As this definition: "Truthers analyze evidence from the attacks and discuss different theories about how the attacks happened and call for a new investigation into the attacks."?
There are quite a few differences between us. For instance, if a web site is found to lie time and time again, I tend to not believe them, yet you believe conspiracy sites even after they lie to you. When it is applicable I sure do. My entire career is based on logic and "it has to be this way because". Computers are not subject to opinions, delusions, paranoia, or lies. I see you can't tell the difference between personal choices where there is no "real" answer vs. a historical event with plenty of evidence. If there is evidence and opinion without evidence, I am going to take the evidence, not ignore the evidence just because I am too blinded by my bias to look at the evidence. This is a choice based on a mix of evidence and opinion and not a blanket label. On some issues I am decidedly conservative, yet I also hold some decidedly liberal views as well. You are welcome to your opinion, but it doesn't change anything. It is when you try to pretend your opinion is fact and evidence of a conspiracy that you become a liar vs. someone with an opinion even when that opinion isn't backed up by evidence. You've had lots of "other questions" that have all turned out to be false. LIke pretending you were "up in the air" over the claim the jumpers were mannequins made out of ballistic gelatin thrown out of the towers by Israeli art students? Your opinion was in direct contention with numerous facts because you wanted to believe the "facts" at some conspiratard site without bothering to investigate the facts for yourself. Those sites prey on the ignorant and the biased. That is ABSOLUTELY true. You denying it doesn't change that fact. I pointed out numerous aspects of 9/11 that prove it was Al Qaeda. You ignored that evidence except for the passport. You asked for more. I gave you more. You ignored that and pretended there is no evidence. How is that NOT "turning your nose up at things"? Your nose is so high it is actually pointing backwards at this point. Really? Trying to help me? All you are doing is actively trying to foment rebellion against the government by falsely accusing it of being behind 9/11. You don't have to convince me the government is evil. I would love nothing more than our government to go back to what our forefathers envisioned; limited government with very limited powers. Ever stop to think you can convice people of that point WITHOUT lying your ass off or making false accusations?
Truthers, to me, are defined as those who ignore some evidence while spinning other pieces of evidence with their own opinions that they can't back up. They ignore facts they can't refute and pretend they are still "asking questions" when they don't ask questions but make accusations and pretend their views are backed up by evidence they can't produce.
Wrong yet again, Jango. You think ANYONE is buying your repeated lies? I have not labeled truthers as terrorists. I have labeled them rightly as traitors, but not terrorists. Maybe you need to take the blinders off and read what I write instead of what you want me to write. Now. Read what I wrote. Listen to the explanation. Then find a semi-intelligent adult to explain it to you since you've missed it twice so far. Do I say all truthers are terrorists? No. I talk about the POSSIBILITY of A truther snapping. Are you seriously so deluded that you don't think that possibility exists? Have you not read some of the venomous bile some truthers spew that is pure, unreasoning hate speech? Are you going to ignore history? Timothy McVeigh blew up a building over his beliefs the government was responsible for wrong doing at WACO and Ruby Ridge. If you have an example of people taking the law into their own hands even when it is against the government, how can you pretend the very real possibility a truther somewhere isn't going to snap and act on all the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you and all the other truthers promote? I understand you use standard truther tactics of completely changing what was written and then using that as the basis for your blatant lies. I made a perfectly valid statement which does not call out an individual or a group, but the possibility of an unnamed person taking what you preach to the next logical level; attacking the government. You don't like to discuss the next logical level of what you preach, so you fundamentally change what I write so you can pretend I was talking specifically about you. Completely dishonest, but like I said, standard operating procedure for truthers.
Enough of the leading conspiracy pushers are terrorists, and enough of their followers "useful idiots" to the white nationalist movement that it hardly matters what you think you are doing. You are advancing the cause of terrorist organizations by spreading their deliberate lies and obfuscations.
It is funny how truthers like to deny the outcome they preach for. I am still undecided as to whether that is born from ignorance or embarassment.
So what, the government, which represents us Americans, gets a free pass from things when they've done something wrong?
