Morons....

[Blunt Republican]

Hello, I am Bill, and I am a blunt Republican, for some blunt republican views, visit my website as often as possible (hasn't been updated in a few days, I'll get back to it) at http://www.geocities.com/betterthenmaddox .

Anyways, don't be surprised if I call anyone a moron for their believe, because if you disagree with anything I say, you're a moron, <b>plane</b> and simple.

Speaking of planes... (conveniant misspelling...)

Jews, Republicans, Scientologists, Canadians, Jedi, Kyle, Santa Claus, Aliens George Lucas, and FOX news are all being blamed for 9/11 in some way or another, by some group of angry nut jobs, somewhere in the world.

Now of course, if all the 9/11 deniers could get their stories straight, it would be one thing, but of course, you prove one theory wrong, and some other ass hole says that all the main deniers believe in some other load of *.

I'm going to start with a theory that I haven't heard in a long time. The "extra plane" theory. I can't even find anything on it any more. But this past summer, deniers were showing me pictures of these two planes flying over the World Trade Center on September 11th.

Now, I can't find a direct link to anything involving this, likely because it's been proven wrong, but to anyone who still believes it, ti's been proven those planes were flights 77 and 93.

Now to the "No windows people"... this was found atop tower five.



Now, why go blame Osama bin Laden... so that they could attack Iraq? Why blame 19 Saudis instead of 19 Iraqis??? Now don't forget, I'd support the Iraq war with or without 9/11, for other reasosns. It makes no sense.

Now, I'm not going to go into a bunch of other things that have been debunked over and over, I'm just going to do some common sense things, but here's an image that proves some stuff.



Other Debunking Sites

http://www.debunking911.com
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.com (top article, also gives more debunking links)
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com

There is also an article on conspiracy theories on my site.

-Bill from Canada

[Blunt Republican]

Also, it's interesting that Loose Change doesn't show these screen shots from the bin Laden confession tape.

[iro]

what a stupid pointless poll.

[John White]

Jews, Republicans, Scientologists, Canadians, Jedi, Kyle, Santa Claus, Aliens George Lucas, and FOX news are all being blamed for 9/11 in some way or another, by some group of angry nut jobs, somewhere in the world.

You forgot Muslims: guilty on masse with no better justifications than any of the above. I'd agree that the Bush administration do show qualities of being "angry nut jobs" though

[Blunt Republican]

Well, of course, that's only if you ignore Osama bin Laden's five other attacks on America, his fight against the Russians, and his declaration of Jihad. Oh ya, and Hezzbollah's attacks on Israel, along with constant threats from muslim leaders around the world. Other then that, there's no reason to think Muslims would hurt anyone.

[Ignatz]

More "livery", in case there's any more drone plane/no plane nutters out there :

[TimmyG]

haha

so you've come on this forum basically saying 'hello. i am a small minded racist' yet you still apparently want to discuss specifics with us?

aside from this i have to say agree with you on the plane issue. it was a real plane and probably a 757

[John White]

Well, of course, that's only if you ignore Osama bin Laden's five other attacks on America, his fight against the Russians, and his declaration of Jihad. Oh ya, and Hezzbollah's attacks on Israel, along with constant threats from muslim leaders around the world. Other then that, there's no reason to think Muslims would hurt anyone.

And of the other four, have any of them resulted in any actual prosecutions, or have they all in fact been shown to be scare stories? What I'm pointing out to you is that it is just a lunatic to hold the view that ALL muslims want to hurt america as it is to claim all christians want to hurt muslims, simply on the basis that some chrisitans supported the War on Iraq...and infact contrary to the opinions of the vast majority of Muslims and Christians around the world, who are dedicated to brotherhood and peace

Not that I'm one to bandy such words around, but perhaps, just a little...prejudiced?

There's also the problem that the FBI have no interest in Bin Laden (FACT), that he was allowed to escape from Tora bora into Pakistan during the Afghan campaign (FACT), that Al-Qaida is a CIA founded operation (FACT), and that, in fact, it can only be defined as an idea, with a few identifiable individuals...

