Sometimes I wonder....

You know, when I first joined this site, I always thought that we over played the significance of mental illness in the Truth Movement.

Now I think we underplayed it.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I'd like to present this as a classic case study to investigate what lies behind the question in the OP. Here is a poster who believes that something about 9-11 hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt. When asked to say what it is, he replies by assuming his original conclusion, sarcastically stating a prejudice about the other side in the argument, and advancing a classic, if unusually unfounded, ad hominem fallacy. Clearly he isn't interested in learning anything, because he assumes he already knows everything he needs to, so anyone who disagrees with him is ignorant and wrong. This is a position that can only be arrived at from a combination of poor education and arrogance. Whatever the specific piece of misinformation that triggered his particular set of beliefs, the roots are much deeper.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dear Dave

Keep your nickers on and calm down. It's only obvious that you've 'proven things beyond reasonable' doubt amongst your own Debunking fraternity. Any issue that anyone brings up, you lot come jumping down on their heads with the most appalling condescending attitude imaginable (see quote above for proof).
The truth isn't sitting around waiting for approval from you clowns...... although you'd like to think it is.
 
Mr X said:
Keep your nickers on and calm down. It's only obvious that you've 'proven things beyond reasonable' doubt amongst your own Debunking fraternity. Any issue that anyone brings up, you lot come jumping down on their heads with the most appalling condescending attitude imaginable (see quote above for proof).
Click to expand...

In general we have no problem with people who actually bring up issues. It's people like you, who say there are issues but refuse when asked to actually raise them, that are simply a waste of space.

Mr X said:
The truth isn't sitting around waiting for approval from you clowns...... although you'd like to think it is.
Click to expand...

:id:

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
In general we have no problem with people who actually bring up issues. It's people like you, who say there are issues but refuse when asked to actually raise them, that are simply a waste of space.



:id:

Dave
Click to expand...

If you genuinely see no anomalies in the official story...... then good for you.
 
Mr X said:
If you genuinely see no anomalies in the official story...... then good for you.
Click to expand...

If you genuinely see anomalies in the official story, then say what they are. Alternatively, get off the pan.

Dave

ETA: In a new thread, of course. As long as you refuse to do so, though, I think you're on-topic for this one.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
If you genuinely see anomalies in the official story, then say what they are. Alternatively, get off the pan.

Dave

ETA: In a new thread, of course. As long as you refuse to do so, though, I think you're on-topic for this one.
Click to expand...


Presumably you'll be answering everything with references to the NIST report..... no?

I've heard it all before...... and doubt you've got anything new to add.
 
Mr X said:
Presumably you'll be answering everything with references to the NIST report..... no?

I've heard it all before...... and doubt you've got anything new to add.
Click to expand...

You really are a classic case study. If you've heard it all before, you think you know what the replies are going to be, and you doubt we have anything new to add, why exactly are you posting here?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
You really are a classic case study. If you've heard it all before, you think you know what the replies are going to be, and you doubt we have anything new to add, why exactly are you posting here?

Dave
Click to expand...


To amuse myself.
 
Mr X said:
Presumably you'll be answering everything with references to the NIST report..... no?

I've heard it all before...... and doubt you've got anything new to add.
Click to expand...

Well, why don't you enlighten us? Tell us what you believe happened on 9/11. Who did it, how they did it, why they did it, etc.

The so-called "official story" is straight-forward and parsimonious. Got anything like that?

No? Well, I didn't think so. In my experience, only one or two troofers have actually tried to present a hypothesis, and they quickly learned why the smart ones don't even try: They end up sounding like raving lunatics.
 
Last edited:
aggle-rithm said:
Well, why don't you enlighten us? Tell us what you believe happened on 9/11. Who did it, how they did it, why they did it, etc.

The so-called "official story" is straight-forward and parsimonious. Got anything like that?

No? Well, I didn't think so. In my experience, only one or two troofers have actually tried to present a hypothesis, and they quickly learned why the smart ones don't even try: They end up sounding like raving lunatics.
Click to expand...



