Jump to content
Generic George

9/11 Truther in murderous attack on Pentagon

7 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Turns out the guy who went up to the pentagon and started shooting was a 9/11 truther.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/us/06gunman.html

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=169076

 

Hmmm, this plus the tea party nutbager who flew his plane into the IRS building.

 

Really, what's the NWO coming to these days, when an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent conspiracy can't stop a couple of random nuts? You might start thinking that they don't really exist and it's all just the creation of deranged, paranoid individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

The idea is to demonize these movements in order to start a witchhunt. It's set up to make truthers out to be a violent threat so that persecution will ensue. Just look at that phony, Glenn Beck, trying to paint the picture that truthers may try to harm the president. Coupled with the sensationalized incident with that couple sneaking into that white house dinner a few months ago (a normal occurance) the stage is being set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea is to demonize these movements in order to start a witchhunt. It's set up to make truthers out to be a violent threat so that persecution will ensue. Just look at that phony, Glenn Beck, trying to paint the picture that truthers may try to harm the president. Coupled with the sensationalized incident with that couple sneaking into that white house dinner a few months ago (a normal occurance) the stage is being set.

 

Well I'd say people who open fire with guns or fly planes into buildings, do in fact represent a threat. However, there's no need to demonize "truthers". They're a sad and pathetic lot who have no ability to comprehend anything that contradicts their excessively neat and tidy worldview, where everything is the result of some vast conspiracy that somehow fails to either silence them or avoid making really stupid boneheaded mistakes that happen for seemingly no other reason than to give the 'truthers" something to go "HA! That proves there was a conspiracy!!!!!!".

 

If there was a conspiracy, they'd be laughing their asses off at the "truthers", who are doing exactly what they'd want them to be doing.

 

Besides if anyone's a threat to Obama, it's not the "truthers" it's Glen Beck's followers.

 

I'm still waiting for someone. anyone to give me a halfway plausible reason why WTC7 would have been destroyed in a controlled demolition. It's not like anyone cared about that building, hell pretty much nobody outside of NYC and the "truthers" has ever even heard of it.

 

Skeptic Magazine had a really interesting article regarding 9/11 and the resulting conspiracy. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link to if here. If not, it's in Vol. 12 #4.

 

Skeptic magazine is closely associated with JREF, the forum I linked to. It's a good magazine, both that link you posted and JREF's 9/11 conspiracy board provide pretty much all the debunking info anyone would need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I'd say people who open fire with guns or fly planes into buildings, do in fact represent a threat. However, there's no need to demonize "truthers". They're a sad and pathetic lot who have no ability to comprehend anything that contradicts their excessively neat and tidy worldview, where everything is the result of some vast conspiracy that somehow fails to either silence them or avoid making really stupid boneheaded mistakes that happen for seemingly no other reason than to give the 'truthers" something to go "HA! That proves there was a conspiracy!!!!!!".

 

If there was a conspiracy, they'd be laughing their asses off at the "truthers", who are doing exactly what they'd want them to be doing.

 

Besides if anyone's a threat to Obama, it's not the "truthers" it's Glen Beck's followers.

 

I'm still waiting for someone. anyone to give me a halfway plausible reason why WTC7 would have been destroyed in a controlled demolition. It's not like anyone cared about that building, hell pretty much nobody outside of NYC and the "truthers" has ever even heard of it.

 

 

 

Skeptic magazine is closely associated with JREF, the forum I linked to. It's a good magazine, both that link you posted and JREF's 9/11 conspiracy board provide pretty much all the debunking info anyone would need.

 

JREF is indeed the {censored}. Basically anyone who uses logic and rationality to come to an informed conclusion ranks high in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You doubt the significance of WTC7 and question my world view? Wow, ok.

 

I'm not seeing any reason in your reply for it's destruction, but you do seem like you might actually be open to reason.

 

If you try reading some of the older arguments I've had with the "truthers" here, you'll see why I hold such a low opinion of "truthers". I've seen similarly obstinate ignorance out of the "truthers' on JREF.

 

Have you ever actually looked into any of the debunking on the 9/11 stuff? That Skeptic link Seabass posted is a good place to start and there's more on the JREF website.

 

KISS (keep it simple stupid) is an important part of any successful operation. Rigging a building the size of WTC7 for a controlled demolition is no simple, quick or trivial task. Trying to do so adds significant risk of discovery and other things going wrong. While destroying the twin towers as part of a casus belli makes sense, nobody anywhere in the world is one iota more outraged that WTC7 was destroyed as well as the Twin Towers. So we're talking about adding a substantial amount of risk for no clear or obvious reward.

 

In fact the only reason function I can see for "destroying" wtc7 is so that the "truthers" can go "HA! That has to be a controlled demolition!!!!!".

 

"Faking" the attack on the Pentagon suffers from essentially the same issues, though there plenty of evidence that most of the claims on that are even less grounded in reality.

 

I gave up on the "truther" nonsense when a video one of my friends made me watch claimed that the top of one of the Towers fell faster than the speed of gravity. Given the lack of gigantic rocket motors on the building, this meant either the Government has gravity control technology or the people making the video couldn't either operate a stop watch correctly. I've not encountered since then anything that made significantly more sense out of the "truther" moviement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×