Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Wow. Only a willfully ignorant sheople could ignore what's right in front of him:
"There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the parts?"
Why was the hole so small? What happened to the rest of the plane?
"As I came up along the Pentagon I saw helicopters. (...) it was headed straight for the building. It made no sense. (...) A huge jet. Then it was gone. A massive hole in the side of the Pentagon gushed smoke. The noise was beyond description. The smell seemed to singe the inside of my nose. The earth seemed to stop shaking for a second, but then sirens began and the ground seemed to shake again - this time from the incoming barrage of firetrucks, police cars. military vehicles. (...) I called my boss. I had no memory of how to work my cellphone. I hit redial and his number came up. "Something hit the Pentagon. It must have been a helicopter." I knew that wasn't true, but I heard myself say it. I heard myself believe it, if only for a minute. "Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the parts?"
Pentagon 9/11 Eye Witness Accounts | Pearltrees
The standing order was obviously a stand-down, no-shoot order, or flt 77, or whatever, would have been shot down. But then that was an important part of the "official story." Try Cheney for clear-cut treason and 9/11 blows open. He let the incoming object hit the Pentagon.US SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION NORMAN MINETA: "... There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
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?
There were parts on the ground, but they didn't seem to go to a 757.
The Pentagon is what's called a Honey Pot, designed to distract from the clearer evidence of demolition of the 3 towers, especially WTC7.
That's why they are hiding all the security footage around the Pentagon, so people would keep guessing at what it was.
Says who? With what evidence?
A "truther" is someone who believes that They are lying to us.
"They" is anyone and everyone in a position of authority.
Truthers often believe many things, like the US government is arming "moderate" rebels, and the weapons often end up being used against the US or her allies.
Truthers believe that the US government has little respect for the truth, and has been caught in numerous documented lies over the past 30 years, and that selling weapons to questionable groups has been a pattern - Iran Contra, Fast & Furious, selling chemical weapons to Saddam in the 90's which were later used as justification to invade Iraq, despite any real evidence that their weapons program was active.
Of course, there are many who, instead of actually addressing these issues, cling to the radical elements of the truther movement, and try to castigate anyone who questions what we've been told about 9/11 by grouping them in with all sorts of whackos. Tell you what - if you get to group all those who question 9/11 with people who think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Socialist, then i get to group you in with religious fanatics. Since you believe we were told the truth about 9/11, and Joe Schmoe religious nut in Anywhere, USA believes we were told the truth together, we now get to assign all of Joe Schmoe's beliefs to you.
If you're not questioning the government and the media, then you're not paying attention. The government and our mainstream "news" organizations don't present us with a comprehensive overview of facts (aka journalism), they present us with a narrative, and then present (or omit) the facts in such a way as to further their narrative. In layman's terms, it's called propaganda.
Noone's saying you should trust the government. But there's a middle ground between believing anything you see on television and suddenly believing the most preposterous claims known to mankind because some blog poster collected a bunch of video clips.
I don't see it that way. It's just rare to see someone "questioning" select parts of the 9/11-story who doesn't also question governmental actions anywhere and everywhere else.
ManFromUncle, for example, who is the OP of this thread and prime truther here on ChristianForums, believes that the US government is bombing Muslims "for fun" and therefore went through lengths of conspiracies in order to get what they want. Then he adds a bit of antisemitism and antizionism into the mix, because if anyone's capable of conspiracies, it must be the jews.
He claims the US is attacking the Islamic State in order to "bomb Muslim infrastructure" and when asked why anyone would go through all the lengths (of "creating the Islamic State" and "controlling it from afar") - he has no answer. Or he turns it into something more sinister (in the sense that this is all just Israel's fault and that they are the ones controlling the US government).
So, don't get me wrong: I don't know you, so I won't judge your opinions. But I hope you aren't surprised when people lump you into the same category with other nuts whose perception of an "evil Jewish empire" is nothing more but racism disguised as political critique.
I agree that the interest of the mainstream media isn't to give the whole and unfiltered truth, but that its interest is to produce stories that sell. That doesn't mean, however, that everything they say is bolony.
Fact of the matter is that on September 11th, four hijacked planes crashed into several US buildings and 3000 individuals lost their lives. I have yet to see even a shred of evidence that suggests otherwise.
