The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

by **sln70** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:25 pm

mostly it pisses me off that it's TABOO now, along the lines of criticizing Israel.. no matter how just your argument might be, or how valid your question might be, or how interesting your evidence might be.. you're an anti-semite. I think TPTB got jealous of the "you can't touch Israel with a ten foot pole" thing and wanted one of their own. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">

by **pugzleyca3** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:10 pm

On many political boards, there are those who try and make it taboo. The more they do it, the more I post about 9/11. I try not to worry about them, my true goal is not to debate with them, it is to reach the lurkers and the ones who post on all the other thread but the 9/11 threads. Even though they are not saying anything, I know they are reading what I am posting and they are checking out the links. As a matter of fact, I remember being called a wild eyed conspiracy theorist when I railed against the Patriot Act. Things are changing because now THEY are railing against it, too, especially since the loss of habeas corpus. The tides are turning, it takes a long time though and these days, I don't feel as if we have that much time left. As far as being labeled anti-semitic, if what you are saying is true and can't be construed as a historical smack in the face, then go with your conscience and beliefs regarding that issue. I try to avoid it as much as possible, but when the thing happned with Lebanon, I had to speak out, out of conscience.

by **nashvillebrook** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:23 pm

my new boyfriend is a penn'n'teller-esque insult skeptic when it comes to issues of 911. i JUST found this out last night... so... this little thread kinda hits home. we haven't been dating very long, and it's quite a shock. actually, it could be a deal killer. he engages in eggggsactly the same stereotyping and ridicule nomo has used here... almost word for word. it's a swagger. it's anti-thought as someone said earlier in this thread. he says that talking about 911 distracts from The Real abuses of the Bush admin and makes everyone look like idiots. Appeal to Popularity, i think is what that fallacy is called. it's what DU does... put the 911 discussion in the dungeon. segregate... b/c, you wouldn't want to be seen with the likes of them. feh.

by **sln70** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:49 pm

same, Pugzley.. I do the same. I'm getting more tired of it as I get older. Seems so ludicrous. Oddly, of course, Harper (you're Canadian, are you?) being the new man on the hill is a conservative, but uses the 'he's an anti-semite' card quite liberally, IMHO. I don't like Ignatieff one bit, however I had to side with him when Harper went all sideways about Iggy's Israeli War Crimes comment. -- brooke in nashville (sorry I've forgotten your handle) - my husband is not out and out anti-9/11 truth, however he doesn't like me to talk about it. It freaks him out. then again, with him, I truly believe that it's a head in the sand thing - he doesn't want to know, can't accept that anyone would be that evil, and thinks even worrying about it is futile since none of us can change anything. BAH!?!? He married ME, who believes she can change everything. Bad pairing, in a way.

by **nashvillebrook** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:07 pm

i think that's my guy's thing too. he can't go there. i have no trouble going there.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:18 pm