Re presenting an hypothesis.

Thats not my job at all.
Half the so called terrorist turn out not to be on the planes at all... and the other half, it's been reported recently, had bought tickets for additional flights at later dates...... yeah of course the official story is straight forward.
 
Mr X said:
Re presenting an hypothesis.

Thats not my job at all.
Half the so called terrorist turn out not to be on the planes at all... and the other half, it's been reported recently, had bought tickets for additional flights at later dates...... yeah of course the official story is straight forward.
Click to expand...

The part which I have bolded is a claim of fact. It is your job to support it with evidence or, failing that, to withdraw it.
 
Mr X said:
Re presenting an hypothesis.

Thats not my job at all.
Half the so called terrorist turn out not to be on the planes at all... and the other half, it's been reported recently, had bought tickets for additional flights at later dates...... yeah of course the official story is straight forward.
Click to expand...

This website:

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hijackers

has a good section showing where the ridiculous myths got started about the hijackers not being on the planes or still being alive.

Additionally, have you considered the possibility that some of the hijackers purchased additional future plane tickets as part of a disguise of their intentions?
 
As a former truther myself, I can answer this.

1. Bush hating. Most people (I'm reluctant to say everyone) need an enemy to focus their fears and paranoia, or to blame all of society's problems on. Bush is easy enough to hate because a good argument could be made that he's one of the worst presidents our nation has ever had, although there's a difference between pointing out legitimate facts and grasping at straws that aren't there. If you let your Bush hating get the best of you, then any anti-Bush argument is going to sound appealing.

2. The need to belong. At a cursory glance, the truth movement comes off as a patriotic revolutionary group seeking to dispel falsehoods and take on a corrupt murderous government. It simply feels gratifying to be privy to a hidden truth that the majority of sheeple are unaware of. They've got their "experts" and "sources" and celebrity endorsements. Who wouldn't want to be a part of it all, if it were true? The problem is that, like the promises of many a religion, the truth movement's dogma turns too good to be true upon critical analysis.

3. The feeling of accomplishment. Truthers like to believe they are making a difference in society or changing the course of history, by doing as little as sitting behind a computer, typing up conspiracy theories, and posting stupid videos on YouTube. This is a hell of a lot easier than engaging in real civil disobedience that could get you arrested, like people did during the civil rights era several decades ago.


What turned me away from them is the fact that the whole reason I started hating Bush in the first place was that I could not stand the way he mangled the truth and enforced ignorance and stupidity. You do not counter stupid by resorting to it yourself, and you do not seek the truth by settling on an opposite extreme view and walling yourself in.
 
I speak from my own experience.

When I was a young stoned boy around early 20's I quit a band I was in, frustrated. I loved science and stuff but would not buy the evolution theories etc...always felt there was MORE to it all...there has to be, I mean if I dont understand stuff, who else could? ;)

An associate at the time (new band) got me onto Stichens books. I was in awe...wow all the mysteries of the universe and life suddenly clicked into this fascinating story. Hail Tiamat! (or however you spell it)

I stopped smoking. I even got into uni doing computer science!

Eventually the theories and helth fads etc just seemed full or promise and salesmen. I could not buy every crazy thing Nexus magazine threw at me. After a while the hollow earth theory seemed pretty far fetched. How could such massive events just be controlled by so few and no one speak? Would I give my life to change the course of history and reveal a shady cabal? Of course I would, so why would no one else?

9/11 was the turning point. It was a huge event. I was blown away. Words need not be said about the day.

My associates however brought into every theory at the time, and then they also showed me David Icke. This is when I had this epiphany - like I left my body to look down upon us in this room. It was then other things clicked, the logic of it all and the irrationality of these guys. Was it not smoking? was it the logic taught in computer science? Who knows....

I still kind of 'believed' in other crap up till a few years ago and even stichens theories had an effect up till a few years ago....but conspiracy theories...bah..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom