying any chance for resistence the people ever had. |
Hmm. I don't think people are born with the capacity to unite in common causes and cause cultural revolutions, and somehow the evil NWO 'hypnotises' them out of it. I think you over-rate the human race. I think it's simple - most people care about their own lives, and aren't interested in the bigger picture. Who can really blame them for that? I envy them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would it be safe to say that assuming the PTB are responsible - they are in a position to defend themselves while with Muslims being blamed we are not only seeing hundreds of thousands slaughtered overseas and growing Islamaphobia on these shores?
Even with your "violent reaction" theory - there is far less risk of harm with questioning the official story than parroting the narrative...
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | .... I don't preclude, say, Nico Haupt losing his nonsense and going on the rampage with an uzi, but I don't think it's intrinsically any more likely than with, well, an animal rights activist.
I used to do hunt sabs years ago. All the violence was directed at us!
... |
Mmmm, have animal rights activists ever (say) set fire to department stores selling fur coats, or torched the homes of those working in animal labs? Or threatened similar to the perpetrators of their perceived injustices?
Strikes me that some 9/11 CTists are driven and furious and might well do illegal mischief, whereas 9/11 sceptics are on the clinical side and in it for the debunking. I mean, I quite fancy a company black helicopter and a NWO pension, but no sign of any of that appearing yet. Who do I apply to, to turn this intriguing pastime into paid work?
However, giving Alex Jones a good slapping might well get a round of applause from us all, don't you think?
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | Hmmm... what is the relevance of someone incited to go on a killing spree by conspiracy theories? You can't think of any?
Its clear some truthers are turning into stalkers. Ask the woman who photographed the Pennsylvania crash. And a recently a 7/7 victim has spoken out against harassment. Even former astronauts get harassed by moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists.
Its also clear that only firm rules keep the holocaust deniers out of this site - they are clearly attracted to it - although other conspiracy theories about jews are allowed (see my tag). You can't see how that could go wrong? |
I'd wager more people stalk celebrities than any stalking truthers do. Why aren't you spreading your doom-mongering paranoia on the hello forum?
Much as I dislike denial, I've seen no evidence Holocaust deniers are particularly dangerous unless they're full neo-Nazis in which case their denial often just comes as standard issue. Though you have a point in a way - all that 'self-defense' stuff on Stormfront - to prepare for the coming race war or whatever - is surely more worrying than anything here? Jew theorists in general are probably far more likely to turn on each other over allegations of Zionist shillery.
I have to say I find your brooding fear of a truther apocalypse a bit mystifying. I'd like to explore it further if I wasn't distracted trying to find your house in the A-Z while holding my machete. And the glazed look in my eyes makes it difficult to focus on the page.
| Quote: | | You wouldn't be concerned that a hunt saboteur or an animal rights activist would step too far and do physical harm to somebody? I am, and those are causes I believe in. The difference between 9/11 and these other protests is that 9/11 truth is very straightforward - a crime has been committed with distinct perpetrators. It is not a cause fought on a point of principle - it is more specific than that. |
I'm far more wary of hunt scum hired goons with pick axe handles. They'll happily step to far.
But if someone causes physical harm, that's their responsibility.
Hanging around the pubs in the average town at chucking out time is far more likely to cause you physical harm than truthers.
| sam wrote: | | Mmmm, have animal rights activists ever (say) set fire to department stores selling fur coats, or torched the homes of those working in animal labs? Or threatened similar to the perpetrators of their perceived injustices? |
So truthers aren't uniquely dangerous are they? How many truthers have dug up someone's gran? (that was very stupid. Still, she was dead so she didn't mind)
Mind you, most animal rights activists aren't violent, a few are. Of course, those that are violent tend to make the news - waving banners outside McDonalds or getting people to sign petitions in the high street doesn't.
I see you've been paying close attention to "animal rights terrorists" stereotypes in the press.
