What Exactly is a "Truther?" Is Truth Bad Now?

[ManFromUncle]

George Orwell foresaw a society in which language was manipulated in order to have reverse meaning - War is Peace, Poverty is Prosperity, Ignorance is Strength. Sure enough in 1980 Reagan supporters started chanting "peace through strength" at rallies.

Now people, including here on this forum, regularly use the word "truther" as a pejorative. Is this a subliminal way to encourage people to actually despise the notion of truth, what really happened that no amount of smoke, mirrors, and ad hominem attacks can change? Agents for the status quo and the official version of US history give themselves away by attacking the sayer first, not what is being said. It is the first rule of propaganda. Demonize the target. "Truther!" As if truth were a bad thing.

So what exactly is a truther? Is truth a bad thing now?

 

[NorrinRadd]

"Truther" is a pejorative term properly applied to conspiracy nuts such as the "9/11 Truthers" from whom the term is derived.

 

[ManFromUncle]

"Truther" is a pejorative term properly applied to conspiracy nuts such as the "9/11 Truthers" from whom the term is derived.

Why should the word "truth" be a pejorative? It not the pursuit of truth a good thing? Or are we being conditioned to be sheep, to subconsciously despise the truth? Would this not be the tactic of fascism?

 

[Nithavela]

Why should the word "truth" be a pejorative? It not the pursuit of truth a good thing? Or are we being conditioned to be sheep, to subconsciously despise the truth? Would this not be the tactic of fascism?

It is used in this way because these people state that they know the "truth" about something, like the attacks on the world trade center, which is invariably some convoluted conspiracy. They accept something as truth that is not actually (or most likely) true and tout it has their own truth.

 

[Btodd]

Truthers (9/11 Truthers) named themselves. The term is used as a pejorative by people outside the movement because of the content of their theories, which they hold as 'truth'.

In reality, they should have named themselves 9/11 DENIERS. They deny what really happened on that day, which the rest of us find ridiculous and offensive.

If Holocaust Deniers (who did not name themselves) had the marketing foresight to have named themselves Holocaust Truthers, the term 'truther' would have been used as a pejorative much sooner.


Btodd

 

[Gadarene]

The only truth Truthers have is the one spelt out in their name.

Also "truther" doesn't have another meaning outside of referring to cranks, and is distinct from the term "truth".

 

[ManFromUncle]

It is used in this way because these people state that they know the "truth" about something, like the attacks on the world trade center, which is invariably some convoluted conspiracy. They accept something as truth that is not actually (or most likely) true and tout it has their own truth.

Cannot truth be determined by investigation? If the official story is physically impossible then the true story is no longer some convoluted conspiracy. For example, it is a fact that steel cannot fly out for two football fields laterally without help from explosives. This is not conspiracy it's just scientific fact. For example, how do you explain that 20 ton pieces of steel were cut neatly, and flew out at 80mph to land up to 600 feet away? More to the point, at what point do you admit that your conspiracy might be true after all, that the towers and WTC 7 were wired for demolition? Is there ANYTHING anyone could show you that would change your mind? Or is the official story an article of faith?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/101031312/wtc.html

 

[Btodd]

"Hey, let me ask a rhetorical question about the word 'Truther' in relation to truth, so I can once again spam-post the same graphic I have copied and pasted at least 100 times on this forum."




Btodd

 

[ManFromUncle]

[Staff Edit of quoted post]

That is kind of funny but I don't know any truthers who believe or talk about reptilians, however people who seem to have all kinds of time to spend online attacking 9/11 posts, like BTodd, are always eager to associate the these posts with the absurd. Don't you see how that works?

 

[Oafman]

That is kind of funny but I don't know any truthers who believe or talk about reptilians, however people who seem to have all kinds of time to spend online attacking 9/11 posts, like BTodd, are always eager to associate the these posts with the absurd. Don't you see how that works?

Oh it's a popular conspiracy theory, believed by many who share your views on 911.

Check out David Icke.

In fact, perhaps you shouldn't

 

[ManFromUncle]

Oh it's a popular conspiracy theory, believed by many who share your views on 911.

Check out David Icke.

In fact, perhaps you shouldn't

Instead of trying to determine whether something is true or not by trying to guess whom the sayers associate with, why don't you just examine the evidence for yourself? No truther who is serious quotes David Icke, but the perceived association gives you an excuse not to think for yourself. Yes thinking outside your normal box is hard work. It sucks that we have to do it sometimes.

 

[keith99]

"Hey, let me ask a rhetorical question about the word 'Truther' in relation to truth, so I can once again spam-post the same graphic I have copied and pasted at least 100 times on this forum."




Btodd

Truthers think if they tell the same lies often enough they will eventually be believed. It worked for Hitler. Of course Hitler did a much better job of telling his lies.

 

[ManFromUncle]

Truthers think if they tell the same lies often enough they will eventually be believed. It worked for Hitler. Of course Hitler did a much better job of telling his lies.

Hitler was referring to governments in his quote about the Big Lie, not dissidents. Why are you turning reality on its head? Do you think everyone is that stupid?

Motives for government doing and lying about 9/11:

- Start mega-profitable wars
- control remaining Middle East oil
- bomb Israel's rivals for regional dominance, destroy their infrastructure and societies
- shred the Constitution and the rights of Americans, making them easier to control

Motives for truthers to lie:

- invite the mockery and social opprobrium of their peers, at least at first until people start to realize they were right
- possibly lose their jobs, like Prof. Stephen Jones of BYU
- if you are a witness who has another story to tell risk assassination or mysterious death, like Danny Jownko and Barry Jennings. Mysterious Witness Deaths related to 9/11 | Public Conspiracy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q

So who has the greatest motive to be telling the big lie?

 

[Gadarene]

Instead of trying to determine whether something is true or not by trying to guess whom the sayers associate with, why don't you just examine the evidence for yourself? No truther who is serious quotes David Icke, but the perceived association gives you an excuse not to think for yourself. Yes thinking outside your normal box is hard work. It sucks that we have to do it sometimes.

You're assuming he hasn't already, and might still think you are talking nonsense

It's amazing how many cranks appeal to the "look at the evidence" line while citing no evidence themselves

 

[keith99]

Hitler was referring to governments in his quote about the Big Lie, not dissidents. Why are you turning reality on its head? Do you think everyone is that stupid?

Motives for government doing and lying about 9/11:

- Start mega-profitable wars
- control remaining Middle East oil
- bomb Israel's rivals for regional dominance, destroy their infrastructure and societies
- shred the Constitution and the rights of Americans, making them easier to control

Motives for truthers to lie:

- invite the mockery and social opprobrium of their peers, at least at first until people start to realize they were right
- possibly lose their jobs, like Prof. Stephen Jones of BYU
- if you are a witness who has another story to tell risk assassination or mysterious death, like Danny Jownko and Barry Jennings. Mysterious Witness Deaths related to 9/11 | Public Conspiracy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q

So who has the greatest motive to be telling the big lie?

Very good, argument based on assumed motives. Lets admit the elephant in the room. Truthers want the 15 minutes of fame so badly they are willing to be exposed as fools to get it.

 

[ManFromUncle]

You're assuming he hasn't already, and might still think you are talking nonsense

It's amazing how many cranks appeal to the "look at the evidence" line while citing no evidence themselves

You might want to scan what has been posted before responding and embarrassing yourself. The evidence I posted just before you opened your trap is as follows:

It is a fact that steel cannot fly out for two football fields laterally without help from explosives. This is not conspiracy it's just scientific fact. For example, how do you explain that 20 ton pieces of steel were cut neatly, and flew out at 80mph to land up to 600 feet away? More to the point, at what point do you admit that your conspiracy might be true after all, that the towers and WTC 7 were wired for demolition? Is there ANYTHING anyone could show you that would change your mind? Or is the official story an article of faith?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/101031312/wtc.html

 

[morse86]

How did Goerge Orwell know so much? Maybe he was part of it.

 

[whatbogsends]

"Truther" became a pejorative because there are people who wanted to marginalize those who question the official story, by lumping anyone who questions the official story as "moonbats who don't believe a plane hit the WTC", when, in reality, only a tiny subset of those who still seek the truth about 9/11 don't believe that planes were flown into the WTC buildings.

We know that the claimed perpetrator, Osama Bin Laden, was a CIA asset in the 90's.
We know the Bin Laden family had close ties with the Bush family, and that Bin Laden's family was flown out of the US within 48 hour of the attack. Despite claims of having no foreknowledge of the attack, and absurd statements from the Secretary of State saying things such "i don't think anyone could have predicted they would use a hijacked plane as a missile" - when that exact scenario had been presented to her 2 months before 9/11 and the military had done drills specifically for this scenario.

Condoleeza Rice Says She Never Thought Planes Could Be Used As Missiles - YouTube

Claim vs. Fact: Rice’s Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission | Center for American Progress

We know that the administration used the attack for an entirely unrelated military venture in the Middle East, with 9/11 as the rallying cry for public and political support. Interestingly, we attacked Iraq, whose regime was, at best, neutral to Al Qaeda, and continued our relationship with our good friends the Saudis, despite the majority of the hijackers and the ring leader being Saudis (with Bin Laden being part of the royal family).

There is clear evidence of a cover up, and the official investigation allowed Bush and Cheney to testify together (not seperately), and not under oath, and didn't even pursue several significant questions surrounding the attacks.

Of course, as all non-9/11 truthers know, the government is always honest with the public, and questioning what they tell you is beyond the pale, right? If one doesn't have evidence as to what did happen, you shouldn't be questioning the story your told, even if the story your told is full of holes, and doesn't even question facts that are unusual or inconsistent, right?

 

[Oafman]

I've read plenty of truther opinions, some towards the more reasonable end of the spectrum, some more wacky. I don't have an answer to every question they pose, but I'm no expert on the subject, and wouldn't expect to.

But one thing that strikes me as interesting, is that often, the same people who believe in these conspiracies, when you get them onto other topics, tend to be quite critical of government. They'll criticise government incompetence as much as the rest of us.

We are then expected to believe that these otherwise incompetent governments were able to pull off the largest an most ebaorate lie in history. This does not add up.

 

[whatbogsends]

I've read plenty of truther opinions, some towards the more reasonable end of the spectrum, some more wacky. I don't have an answer to every question they pose, but I'm no expert on the subject, and wouldn't expect to.

But one thing that strikes me as interesting, is that often, the same people who believe in these conspiracies, when you get them onto other topics, tend to be quite critical of government. They'll criticise government incompetence as much as the rest of us.

We are then expected to believe that these otherwise incompetent governments were able to pull off the largest an most ebaorate lie in history. This does not add up.

I criticize the government much more for corruption than i do for incompetence. Was there a cover up in Benghazi? Most likely. Will we ever know the truth? Not likely within the next 10-20 years.

You do realize that it's now documented fact that the incident which sparked the US involvement in Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin) didn't happen as was reported by the US government and we didn't find the truth about that until 30 some odd years later.

Pushing a false narrative (aka covering up the truth) is a tool the government has been successfully wielding for quite some time.

Have you noticed that the majority of "terrorist attacks" that have been thwarted since 9/11 involved some dups that were being led by CIA? In most of the terrorists plots they've thwarted (at least those that have been publicized) the "terrorist" lacked the means or even the drive to do the act, but were "aided" by the CIA. Bin Laden was a CIA asset in the 90s. Doesn't it strike you as odd, that we the government was claiming they had no foreknowledge of the attack, yet within 24 hours had a list of perpetrators, and within 48 hours flew 24 family members of the primary suspect out of the country?

Bin Laden Family Evacuated - CBS News

These types of things are the tips of the iceberg and if you look at the events of the day, and the official version of what happened there are plenty of other suspicious coincidences and things which don't make sense.