Heres a small excerpt from a Guardian article interviewing the writer and producer of "Power of Nightmares", the BBC documentary looking at the myths of terrorism as a means of social control. You can find google links for the three hour series at the following link:

http://malvernmessages.free-forums.org/ ... ut293.html

The Power of Nightmares seeks to overturn much of what is widely believed about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The latter, it argues, is not an organised international network. It does not have members or a leader. It does not have "sleeper cells". It does not have an overall strategy. In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence.

Curtis' evidence for these assertions is not easily dismissed. He tells the story of Islamism, or the desire to establish Islam as an unbreakable political framework, as half a century of mostly failed, short-lived revolutions and spectacular but politically ineffective terrorism. Curtis points out that al-Qaida did not even have a name until early 2001, when the American government decided to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence and had to use anti-Mafia laws that required the existence of a named criminal organisation.

Curtis also cites the Home Office's own statistics for arrests and convictions of suspected terrorists since September 11 2001. Of the 664 people detained up to the end of last month, only 17 have been found guilty. Of these, the majority were Irish Republicans, Sikh militants or members of other groups with no connection to Islamist terrorism. Nobody has been convicted who is a proven member of al-Qaida.

"an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence. "

An idea, I add which is hardly exclusive to any religion across the breadth of history...and none of which explains how NORAD stood down on 9/11 and failed to stop the planes hitting their targets...

It really depends on how interested you are in considering other perspectives than your own. I'm sure its cathartic for you to come over here and tell the membership how stupid they are for following their democratic duty to ask questions, but I hope you won't delude yourself than doing so is anything else than self-relief

[DeFecToR]

Well, of course, that's only if you ignore Osama bin Laden's five other attacks on America, his fight against the Russians, and his declaration of Jihad. Oh ya, and Hezzbollah's attacks on Israel, along with constant threats from muslim leaders around the world. Other then that, there's no reason to think Muslims would hurt anyone.

Another diamond example of historical ignorance. Welcome to critics corner. You'll feel right at home.

[Ignatz]

Well, of course, that's only if you ignore Osama bin Laden's five other attacks on America, his fight against the Russians, and his declaration of Jihad. Oh ya, and Hezzbollah's attacks on Israel, along with constant threats from muslim leaders around the world. Other then that, there's no reason to think Muslims would hurt anyone.

Another diamond example of historical ignorance. Welcome to critics corner. You'll feel right at home.

Thought you were quitting this forum?

[Blunt Republican]

That stupid ass hole who called me racist??? When did I say anything racist???

I mean I am a racist, those dirty European * bags are all going to hell, but I don't believe I ever said anything racist?

Is it racist to think that pissed off muslims did 9/11? No...

Is it * retarded to think that the biggest terror attack in history was covered up by the government, and yet they left all these "smoking guns" everywhere? Yes....

[Blunt Republican]

This bull * about the CIA founding al-Quaeda is bull *. Both the CIA, and al-Quaeda deny it, and you know, so what if they did? The Russians had to be stopped? I mean did they really anticipate these guys fighting back to America after they helped them fight the Russians? Bush is wrong about one thing. This isn't because bin Laden hates democracy, bin Laden wants to control the world, and he's taking a sick twist on his religion to control morons.

Face it, you have no real evidence, or a single structural engineer who agrees with you.

[ian neal]

Critics, I know you are not all rabid fools, like the blunt one here and it would be nice to have a reasoned evidence based discussion with those of you who are genuinely here to discuss the evidence and 'correct' our ignorance. However I have no objective way to separate genuine critics from blabbering fools, shills and cointelpro

Any of you have any suggestions?

[ian neal]

Blunt one

Post respectfully and politely or you will be banned

[Blunt Republican]

I'm terribley worried! I REALLY want the conspiracy nuts to like me!!!!

I'm sorry, you're right, I'm a government shill, and am part of the Jewish-Republican conspiracy from space, <b>I</b> did 9/11!!!

[John White]

The Russians had to be stopped?