Though a bit of non-violent towards people smashing up of property is fine in my book.
| Quote: | | Strikes me that some 9/11 CTists are driven and furious and might well do illegal mischief, whereas 9/11 sceptics are on the clinical side and in it for the debunking. |
I am not sure your image of wild-eyed truther maniacs vs cold calculating critics on beta-blockers is entirely accurate.
| Quote: | I mean, I quite fancy a company black helicopter and a NWO pension, but no sign of any of that appearing yet. Who do I apply to, to turn this intriguing pastime into paid work?
|
Send me a thousand pounds deposit (in case you damage the helicopter) and I'll see you get the lot. Pm me and I'll tell you which litter bin to drop it off in. Watch out for truther bombs in it though.
| Quote: | However, giving Alex Jones a good slapping might well get a round of applause from us all, don't you think?
|
You advocate violence towards truthers now???? You hypocrite. It's only a matter of time before one of you blows. My money's on Pepik.
I'd settle for shoving his bullhorn somewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | Mmmm, have animal rights activists ever (say) set fire to department stores selling fur coats, or torched the homes of those working in animal labs? Or threatened similar to the perpetrators of their perceived injustices?
Strikes me that some 9/11 CTists are driven and furious and might well do illegal mischief, whereas 9/11 sceptics are on the clinical side and in it for the debunking. I mean, I quite fancy a company black helicopter and a NWO pension, but no sign of any of that appearing yet. Who do I apply to, to turn this intriguing pastime into paid work?
However, giving Alex Jones a good slapping might well get a round of applause from us all, don't you think? |
Having spent the bulk of my adult working life in law enforcement, I have witnessed all kinds of threatened and actual violence, on and by people of all ages, justified by any number of assorted reasons.
Whilst the vast majority of those assaults were completely unjustified both from a legal and moral standpoint, there were some that I most definitely could see the reasoning why they were carried out as there simply was no other course of action or redress.
However, that said, to play the violence card by inference or by actually wielding a baseball bat just because the ego has been compromised points to a great failing in the makeup of the assailant.
There has been every kind of threat from boths sides in every related forum, so to lump together all 9/11 sceptics as some antiseptic mass who would prefer to use a sliderule before their fists is absolute nonsense.
_________________
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: Fri May 02, 2008 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'd wager more people stalk celebrities than any stalking truthers do. Why aren't you spreading your doom-mongering paranoia on the hello forum? |
Maybe I am on the Hello forum, why are you assuming you know what I do with my time? Besides, celebrities have bodyguards. 7/7 victims do not. | Quote: | | I have to say I find your brooding fear of a truther apocalypse a bit mystifying. |
I have no such fear. Given the virtual certainty I have that truth is going nowhere, opposing it isn't something I would risk my life for.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | I'd wager more people stalk celebrities than any stalking truthers do. Why aren't you spreading your doom-mongering paranoia on the hello forum? |
Maybe I am on the Hello forum, why are you assuming you know what I do with my time? Besides, celebrities have bodyguards. 7/7 victims do not. | Quote: | | I have to say I find your brooding fear of a truther apocalypse a bit mystifying. |
I have no such fear. Given the virtual certainty I have that truth is going nowhere, opposing it isn't something I would risk my life for. |
I know you have not tried to go on to the Hello forum because the Hello website doesn't have one and you would know that if you'd tried. I looked. Jesus, the things you find yourself doing...(Mariah reported to have wed beau in Bahamas btw).
I find your attitude a bit callous - perhaps you should stand up for your ideals and offer your own services as a bodyguard agency for individuals threatened by the rabid hordes of bloodthirsty truthers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: |
Having spent the bulk of my adult working life in law enforcement, I have witnessed all kinds of threatened and actual violence, on and by people of all ages, justified by any number of assorted reasons.
|
You referred to your previous work in a post some time ago. I assumed you had been a politician (or maybe an estate agent) judging by the nature of your verbiage.
| telecasterisation wrote: |
Whilst the vast majority of those assaults were completely unjustified both from a legal and moral standpoint, there were some that I most definitely could see the reasoning why they were carried out as there simply was no other course of action or redress.
|
That sounds like "desperation". The way of terrorists. You can see how it happens, but that's all.
| telecasterisation wrote: |
However, that said, to play the violence card by inference or by actually wielding a baseball bat just because the ego has been compromised points to a great failing in the makeup of the assailant.
|
Quite right.