When some truthers (I don't know if it was you) demanded evidence for plane debris at the Pentagon, it was promptly presented by several posters. And yet, as far as I know, noone actively tried to refute that. Instead, every piece of evidence that supports the official story is either ignored or turned into something more sinister.
And that, my friend, is what is categorically wrong with conspiracy theorists: no matter what evidence is presented, that evidence is always turned and twisted to fit an even more sinister motive. As such, their hypothesis becomes infalsifiable and that is contradictory to anyone searching for the truth.
My "becoming a truther" had nothing to do with some blog poster collecting a bunch of video clips. It had to do with the clear lies put forth by the Bush administration in the aftermath of 9/11, both about 9/11 itself, and regarding Iraq and WMDs in the run-up to the Iraq war (which started within 48 hours of 9/11). It had to do with implausible lies the administration told about what they knew. It had to do with political opportunism regarding 9/11, and a curious coincidence that their published agenda (PNAC document Rebuilding America's Defenses published in 1999, which called for US action in the Middle East, and indicated that the action they wanted (which the Bush administration then followed) would be very difficult to implement without "another Pearl Harbor". The signatories to the PNAC included most of Bush's senior cabinet officials and advisors - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl.
So we agree that ManFromUncle consistently makes crazy claims on every subject under the sun. So, because he's among those who question what we've been told about 9/11, we must all believe in those crazy claims, right?
While MFU takes things way too far, to suggest that Israel has a large influence on the actions of the US government is hardly crazy.
I'm not surprised anymore, because i've seen the meme play itself out time and again. Instead of actually addressing the inconsistencies in the government narrative of 9/11, people either a) highlight those who have crazy views about 9/11, and then use a broad brush to dismiss valid questioning, or b) try to put the burden of proof on the person showing the inconsistency as to what really happened, when the person showing the inconsistency simply showed that what they said was false. Both of these have already played out in this thread.
Moreover, because you're a Christian, i hope you aren't surprised when i lump you with people who think that all bad people are bad because they're controlled by Satan, and that people with seizures actually have spirits trapped in them, and that the earth is 6000 years old. You shouldn't be surprised, because this is exactly what you're doing with regards to "truthers".
Not everything they say is baloney, but the vast majority of it is. Conservatives/Republicans decry the nonsense put forth by MSNBC and CNN, and Liberals/Democrats decry the nonsense put forth by FOX, but the truth is, all the major media outlets spout a lot of nonsense, are heavy on opinion and narrative, and light on facts.
Interestingly enough, no one here has countered any of my claims, other than BTodd, who must have this topic on high alert, because he comes with the same refrain every time this subject is brought up.
Show me where my claims in this thread have been refuted. I've presented ample evidence of government foreknowledge of the attack, none of which has been refuted, all of which has been ignored by the 9/11 falsers.
Truthers often believe many things, like the US government is arming "moderate" rebels, and the weapons often end up being used against the US or her allies.
Truthers believe that the US government has little respect for the truth, and has been caught in numerous documented lies over the past 30 years, and that selling weapons to questionable groups has been a pattern - Iran Contra, Fast & Furious, selling chemical weapons to Saddam in the 90's which were later used as justification to invade Iraq, despite any real evidence that their weapons program was active.
Of course, there are many who, instead of actually addressing these issues, cling to the radical elements of the truther movement, and try to castigate anyone who questions what we've been told about 9/11 by grouping them in with all sorts of whackos. Tell you what - if you get to group all those who question 9/11 with people who think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Socialist, then i get to group you in with religious fanatics. Since you believe we were told the truth about 9/11, and Joe Schmoe religious nut in Anywhere, USA believes we were told the truth together, we now get to assign all of Joe Schmoe's beliefs to you.
That's how this works, right? Find someone who agrees with the person you're arguing against on X, then assert that everyone who believes X also believes Y because this other guy said it.
If you're not questioning the government and the media, then you're not paying attention. The government and our mainstream "news" organizations don't present us with a comprehensive overview of facts (aka journalism), they present us with a narrative, and then present (or omit) the facts in such a way as to further their narrative. In layman's terms, it's called propaganda.