And neither of them stopped the russians: the Soviet empire was inexorably crumbling from within and the Afghan campaign had little to do with it

OK, so the truth, that we should all defer to according to yourself Blunt Republican, is that Al-Quada is a terrible and mortal enemy of freedom, and that we should be united behind the US administration crusading against their freedom hating butts, and that as far as the historical fact goes that this is an entirely self contructed enemy, your response is:

so what if they did?

Well heres something to ponder:

"a problem cannot be solved by the same thinking that created it

Do you not think there might be some wisdom in not letting the exact same people (yes, the very same Neocons gave Saddam WMD's and created al-quada) have another go at cocking it up again?

Without a conspiratorial worldview, your still letting a bunch of incompetant losers make a problem far far worse becuase they've conned you into thinking they will "keep you safe"

There is conclusive evidance of "9/11 inside job" a plenty, but given your current inability to know even the rudimentary background to the situation, I'd have to say I would seriously ask yourself if your ready and able to handle it

If your up to the risk, this is where you start: NO critic can refute ANY of the information in this film: dont believe me, ask them to, this is critics corner after all

The Jersey Girls, four 9/11 widows without which there would never have been any investigation into 9/11, present "Press for truth"

Respect the victims and give them 1hour 20 minutes of your time

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +for+truth

[Anti-sophist]

There is conclusive evidance of "9/11 inside job" a plenty, but given your current inability to know even the rudimentary background to the situation, I'd have to say I would seriously ask yourself if your ready and able to handle it

Still waiting for a single shred of it. Let me know when you are ready to release it.

[John White]

There is conclusive evidance of "9/11 inside job" a plenty, but given your current inability to know even the rudimentary background to the situation, I'd have to say I would seriously ask yourself if your ready and able to handle it

Still waiting for a single shred of it. Let me know when you are ready to release it.

When you lads master escaping from a wet paper bag thinking wise....

Of course, you can just carry on believing what the telly tells you (as Blunt Republican appears to have done) on the basis of virtually no evidence whatsoever and congratulate yourself on being "sane", its your free will choice...but when the penny drops, it will be quite a fall

PS any debunking of "press for truth" coming from you? If not, WHY are you accepting a whitewashed 9/11 commission?

[wepmob2000]

aside from this i have to say agree with you on the plane issue. it was a real plane and probably a 757

In the case of the South tower, it was a 767, see attached link...... (sorry it's a huge link)

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0 ... id=0188369

[Anti-sophist]

When you lads master escaping from a wet paper bag thinking wise....

Of course, you can just carry on believing what the telly tells you (as Blunt Republican appears to have done) on the basis of virtually no evidence whatsoever and congratulate yourself on being "sane", its your free will choice...but when the penny drops, it will be quite a fall

Alot of words, no evidence. I'm still waiting.

The really funny part is most debunkers tend to be scientific minded left-of-center types who typically hate bush because of his anti-science stance. Yet you guys are in love with your red-state/blue-state conspiracy gibberish too much to realize it.

PS any debunking of "press for truth" coming from you? If not, WHY are you accepting a whitewashed 9/11 commission?

I don't do point by point debunking of video compilation. My rule is that the two people involved in a conversation need to do roughly equal amount of work.

If you want to pick a specific point in "press for truth" and talk about it, feel free to point it out. Give me the time, I'll watch it, and we can go to town. I'm not going to put in 5 hours doing all the research to debunk some stupid video just so you can ignore it all the answered I've lovingly provided, and post some new video next week.

If you want to talk about the most salient points in the video, bring them up. If all you want to do is dump hours and hours of video compilation, then it's fairly certain that _you_ are the one being spoon-fed and told what to think.

[John White]

"Oh its not my job to actually examine the case I claim to be irrational and beneath any sensible person's attention"

You miss the point with your sophistry anti-sophist: I dont need to debunk press for truth: YOU do: or show yourself to be defending the indefensible to all these "lurkers" JREF'ers claim to be here to influence

And thanks! Your boost to the 9/11 Truth campaign is certainly appreciated

[John White]

PS: when you can "think your way out of a wet paper bag": then you will understand the case for inside job: until then you are subconciously preventing yourself from being able to grasp it.