| telecasterisation wrote: |
There has been every kind of threat from boths sides in every related forum ---
|
Has there? Where? I've been labelled (here and there) a NWO shill/ Illuminati operative who will get his come-uppance one day, but have certainly never issued any comparable threat in the other direction. And I haven't seen any kind of equivalent paranoid threat coming from the 9/11 sceptic camp in general. Maybe you can clarify what you mean by "both sides in every related forum" ?
| telecasterisation wrote: |
--- so to lump together all 9/11 sceptics as some antiseptic mass who would prefer to use a sliderule before their fists is absolute nonsense.
|
As ever, you leave yourself an escape route in the way you express your point: "... all 9/11 sceptics .... <blah> .. absolute nonsense". Of course "all 9/11 sceptics" will never fit into one simple category. However, 9/11 sceptics tend not to promote "direct action" simply because there's nothing to protest about. We ask 9/11 truthers to come up with some plausible CT evidence fitting into a plausible CT narrative. Hasn't happened so far. Sceptics broadly accept the OT, so dismantling the 9/11 CT is a logical exercise, not an emotional one. Fists not required, as there's no anger involved.
While you're here -- as a 9/11 CT believer yourself, do you believe AA77 hit the Pentagon with its stated passengers on board, piloted by terrorist hijackers? That's a clear enough question, I hope.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I know you have not tried to go on to the Hello forum because the Hello website doesn't have one and you would know that if you'd tried. I looked. Jesus, the things you find yourself doing...(Mariah reported to have wed beau in Bahamas btw). |
Well there should be one, so you could comment on the wedding. | Quote: | | I find your attitude a bit callous - perhaps you should stand up for your ideals and offer your own services as a bodyguard agency for individuals threatened by the rabid hordes of bloodthirsty truthers? |
I realise you are trying to mock me, but in the process you are mocking the 7/7 victim (who, a few years before being caught in the bombings, was robbed, raped, and left for dead) being stalked by conspiracy theorist. And this woman was part of a campaign for an independent inquiry!
Reminds me of the Loose Change guys laughing about boxcutters. | Quote: | Dylan Avery, being interviewed by radio talk show host Jack Blood):
Avery: Ha Ha Ha Ha! Have you seen how small those things [box cutters] are? Like, if I was on a flight, with, you know, at least 50 other people – because that's the smallest number I think was on 9/11* – if I was in the cabin, with 50 other people, and five people – I don't care if they're Muslim or not – stand up with box cutters and say they're gonna hijack the plane, I'm gonna laugh in their face!
Blood: And these pilots, I mean, we interviewed Debra Burlingame, whose brother Chick was the one sup-posedly flying that plane that hit the Pentagon–
Avery: Oh, that's right! I heard about that!
Blood: –And of course she is a TOTAL shill for the Republican Party, she also spoke at the [Republican Na-tional] Convention. And is it ABSURD that she went on and on about how her brother was ex-military, how she knows that her brother and the other pilots fought for their lives, against these deadly terrorists–
Avery: Yeaaah, yeah. Whatever.
Blood: (mocking an Arabic accent): It is my preevilege to keel you with thees box cutter!
Avery: Ha ha!
Blood: Didn't Rumsfeld say, right after this happened, that they had actually done this with plastic knives and not box cutters?
Avery: Yeah, he said that in the same interview where he said that a missile hit the Pentagon.
Blood: OH MY GOD! HE'S GOT A PLASTIC KNIFE!
Avery: HAHAHA!
Blood: RUN!
Avery: HE'S GOT A BUTTER KNIFE FROM BREAKFAST! OH, NO!
Blood: Take the plane, sir. We don't want any trouble.
Avery: HE'S GOING TO SCRATCH ME A LITTLE BIT! HUH HUH!
Blood: UN-BELIEVABLE! Well, that's exactly what we're saying. That's an overused term, or underused term, "unbelievable."
Avery: (Still laughing): It's ABSOLUTELY unbelievable!
Blood: (doing accent again): It's un-bee-leevable!
Avery: What's even MORE unbelievable is how people will DEFEND this! |
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Busker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 374
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | Agreed. But this thread was started with the question of why critics 'criticise'. Should Pepik lie in his answer or be honest?
|
Perhaps as the original poster I should jump in here and say my original intent on this thread was to find out why critics continue to put a lot of time and effort into posting on forums such as this one.