Not sure I agree with "the leading conspiracy pushers" being terrorists, but they're definitely con men exploiting useful idiots. Sadly the link to white national movement was proven in the last few months, linking the conspiracy ridden Tea Party/Ron Paul cult with Jamie Kelso and the American Third Position, Paul laughable denials not withstanding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Third_Position_Party http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/268647_Ron_Paul_the_American_Third_Po
Absolutely not. But on the flip side, morons shouldn't make (*)(*)(*)(*) up and pretend the government was behind it just to try and overthrow the government. Apparently some don't understand that is wrong, dishonest and morally repugnant.
You're right, they shouldn't. I certainly try not to. In fact, I can't remember the last time *I* made something up in regards to 9/11. Please, show me where *I've* made (*)(*)(*)(*) up. Like mini-nuke detonations, directed-energy weapons from space, something new? Where have I made (*)(*)(*)(*) up at? Yes, demonize the opposition. Standard operating procedure.
Claiming Israeli art students occupied one of the deserted floors of the WTC towers where they were throwing mannequins made out of ballistic gelatine out the windows. Never heard about the occupied floors nor did you provide a source. Besides, I wasn't talking specifically about you, but about truthers. Pretty much every time they type something it is made up bull(*)(*)(*)(*). As for you pretending the government was behind it, well, all one has to do is read what you write to see you're doing that. I don't have to demonize you or any other truther. I just have to point out the lies and watch truthers run. For example, you pretend Rumsfelt stole 2.3 trillion dollars, several times the annual budget for the entire military, despite the evidence from several sources where they clarified exactly what transactions weren't accounted for and that many had now been accounted for plus the complete lack of any investigation into what would be the largest heist in US history by a factor of at LEAST a thousand. Even when faced with evidence you can't refute you refuse to change your mind. Why? God only knows. My guess would be truther's hatred for the government overrides their integrity, common sense, honesty, and logic. I would hate to be debilitated by such overwhelming hate.
Point me in the direction of a quote of mine where I said that 'Rumsfeld stole' the money, please. Thanks.
So when you claim it was "missing", you thought it fell out of Rumsfeld's pocket? What did you mean by missing?
Ah. So you want to play games instead of manning up? Fine. No problem here. You didn't say verbatim that he stole the money, yet you don't have the balls or the guts to man up to you claiming the money was missing which is, as everyone knows, a euphamism for stolen. I tried to explain to you that the transactions weren't properly tracked per GAO standards. I showed you example after example of people talking about the transactions and even showing most of the unaccounted for transactions had now been accounted for to GAO standards. You INSISTED it was "missing". So again I ask. So when you claim it was "missing", you thought it fell out of Rumsfeld's pocket? What did you mean by missing? Here is your chance to clear your name. Something tells me you're going to be like every other truther and go down in flame rather than grow up and admit mistakes.
What am I supposed to man up to exactly? You said I pretend that Rumfeld stole the money. I asked you to prove where I had said that. You couldn't. When I asked a second time, you still couldn't come up with a quote were I said "Rumsfeld stole the money." Nevertheless, of that 'missing' $2.3 trillion dollars, what were the expenditures on, if I may be so bold to inquire, that is...if you know.
Well, you are claiming the money is missing, therefore the money wasn't spent on anything for the military and nobody knows. I showed you several articles discussing the transactions in question and you claimed they were lies and that the money was missing. Yet apparently you can't even define missing. Was it stolen? Surely you have something to back up your claims, right? You've denied my evidence because you didn't want to believe it which is a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor reason to deny evidence. Surely you have another theory in mind. Why is it you're now afraid to explain to everyone what you think happened to the money?
You're all confused. It's okay. I don't think the money is missing. It was spent. Got lost in that big nasty old outdated machine Rumsfeld talked about. The thing probably ate newborns and foreigners as snacks. I was just curious of what was on those missing itemized scrolls, you know, the ledger. What were the $2.3 trillion dollars in expenditures that suddenly got swallowed up whole? Do you know?
So now you're flip flopping yet again? Why am I not surprised? Apparently you forgot snidely pretending it was all missing despite the evidence. I don't know what the transactions were in detail. They spanned decades according to the Pentagon. Would that prove something to you? If so, what? And back to 9/11, have you found a real piece of evidence yet? So far you've found some coincidences you can't directly tie to 9/11. That's not real evidence.
Knock yourself out. Do a FOIA request to the GAO. You still haven't responded with what it would prove to you. And back to 9/11, have you found a real piece of evidence yet? So far you've found some coincidences you can't directly tie to 9/11. That's not real evidence.
