why can't 'truthers' tell the truth ?

[peteweaver]

I was looking at the website of deluded conspiracy group called "we are change uk".
They have a 911 'fact'sheet which is full of mistakes misrepresentations and old debunked loose change lies.

http://www.wearechange.org.uk/images/home/911_factsheet.pdf

The first five errors in it:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]1) Pentagon and Boeing 757 models not to scale in diagram 1 of Pentagon claim.
2) Allegation that the Pentagon had an anti aircraft system. The Pentagon in the direct flight path of Regan international airport, an anti aircraft system in the flight path of a major international airport would be a very silly idea.
3) "the lawn and oddly no wreckage. The building collapsed later" In the picture chosen for their diagram there had already been a collapse!
4) Its not the nose which penetrated the C ring into the courtyard of the Pentagon, but the heavy nose wheel from the undercarriage.
5) Not mentioning that the Rolls Royce contact in question (John W Brown) works at the USA division (formerly Allison engines at Indianapolis) which makes AE3007H engines for the global hawk spy drone, he has no involvement with the RB211 engine series (as used by the American Airlines 757 fleet) - which is manufactured in the UK at Derby - its not suprising that he wouldn't recognise a component from an engine he's never worked on.

There are of course more errors in this laughable 'fact'sheet, but couldn't they make a start at trying to get their facts right and correct the first five mistakes ?[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[X]

Probably for the same reason that the ID movement lies.

 

[liverleef]

Hey now, cut the truthers some slack. I was looking over the meeting agendas for SF911 truth located here

Now don't you think it's pretty tough to keep facts straight when you're busy pouring over pressing matters like how to pay back John Wright for the 11 dollar spray adhesive? C'mon these are busy people here.

 

[Stellafane]

Truthers can't tell the truth for the same reason intelligent design isn't intelligent, the Moral Majority wasn't moral and wasn't a majority, and the English horn is a continental bassoon: they are misnamed.

 

[MikeW]

Maybe because most seem to think winning over new converts is more important than being accurate. So when Loose Change first came out, say, they'd say "well, it does have some errors, but that's okay - just look at all the people they've 'woken up'".

Plus there's not much of a culture of correcting errors. If someone posts a message on a forum saying that the "missing" $2.3 trillion was announced at a press conference on September 10th & all down to Dov Zakheim, then someone who tries to say otherwise is more likely to get abuse than thanks, or at least that's how it looks to me. And that means nonsense like we see here lives for a very long time.

 

[gc051360]

The truth contradicts their fantasies.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Truthers can't tell the truth for the same reason intelligent design isn't intelligent, the Moral Majority wasn't moral and wasn't a majority, and the English horn is a continental bassoon: they are misnamed.

Wrong! The English horn is a large oboe.

 

[Darat]

I think gc051360 has a point, I've just received an email from someone who doesn't believe that terrorists flew planes into the WTC towers resulting in their destruction. In the email he said: "I just wanted to sign off by stating the obvious that you have MANY DoD/FBI Ops micromanaging the content of real 911Truthers on your Official Govt Website that supports ONLY the Official Bushie Administration Cover Story."

 

[CptColumbo]

I think gc051360 has a point, I've just received an email from someone who doesn't believe that terrorists flew planes into the WTC towers resulting in their destruction. In the email he said: "I just wanted to sign off by stating the obvious that you have MANY DoD/FBI Ops micromanaging the content of real 911Truthers on your Official Govt Website that supports ONLY the Official Bushie Administration Cover Story."

We're "Official?"

Awesome!

 

[uk_dave]

Plus there's not much of a culture of correcting errors. If someone posts a message on a forum saying that the "missing" $2.3 trillion was announced at a press conference on September 10th & all down to Dov Zakheim, then someone who tries to say otherwise is more likely to get abuse than thanks, or at least that's how it looks to me. And that means nonsense like we see here lives for a very long time.

This is an interesting tell when it comes to groups such as 'truthers'.

Someone says that they're after the 'truth' and then they make a statement which, possibly through no fault of theirs (could be misinterpretation or ignorance of a particular subject or maybe just misinformed by someone they think they can trust) is shown to be factually incorrect, the 'truth' seeker should indeed be pleased to have been informed of the truth.