As far as I can tell, we are seven years down the line and neither side of the argument has progressed in convincing the other of their position.
It is an endless source of contention with friends of mine who get all excited about football, which for me is 22 overpaid underworked people running round a bit of grass trying to get a bit of leather between two sticks.
If critics don't agree with "truthers" why don't they just ignore them, like I do football? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sam wrote;
| Quote: | | You referred to your previous work in a post some time ago. I assumed you had been a politician (or maybe an estate agent) judging by the nature of your verbiage. |
You appear to focus on me quite a bit, it has developed into a sort of ‘shrine’ thing. When you do this picturing of me, am I clothed?
| Quote: | | Has there? Where? I've been labelled (here and there) a NWO shill/ Illuminati operative who will get his come-uppance one day, but have certainly never issued any comparable threat in the other direction. And I haven't seen any kind of equivalent paranoid threat coming from the 9/11 sceptic camp in general. Maybe you can clarify what you mean by "both sides in every related forum" ? |
I can only put this down to your ‘newness’ and lack of experience in the whole related forum subject. This is my fifth 911/CT forum, the last one being American based fell apart due to all the in-fighting and threats. This was all in equal measure.
The thrust of my comment is prompted by;
| Quote: | | However, giving Alex Jones a good slapping might well get a round of applause from us all….. |
No comparable threat in the other direction? You have clearly typed that you would applaud a truther being physically assaulted.
| Quote: | | Of course "all 9/11 sceptics" will never fit into one simple category. However, 9/11 sceptics tend not to promote "direct action" simply because there's nothing to protest about. Fists not required, as there's no anger involved. |
Not quite – your words;
| Quote: | | whereas 9/11 sceptics are on the clinical side and in it for the debunking. |
Clearly this does not say ‘some’ or ‘a few’, but sceptics per se – hence ‘all’, plus you then categorise the 'group' having said they can't be lumped together.
| Quote: | | While you're here -- as a 9/11 CT believer yourself, do you believe AA77 hit the Pentagon with its stated passengers on board, piloted by terrorist hijackers? That's a clear enough question, I hope. |
No, I don’t.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | I know you have not tried to go on to the Hello forum because the Hello website doesn't have one and you would know that if you'd tried. I looked. Jesus, the things you find yourself doing...(Mariah reported to have wed beau in Bahamas btw). |
Well there should be one, so you could comment on the wedding. | Quote: | | I find your attitude a bit callous - perhaps you should stand up for your ideals and offer your own services as a bodyguard agency for individuals threatened by the rabid hordes of bloodthirsty truthers? |
I realise you are trying to mock me, but in the process you are mocking the 7/7 victim (who, a few years before being caught in the bombings, was robbed, raped, and left for dead) being stalked by conspiracy theorist. And this woman was part of a campaign for an independent inquiry!
Reminds me of the Loose Change guys laughing about boxcutters. | Quote: | Dylan Avery, being interviewed by radio talk show host Jack Blood):
Avery: Ha Ha Ha Ha! Have you seen how small those things [box cutters] are? Like, if I was on a flight, with, you know, at least 50 other people – because that's the smallest number I think was on 9/11* – if I was in the cabin, with 50 other people, and five people – I don't care if they're Muslim or not – stand up with box cutters and say they're gonna hijack the plane, I'm gonna laugh in their face!
Blood: And these pilots, I mean, we interviewed Debra Burlingame, whose brother Chick was the one sup-posedly flying that plane that hit the Pentagon–
Avery: Oh, that's right! I heard about that!
Blood: –And of course she is a TOTAL shill for the Republican Party, she also spoke at the [Republican Na-tional] Convention. And is it ABSURD that she went on and on about how her brother was ex-military, how she knows that her brother and the other pilots fought for their lives, against these deadly terrorists–
Avery: Yeaaah, yeah. Whatever.
Blood: (mocking an Arabic accent): It is my preevilege to keel you with thees box cutter!
Avery: Ha ha!
Blood: Didn't Rumsfeld say, right after this happened, that they had actually done this with plastic knives and not box cutters?
Avery: Yeah, he said that in the same interview where he said that a missile hit the Pentagon.
Blood: OH MY GOD! HE'S GOT A PLASTIC KNIFE!
Avery: HAHAHA!
Blood: RUN!