I dunno, maybe I misread nomo, but it seems he is onto something, and it kind of mirrors the point Jeff made and this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Something just occured to me. In opining about what they consider to be whacky theories, these writers only bring more attention to that which they don't want people to pay attention. Like crisis management in big corporations, they always have to decide whether or not to acknowledge certain rumors (or truths), they know that rebuttal sometimes adds steam to the very issue they want squelched.<hr></blockquote> I completely disagree with you. They shift attention away from what people don't want the focus on, the real stuff re the money. How many people have even heard of the "Coincidence theorists guide to 911"? Think about it, everyone has heard about the UFO's at the twin tower's" and the no plane hit the pentagon. I used to think that, back in 02, but back then there was a blue tail section in one of the videos. It was a point of contention because people claimed that flight didn't have a blue taliplane. Then someone produced a photo of that model plane from that airline with a blue tailplane, perhaps even the actual craft. At that point I felt that particular arguement was a tail eating exercise that took my mind off other issues. These articles are always quoting the stories that i find hard to credit or judge, never the issues I want examined properly. Anyone that brings up money laundering, cash in any form is drowned out by the steve jones this, themite that, cruise missile the other hubbub. I have been sus on the official explanation since day one, since the report of a hijackers passport being found in the rubble. At 10 AM Aust EST sep 12 2001. (That was still sept 11 in the states.) I still am. But after I saw a fire in a timber mill (Norply near Kyogle) last year, and what happened to the massive steel staunchions that held the roof up after a very short time, I am not prepared to believe any academic on any side about anything to do with the temperature of this or the explosives that. The roof at Norply buckled and fell within an hour, I dunno how hot the fire was, it was still orange yellow, and it was basically plywood that was burning, but steel pylons over a metre thick looked like crazy straws and they had stuff all weight to support compared to 20 or 30 floors of skyscraper. Nomo also has a point in that the reichstag fire in germany is still a matter for debate, and had sweet fuck all to do with the eventual defeat of the Nazi's and played no part in subsequent trials. Whoever is responsible on whatever level for 911, the real issue today is what has been done in the name of "The War on Terror". To freedom, and to other parts of the world in general and individuals in particular. In some ways to allow the official story some credence may serve a useful purpose, a because it disempowers the all powerful nature of the security state, if can be that easily thwarted, and i"ll do another post for the second reason. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=joehillshoist>Joe Hillshoist</A> at: 10/25/06 9:30 pm

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:23 pm

It is simply this. Osama supposedly hates us for our freedoms and said he would defeat us by destroying them. Think about it.

by **pugzleyca3** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:25 pm

Not Candian, but definitely feel as kindred spirits with my cousins to the North. We're all going to be standing in the same soup line if things keep going down the pike. I've heard you can oust your leaders in a short time, with your system of government. Is this true? I'm counting the days until the neo-con cabal are no longer in control of D.C. (If that ever happens.) Maybe we can get a respite and re-charge our batteries at some point, the reign of Lord Bu*h has been quite troublesome and I am suffering from full-blown scandal fatigue.

by **pugzleyca3** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:37 pm

Hi Joe, I feel like I am down an endless rabbit hole on the 9/11 thing most of the time. What you say about Osama is true and that is an excellent point. BUT, when I use that strategy in trying to get my point across, I meet up with "What freedoms have you PERSONALLY lost" and "Name one thing you can't do that you couldn't do before" as rebuttal. Of course, this is a strawman argument, and I am being used as the straw woman. LOL! Granted, when the habeas corpus thing went down, a lot of people sat up and took notice about that, but there are a few die hards who just won't believe we've lost any freedoms until the jackboots are pounding up their sidewalks and crushing in their doors. With the individual who is on a quest for 9/11 truth, the simple fact is that they are going to have to wade through volumes of tripe to get to a reckoning with themselves as to what they choose to believe. One thing about believing something, it's in the mind and unless you get a labotomy, no one can take that from you. Most of what I read regarding what should or shouldn't be listened to are simply rants and end up taking away from my real research.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:48 pm

Oh..that article was fascinating. Did anyone notice the reference to Gunderson? to the Finders? The 9/11 truth movement has been manipulated to the point of almost complete control by the bad guys. Since I assume they had a bit of a heads up, they were likely planning their websites even before that fateful day. Here's what I'd say to 9/11 truthers: ignore the supposed logic of that article. Look at the primary legitimate criticism...none of the 9/11 truth sites I'm aware of have been kind enough to tell me who planted the bombs or who ordered them planted. There IS no coherent theory of 9/11. This? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> In the US, some of these intersted parties formed a little think-tank: The Project For a New American Century (PNAC). Their ultimate goal was to spread American power and ownership across the globe, thus guaranteeing continual war and continuing profits from same.<hr></blockquote> What that poster just said was that the PNAC was plotting to keep business going as usual in the US? This has been the US m.o. since almost the beginning. This is how so many of you have been set up by the blame the neocons game. By insisting it's a tiny, tightly controlled little cabal, you have (many of you) have missed the big picture. And in my view, this emphasis of the "cabal" theme is not just a failure of rightwing analysis, which wants to idealize the way the US was back when....(exactly when, I don't know). They used to do the same stuff and blame it on the Soviet union....and Jewish communists. I think it's also sophisticated disinfo. SOME of the story will get out...so let's out it first, but keep the focus on a tiny subgroup. Oh, and let's put out lots of stuff to discredit much of the theory while we are at it. Which is exactly WHY I found the mention of Gunderson so interesting. Oh yeah...by the way, says the article, he used to be a bigwig in the FBI. But now he's just WHACKY. How about this question. What is a guy who had hundreds of men under his command in the FBI now doing interjecting himself into major conspiracy circles? Well, many of you might (still....sigh) say that he's yet another one of those intelligence people who has seen the light. But here's a better way to look at it. What has the FBI USUALLY been up to when getting involved with opposition groups? That is what we used to call "a clue." Gunderson and many like him contaminate the ground and articles like this are just mop-up operations. These folks who do these things...they are NOT stupid. They aren't omnipowerful, but they aren't stupid. The understand that you have to control the opposition in as many ways as possible. so you can keep looking for photographic evidence of Thermite...or you can call for investigations into the relationship of the Carlyle Group to the Bush administration and how they profited from the war, and how the bin Laden's were a part of it, etc etc. Easy to prove. Ridiculously easy to prove. Fuck thermite, damnit. Hey....Carlyle...isn't that the group that Soros was a 100 million dollar investor in? Can we stop following millionaires, CIA agents and infamous arms dealers now? The truth, such as we can get at it, is much more along the lines of the things wordspeak said. But folks, that's an indictment of the WHOLE freaking system...economic and political...of the capitalist world. THAT is not allowed. So instead we get thermite and pin the tail on the neocon. This isn't even new. In fact, during the REVOLUTIONARY WAR, the domestic elites were whipping up anger at the British elites but controlling the anti-British movement very carefully lest it become a revolution against ALL elites, foreign and domestic. You want to get at the powers behind 9/11? It will take much more than tossing out neocons.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:51 pm

Here's a thought I once had concerning the Pentagon and 911. Why didn't they go for the White House? They are close enough, from the POV of an aircraft, that the only reason I can think the Pentagon got hit was that a missile hit the plane, and the Pentagon was a second option. I heard in the eighties that the whole area was bristling with SAMs. That would explain the claim that some people heard and saw a missile and others an aircraft... And that plane that crashed in Penn. or wherever, the one they made a movie about, Does anyone really think it wasn't shot down, after what had already happened? The whole thing is a tangled web. IN resaponse to this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"What freedoms have you PERSONALLY lost" and "Name one thing you can't do that you couldn't do before"<hr></blockquote> Try catching a plane in the US with a fuck bush t shirt. I does frustrate me a bit that mainstream media coverage is always so disparaging and shallow re 911. I am waiting till the end of the month (gone over my download limit on braodband) until I download a podcast of Alexander Cockburn's interview on JJJ's Safran on Sunday program. I couldn't even post a link to that Coincidence theorists post of Jeff's to his guestbook on JJJ for some reason, perhaps someone moderated it away, but probably not. I'll get it to him eventually.

by **pugzleyca3** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:03 am

"You want to get at the powers behind 9/11? It will take much more than tossing out neocons." It hasn't escaped me that both sides of the political aisle have been colluding to snatch freedoms from the American people for decades upon decades. Maybe Hoover was right in saying that the conspiracy is so monstrous and huge (something like that) that you can't comprehend it. Since starting this quest for... truth, I've begun to feel as if I'm in the Matrix or something. Are we really human? Or are we holograms. LOL!

by **pugzleyca3** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:21 am

I believe that plane was brought down. I found some old news reports (local in PA which I cannot find any longer) which stated there were body parts and a debri field appx. 8 miles long. Disinfo or not? How would I know? Sometimes, I find myself wondering if Bush had a clue about what was going on that morning. He looked like a caged animal after Card whispered in his ear at the school. He looked frightened and nervous, eyes darting all over. Or guilty. Many speculative arguments to do with that day has to do with what they DIDN'T do, not what they DID do. Proving negatives is an exercise in frustration most of the time. They didn't whisk Bush away. He didn't get up and leave and make them whisk him away. They didn't scramble the jets according to normal operating procedure. They didn't notify each other quick enough (FAA and alphabet soups r us.) Bush didn't call a press conference immediately. He didn't return to Washington. (too dangerous so they said) They didn't do an investigation for 411 days. Looking at the subsequent power grabs, if one can be convinced that there actually were any power grabs, is definitely a way to finger who is doing what. But if "they" are really good at this, they are going to also install an opposition party to make you think there is actually some opposition. And, true the money issues are all important in solving this thing. Maybe I should just fuggedaboudit and move on with my life, because I am not going to be the one to unveil the revelation that solves this gargantuan puzzle. But I won't. One thing I feel I know for sure is that whoever the heck it is that is executing their plans seem to be ramping it up faster and faster. I mean, REALLY, who could dream that the torture/habeas corpus bill could be rammed through the way it was? It's like: "Up yours, we gotcha where we want you now and we no longer give diddly if you are aware of it or not."

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:48 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Here's a thought I once had concerning the Pentagon and 911. Why didn't they go for the White House?<hr></blockquote> Two reasons I can think of that the Pentagon itself was hit- 1) Dozens of accountants were killed there the day after Rumsfeld made a speech admitting that $2.3 trillion was unaccounted for by the Pentagon. Bean counters got beaned. End of problem. 2) The New Pearl Harbor effect to replace the Cold War required recharging the military-intelligence community with a mission. And nothing motivates like the trauma of loss and group revenge. Just ask the Iraqis.

by **FranklinCase Admin** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:03 am

One of the biggest fallacies known to man is used in nearly every mainstream piece covering the 9/11 truth movement, the straw man. Rather than refuting the movement’s claims they attack the person(s) making the claims. I will be the first to tell you Nomo, that no, I don't know exactly what happened on 9/11, nor will I probably ever know the truth. However, this doesn't mean that I will accept the official story either. I know I am not alone when it comes to my beliefs surrounding the events of 9/11. Depending on which poll you look at, anywhere from 30% to 80% of Americans believe that they have not been told the truth about the 9/11 attacks. Granted this doesn't mean that they all believe the government was complicit in the attacks, but it goes to show the distrust the public holds regarding the attacks. Furthermore, American’s are in the minority when it comes to buying into the official story. Europeans along with the Arab population overwhelmingly agree with 9/11 truthers. Often times Americans believe their opinion is the only opinion. Finally, one of the most interesting pieces of the 9/11 puzzle came from Bush’s visit to the elementary school on the morning of the attacks. Under the presumption that Bush and his associates had no idea that the attacks were coming they would have had to make a few assumptions: 1) When entering the school Bush was asked about the first plane hitting, (later he would say it saw the plane hit the building, that's another story) at the time he expressed it was nothing more than a horrible accident, sounded like a good answer at the time. 2) Then in the video made famous by Fahrenheit 9/11, Tony Snow whispers in Bush's ear that a second plane had hit the WTC buildings. 3) This is where things get interesting. Bush's trip to the school had been publicized for days in advance. If the Bush regime had no clue about the attacks, then they would have to make a few assumptions themselves. One being that Bush's life was in danger by the mere fact that a plane could have been heading in his very direction at that exact moment. 4) The Secret Service should had rushed Bush out of the school immediately, thus protecting their intrest. But instead Bush sat and listened, and went on to give a speech in front of the entire school in the Auditorium. Only after Bush's hour-long stay at the school did he leave to a more "secure location." This only illustrates one of the hundreds of “missing-links” to the real 9/11 story. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=franklincaseadmin>FranklinCase Admin</A> at: 10/25/06 11:04 pm

The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

it pisses me off, too

Re: it pisses me off, too

it really really pisses me off too

anti-semitism

the world can't be THAT bad

Re: anti-semitism

Re: anti-semitism

I'm an American

Re: anti-semitism

Re: anti-semitism

Re: anti-semitism

neo-cons

Re: anti-semitism

Re: Joe's comments

The Straw Man

Who is online