Just a hint for you

[Anti-sophist]

You miss the point with your sophistry anti-sophist: I dont need to debunk press for truth: YOU do: or show yourself to be defending the indefensible to all these "lurkers" JREF'ers claim to be here to influence

I'm sorry but the authors of press for truth aren't here. _YOU_ are. I'm talking with _YOU_. What do _YOU_ think is the most salient part of that video? Do _YOU_ have any thoughts of your own, or do _YOU_ just watch videos and say "YES. EXACTLY WHAT I THINK TOO".

Do _YOU_ have any opinions of what the most salient aspect of the video is? Or do _YOU_ just parrot it over and over demanding people waste their time giving _YOU_ analysis that _YOU_ are just going to ignore?

I'm still waiting to hear what _YOU_ think, not what the authors of that video think....

[Anti-sophist]

PS: when you can "think your way out of a wet paper bag": then you will understand the case for inside job: until then you are subconciously preventing yourself from being able to grasp it.

Just a hint for you

I require evidence to "think". You can't provide any. I am not a religious person. I don't accept thing on faith. I require proof. You have none.

The challenge has stood for several posts now.. provide some evidence. You can't, it seems. All you can do is repeat how strong the case is, without actually showing any strength.

[John White]

You see? Like a stuck record, going back and forth over the same points

Why do you think I am obliged to do critics favours?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +for+truth

Get Busy: then you will be worth talking with

[Anti-sophist]

You see? Like a stuck record, going back and forth over the same points

Why do you think I am obliged to do critics favours?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +for+truth

Get Busy: then you will be worth talking with

I'm not going to argue with someone who doesn't have the ability to think for themselves, sorry. I could just post a link to the NIST pdf files and say "debunk this" over and over too. When you get your own opinions and stop believing whatever you hear on google video, let me know.

Alot of talking, no evidence, still. Next.

[Bushwacker]

Critics, I know you are not all rabid fools, like the blunt one here and it would be nice to have a reasoned evidence based discussion with those of you who are genuinely here to discuss the evidence and 'correct' our ignorance. However I have no objective way to separate genuine critics from blabbering fools, shills and cointelpro

Any of you have any suggestions?

Wanting to have a reasonable evidence based discussion sounds rather like a change of heart, since normally your attitude is that you do not want to bother debating evidence since you are convinced, and this is a campaigning site not an evidence discussing site. However, I am sure we would welcome your input.

As for Blunt Bill, at least he does produce evidence to back up what he says, and calling him a "rabid fool" is hardly "posting with respect" yourself. Critics come in various forms like "truthseekers" some of whom have most bizarre theories and methods of promoting them without being separated out on the forum. Talking of such things, why is the spat between Ally and andyb in Critics Corner, neither of them being critics? Perhaps you should have a "Furious Infighting Corner" for such things, and even a "No-planer Corner" for those you find embarrassing in another way.

[John White]

I'm not going to argue with someone who doesn't have the ability to think for themselves, sorry. I could just post a link to the NIST pdf files and say "debunk this" over and over too. When you get your own opinions and stop believing whatever you hear on google video, let me know.

Alot of talking, no evidence, still. Next

And I could just say NIST? what about ASCE?

And one says "floor failure, not column failure", the other says "column failure not floor failure" and the same people involved in authoring both: and you give them credibility!

Stop it, your making my sides hurt

Ok, Whitewashed Commision means nothing to you, you dont want justice, you just want revenge

Is that a fair conclusion?

At least you were honest about yourself in the last sentance

[Anti-sophist]

And one says "floor failure, not column failure", the other says "column failure not floor failure" and the same people involved in authoring both: and you give them credibility!

Are you saying the ASCE and NIST are incompetant?

Ok, Whitewashed Commision means nothing to you, you dont want justice, you just want revenge

Huh? Which delusional part of you brain did you get that from?

[John White]

Also, it's interesting that Loose Change doesn't show these screen shots from the bin Laden confession tape.

I thought i'd just mention that all your stills show is that the impersonator is a better match in profile

Btw bizzarely enough BR, the "inside job" case does not depend on any kind of switch of the planes. Planes full of people hit buildings, yep, no problem: Loose change isnt everything y'know?