Avery: HE'S GOT A BUTTER KNIFE FROM BREAKFAST! OH, NO!
Blood: Take the plane, sir. We don't want any trouble.
Avery: HE'S GOING TO SCRATCH ME A LITTLE BIT! HUH HUH!
Blood: UN-BELIEVABLE! Well, that's exactly what we're saying. That's an overused term, or underused term, "unbelievable."
Avery: (Still laughing): It's ABSOLUTELY unbelievable!
Blood: (doing accent again): It's un-bee-leevable!
Avery: What's even MORE unbelievable is how people will DEFEND this! |
|
Indeed, it all sounds very romantic. Mariah, if you're reading this I wish you every happiness xxx
I am not mocking Rachel at all. You made a vague mention of a 7/7 victim 'speaking out against harassment'. Your shrill attempt at moralising has the tone of tabloid journalism.
I am mocking your far-fetched and unevidenced theorising. You know - the kind of thing you accuse truthers of.
I thought you guys were supposed to be on the "clinical side"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | I thought you guys were supposed to be on the "clinical side"? |
Didn't we all?
I'm still waiting for Sam's Blue Peter-style, everyday-household-items demonstration of that innocent glowing flow of white hot molten metal from WTC2 immediately prior to collapse.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I'm still waiting for Sam's Blue Peter-style, everyday-household-items demonstration of that innocent glowing flow of white hot molten metal from WTC2 immediately prior to collapse.
|
maybe it was sticky back plastic from something that was made eariler? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Quote: | I'm still waiting for Sam's Blue Peter-style, everyday-household-items demonstration of that innocent glowing flow of white hot molten metal from WTC2 immediately prior to collapse.
|
maybe it was sticky back plastic from something that was made eariler? |
Heh - that's just as likely to be as true as Sam's religiously held belief Marky.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: |
sam wrote;
| sam wrote: | | You referred to your previous work in a post some time ago. I assumed you had been a politician (or maybe an estate agent) judging by the nature of your verbiage. |
You appear to focus on me quite a bit, it has developed into a sort of ‘shrine’ thing. When you do this picturing of me, am I clothed?
|
No, I think that's just your ego at work.
| sam wrote: | | Has there? Where? I've been labelled (here and there) a NWO shill/ Illuminati operative who will get his come-uppance one day, but have certainly never issued any comparable threat in the other direction. And I haven't seen any kind of equivalent paranoid threat coming from the 9/11 sceptic camp in general. Maybe you can clarify what you mean by "both sides in every related forum" ? |
| telecasterisation wrote: |
I can only put this down to your ‘newness’ and lack of experience in the whole related forum subject. This is my fifth 911/CT forum, the last one being American based fell apart due to all the in-fighting and threats. This was all in equal measure.
. |
I can top five 9/11 CT forums easily, though I don't believe this should be considered impressive. Why do you believe five is praiseworthy?
And why do you you presume my 'newness' here indicates a 'newness' in general? I've been posting on 9/11 CT debates since the middle of 2006. Is this good? Why? I would have thought that the substance of the debate was more important than the volume or duration.
| telecasterisation wrote: |
The thrust of my comment is prompted by;
| sam wrote: | | However, giving Alex Jones a good slapping might well get a round of applause from us all….. |
No comparable threat in the other direction? You have clearly typed that you would applaud a truther being physically assaulted.
. |
You seem to have taken the comment literally. I mostly hate tossing in smilies, but to make things clearer for you let me rephrase it : "I'll bet even truthers would like to give Alex Jones a good slapping  "
| sam wrote: | | Of course "all 9/11 sceptics" will never fit into one simple category. However, 9/11 sceptics tend not to promote "direct action" simply because there's nothing to protest about. Fists not required, as there's no anger involved. |
| telecasterisation wrote: |
Not quite – your words;
| sam wrote: | | whereas 9/11 sceptics are on the clinical side and in it for the debunking. |
| telecasterisation wrote: |
Clearly this does not say ‘some’ or ‘a few’, but sceptics per se – hence ‘all’, plus you then categorise the 'group' having said they can't be lumped together.