But 'truthers' tend not to be happy at being shown to be in error. That is the 'tell', because it shows they are just governed by dogmatic faith in their beliefs and those beliefs must not be seen to be fallible.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think the truthers sincerely believe that if a lie supports THE TRUTH, then it is a justifiable lie.

Unfortunately, THE TRUTH, as they see it, is propped up by nothing but lies and/or faulty information (which, in my opinion, quickly becomes a lie if the correct information is offered and rejected).

 

[Sparky]

I think gc051360 has a point, I've just received an email from someone who doesn't believe that terrorists flew planes into the WTC towers resulting in their destruction. In the email he said: "I just wanted to sign off by stating the obvious that you have MANY DoD/FBI Ops micromanaging the content of real 911Truthers on your Official Govt Website that supports ONLY the Official Bushie Administration Cover Story."

That email had to come from Terral.

 

[Sparky]

I think gc051360 has a point, I've just received an email from someone who doesn't believe that terrorists flew planes into the WTC towers resulting in their destruction. In the email he said: "I just wanted to sign off by stating the obvious that you have MANY DoD/FBI Ops micromanaging the content of real 911Truthers on your Official Govt Website that supports ONLY the Official Bushie Administration Cover Story."

Does he also claim that we are doing some behind-the-scenes editing of truther posts to make them look dumber than they already are?

 

[X]

That email had to come from Terral.

I was going to say the same thing.
Unless there's someone else who rants about loyal "Bushies".

 

[Edmund Standing]

I think the truthers sincerely believe that if a lie supports THE TRUTH, then it is a justifiable lie.

Indeed. Sofia Shafquat fiddled with audio in her '9/11 Mysteries' film and Jim Fetzer claimed this was nothing worse than a 'retrospective fallacy' and justified it. Apparently, Shafquat has admitted to lying at least 21 times and acknowledges she will continue to do so if it benefits the Troof.

 

[Bobert]

We're "Official?"

Awesome!

SWEEEEEET!
Are we really "official"?
Does this mean I get the NWO Parking Spot at all major concerts and sporting events?
I tell ya chicks dig a guy who gets that spot!

 

[Brainster]

The WAC-jobs also repeat the lie that whatever came out the hole in the C-Ring pierced "through six half-metre thick reinforced walls. In fact, it only pierced through two walls (the outer and the one at the C-Ring), because the C, D & E rings are all connected on the first two levels.

 

[tanabear]

I was looking at the website of deluded conspiracy group called "we are change uk".
They have a 911 'fact'sheet which is full of mistakes misrepresentations and old debunked loose change lies.

http://www.wearechange.org.uk/images/home/911_factsheet.pdf

1) Pentagon and Boeing 757 models not to scale in diagram 1 of Pentagon claim.

In what ways is the diagram inaccurate? This is another diagram of the impact:

In the diagram shown by WAC the tail seems to be in the right place. The Pentagon Building Performance Report states,

"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

To what degree is the diagram incorrect?

Its not the nose which penetrated the C ring into the courtyard of the Pentagon, but the heavy nose wheel from the undercarriage.

There is no "official" explanation for what caused the hole in the C-Ring. The answers seem to keep changing. The suggestion that the hole was created by the nose was entertained at one time.

Lee Evey, the Pentagon Renovation Program spokesman stated, “the nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C Ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit.”

Donald Rumsfeld stated, “I’m told nose is - is still there.”

 

[Par]

Donald Rumsfeld stated, “I’m told nose is - is still there.”

Stop doctoring quotations, Mr. Fibs.

I’m told the nose is—is still in there, very close to the inner courtyard, about one ring away.

It also bears noting that this statement was apparently made on September 13th 2001; and the Evey statment was apparently made on the 15th. Thus, both claims were before any serious level of investigation could have been carried out.

 

[aggle-rithm]

In what ways is the diagram inaccurate? This is another diagram of the impact:

[qimg]http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/osumakaavio.jpg[/qimg]

In the diagram shown by WAC the tail seems to be in the right place. The Pentagon Building Performance Report states,

"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

To what degree is the diagram incorrect?

The red lines that project the path of the wingtips are angled inward to account for perspective. The one at the top of the tail is not.

ETA: Actually, it is. Just not to the same degree as the wingtips.

However, I still think it's a little misleading to assume that the tail would still be standing upright after the plane had slammed into the ground.