After doing some reading on the topic, I see that there are different "types" of "truthers" - the only ones I knew were of the likes of ManFromUncle, who advocated a controlled demolition of the WTC and cruise missiles into the Pentagon (both of which I found absurd theories and highly improbable).
I was not aware there was a "they-let-it-happen" faction, which is less absurd but nonetheless (in my opinion) improbable.
As for the events being used for political goals, you're spot on in that regard.
Israel has a limited influence on the actions - mainly due to the fact that large sums of capital (and therefore election campaign donations) are owned by Jews. I don't see any connection from Israel to the US engagements in Iraq and Syria, though, seeing as how they hardly improved security and stability in the region.
Apologies if I am guilty of either of those. I didn't read much of the thread and I am not very much into the topic - perhaps you could (in a few words/bulletins) highlight your major arguments?
Again, apologies.
You have that problem in many countries (that is different media outlets holding different political views). I try to get a better picture of the world by also looking at the news outlets of foreign countries (Russia, China, France, England - even Iran).
Again, I'm not following the thread closely. I just see that MFU has spammed up these board with preposterous claims of a Jewish conspiracy that seeks to eradicate Islam.
Maybe you could - just for me - put your arguments into a short list of bulletins (just your train of thought, no youtube videos and no pagelong essays)? Or just link to the posts?
I don't consider the "they let it happen" to be nearly as outrageously stupid as the "cruise missile / demolition" theory. Like I said, I would consider it, from the get-go, unlikely - considering that it would require everyone who knew about the attack to remain silent, regardless of their own personal ethical/moral beliefs.
Would you say that "They" are lying to us? About 9/11? About the death of princess Diana? About Area 51? About the moon landing? About the assassination of JFK? About the birthplace of Obama?
I lump these people together because belief in one conspiracy greatly increases the chances that someone believes all the others. Research shows that people will simultaneously believe contradictory conspiracies (e.g. Osama is simultaneously dead and alive...he is now Schrodinger's Terrorist)
Contradictions Don't Deter Conspiracy Theorists | Psychology of Conspiracy Theories | Princess Diana & Osama bin Laden
Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. | Robbie Sutton - Academia.edu
Why People Believe Conspiracy Theories - Scientific American
I gave you several examples of what "they" lied to us about, and you didn't seem to refute any of it. Instead, you gave me a list of several other topics to get me to weigh in on.
I believe Obama was born in Hawaii.
I have not done any research at all into Princess Diana's death, and don't have an opinion on it. I don't expect to do any research on it either.
JFK was definitely assassinated. I think there is the possibility that it was more involved than the lone gunman, but haven't really looked at this.
I'm guessing when you say "Area 51" you're talking about an area in which the government has a bunch of artifacts from outer space or some such. While i'm pretty sure the government keeps secrets from it's populace, i have no reason to suspect any significant alien activity has been identified and kept hidden by the government.
I think we landed on the moon, but don't 100% discount the possibility that the moon landing was faked as part of US propaganda in the space race. Regardless, even if it were faked, it's not something that offends me in the way lies which were used to bring us into war do.
Keep trying to put me into that square hole.
Do you acknowledge that the government simultaneously arms questionable groups and uses other countries' arming of questionable groups as a reason to oppose them?
Do you acknowledge that the US government has lied about how much spying they've done on their own citizenry (emails, phone calls, etc), and if it weren't for agents which brought that information to light, would continue their lies (and to an extent, still continue to lie about it)?
Do you acknowledge that MSNBC is largely a mouthpiece for the DNC and Fox is largely a mouthpiece for the RNC, and both organizations put ideology before truth?
I gave you several examples of what "they" lied to us about, and you didn't seem to refute any of it. Instead, you gave me a list of several other topics to get me to weigh in on.
I believe Obama was born in Hawaii.
I have not done any research at all into Princess Diana's death, and don't have an opinion on it. I don't expect to do any research on it either.
JFK was definitely assassinated. I think there is the possibility that it was more involved than the lone gunman, but haven't really looked at this.
I'm guessing when you say "Area 51" you're talking about an area in which the government has a bunch of artifacts from outer space or some such. While i'm pretty sure the government keeps secrets from it's populace, i have no reason to suspect any significant alien activity has been identified and kept hidden by the government.
I think we landed on the moon, but don't 100% discount the possibility that the moon landing was faked as part of US propaganda in the space race. Regardless, even if it were faked, it's not something that offends me in the way lies which were used to bring us into war do.
Keep trying to put me into that square hole.
Do you acknowledge that the government simultaneously arms questionable groups and uses other countries' arming of questionable groups as a reason to oppose them?
Do you acknowledge that the US government has lied about how much spying they've done on their own citizenry (emails, phone calls, etc), and if it weren't for agents which brought that information to light, would continue their lies (and to an extent, still continue to lie about it)?
Do you acknowledge that MSNBC is largely a mouthpiece for the DNC and Fox is largely a mouthpiece for the RNC, and both organizations put ideology before truth?
I think you do yourself a disservice by calling yourself a Truther or allowing yourself to be called a Truther.
The term has come to have a rather specific meaning which includes more than just the linguistic origin. Not unlike the term Creationist. As far as the word origin goes one could call any who believe God (or anything else) created the universe a Creationist that at eh least connotes and I would say denotes far more. Things like belief in a literal 6 day creation and denial of any physical evidence that contradicts a very specific interpretation of Scripture.
For 911 Truthers the equivalent it that the very core of the official position is denied. The "Truth" is that the WTC did not come down because of the jet strikes but from some other cause.
But as best I can see you even fail to fit as a Truther at the level of the word origin. Unlike one who can be forced into the linguistic box of Creationist because they believe in a creator you cannot be forced into the Truther box as you explicitly deny having enough knowledge to know the truth, you just know enough to know the official position is not completely accurate or complete.
I think you do yourself a disservice by calling yourself a Truther or allowing yourself to be called a Truther.
The term has come to have a rather specific meaning which includes more than just the linguistic origin. Not unlike the term Creationist. As far as the word origin goes one could call any who believe God (or anything else) created the universe a Creationist that at eh least connotes and I would say denotes far more. Things like belief in a literal 6 day creation and denial of any physical evidence that contradicts a very specific interpretation of Scripture.
For 911 Truthers the equivalent it that the very core of the official position is denied. The "Truth" is that the WTC did not come down because of the jet strikes but from some other cause.
But as best I can see you even fail to fit as a Truther at the level of the word origin. Unlike one who can be forced into the linguistic box of Creationist because they believe in a creator you cannot be forced into the Truther box as you explicitly deny having enough knowledge to know the truth, you just know enough to know the official position is not completely accurate or complete.
I think you do yourself a disservice by calling yourself a Truther or allowing yourself to be called a Truther.
The term has come to have a rather specific meaning which includes more than just the linguistic origin. Not unlike the term Creationist. As far as the word origin goes one could call any who believe God (or anything else) created the universe a Creationist that at eh least connotes and I would say denotes far more. Things like belief in a literal 6 day creation and denial of any physical evidence that contradicts a very specific interpretation of Scripture.
For 911 Truthers the equivalent it that the very core of the official position is denied. The "Truth" is that the WTC did not come down because of the jet strikes but from some other cause.
But as best I can see you even fail to fit as a Truther at the level of the word origin. Unlike one who can be forced into the linguistic box of Creationist because they believe in a creator you cannot be forced into the Truther box as you explicitly deny having enough knowledge to know the truth, you just know enough to know the official position is not completely accurate or complete.
Your willingness to believe that the moon landing was faked and that there was a second gunman in the JFK assassination quite clearly fits you through that square peg.
Yeah, I acknowledge that the US government didn't tell us it was spying on us. I also recognize that it didn't tell the Russians it was spying on the Russians during the cold war, nor did it give a list of spies to them. That's not how spying works. I also acknowledge that anyone that was shocked by the revelation that the government was spying on us doesn't know how the internet works, and anyone who blames Obama wasn't paying attention in 2006.
I also acknowledge that we arm foreigners, and these choices don't always work out that well (see also, Osama). This is no secret. The news reports on this. Those so-called "mouthpieces" report on this.
Did you bother to read the links I included? What motivates "truthers" is that they mistrust the authorities and will cling to any story or evidence that paints those authorities in a bad light, not matter how ridiculous those theories are.
The Ridiculous Truth About The Moon Landing Hoax - YouTube
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?