. |
|
You seem to have taken this literally (a trend, it seems). By your token, if I said "Brazil is a nation of dark-haired people" you would have me claiming that all Brazilians are dark-haired. Your comment is silly and cheap.
| sam wrote: | While you're here -- as a 9/11 CT believer yourself, do you believe AA77 hit the Pentagon with its stated passengers on board, piloted by terrorist hijackers? That's a clear enough question, I hope
| telecasterisation wrote: |
No, I don’t. |
. |
Let's take this to a new thread.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | ..
I am mocking your far-fetched and unevidenced theorising. You know - the kind of thing you accuse truthers of.
I thought you guys were supposed to be on the "clinical side"? |
Hi Dogsmilk, I don't think we're spoken before.
An illustration ..
There's a branch of 9/11 CT known as "CIT". You may know of them anyway, but they're easy to look up. They claim to have eye-witnesses of AA77 flying over (as in directly, 90° over the body of..) the Navy Annexe, passing north of the Citgo petrol station (NoC) , then banking right, levelling up, and then climbing to overfly the Pentagon while explosives do their stuff to the building itself.
Sceptics have analysed many possible flightpaths that match this scenario. They have analysed curves drawn on GoogleEarth shots presented by CIT themselves. They have concluded that the NoC is physically impossible for any substantial aircraft, by virtue of the bank angle and G-force that would be experienced by the plane. They have presented much evidence to this effect.
Now, CIT have been asked a hundred times to demonstrate any NoC flightpath that is physically possible given the evidence that even they quote in support of their theory. That is - they can take their pick of the most favourable path that they wish to choose. They have avoided doing so like the plague, even though online calculators for this kind of stuff are not only freely available but presented to them on a plate.
This is one example of what I mean by "clinical". Sceptics examine and face the evidence, calculate, are willing to refine their understanding in the face of scientific correction ... whereas the "truth"ers grab at any scraps that support their pre-determined attitude and run with them against all the odds.
Similarly, chek (see above) is convinced that therm?te is responsible for the bright falling debris at the corner of WTC2 just prior to collapse, despite there being no reason whatsoever for massive doses of incendiary material to be in this location, and no reason for it to cause this kind of behaviour. chek just loves his therm?te and wants to believe in it. And, like CIT, he won't examine the facts. He runs away from the issue.
"Truth"ers want to believe in the CT. Evidence for the belief is secondary. They are not clinical in their analysis.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Sam,
No, we haven't really spoken before. I think you've been too busy relentlessly pursuing telecasterisation whenever he appears:)
The whole point of that comment was intended to illustrate how the 'clinical' critics were in this instance just stating beliefs that weren't backed by evidence. Quite how citing other claims made by truthers counters my point I am unsure - even if you were to demonstrate that everything truthers say about anything ever is dead wrong, this would not mean that a baseless theory put forward by a critic was somehow more valid.
Just because you are a 'debunker', 'sceptic' whatever does not mean you suddenly don a white coat with a biro in the top pocket and become a 'scientist'. You are no less prone to talk cobblers because you are a 'debunker' than the rest of us.
I am not myself a terrific fan of the CIT so I'm unpeturbed at what you have to say there.
I am, however, mildly confused at your second comment about chek 'running away' as chek said just above
| Quote: | | I'm still waiting for Sam's Blue Peter-style, everyday-household-items demonstration of that innocent glowing flow of white hot molten metal from WTC2 immediately prior to collapse. |
Which indicates you guys may have some kind of crossed wires going on...?
Oh yeah -
| Quote: | | "Truth"ers want to believe in the CT. Evidence for the belief is secondary. |
Do you have any evidence relating to the mental states of truthers indicating they invariably have a specific desire to be a truther? Please make sure your answer is clinical.
Last edited by Dogsmilk on Sun May 04, 2008 9:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | This is one example of what I mean by "clinical". Sceptics examine and face the evidence, calculate, are willing to refine their understanding in the face of scientific correction ... whereas the "truth"ers grab at any scraps that support their pre-determined attitude and run with them against all the odds.
"Truth"ers want to believe in the CT. Evidence for the belief is secondary. They are not clinical in their analysis. |
| sam wrote: | | The lightpole had a distinct curve in it. Embedded in the back seat of the taxi it could easily miss the bonnet(hood). |
Nice evidence of your willingness to "examine and face the evidence" ..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
