It should be OBVIOUS that anyone saying no planes hit the tower are disinformation plants...who's job is to make real truthers look bad.
This is almost as bad as saying no planes hit the WTC. Disinfo lol. Comeon dude, it's the internet. You're going to find these people.
"Some conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can dispel such theories, it should do so. One problem is that its efforts might be counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy theories also legitimate them. We have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy minded groups and informationally isolated social networks.
Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."
- Cass R. Sunstein --head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in his paper entitled "Conspiracy Theories"
It's pretty damn obvious the Federal Government's version isn't all there. I know that Bush wanted it to happen. Whether he pulled a McKinley/LBJ or a Polk/Lincoln/Wilson/FDR, I don't know. There isn't any evidence that the Federal Government didn't want it to happen.
That doesn't mean anyone who falls or advocates for the no plane theory is a government plant. It just means some of them might be, assuming there was a conspiracy. He's essentially calling onebornfree a government plant. I'm calling that absurd.
"his is almost as bad as saying no planes hit the WTC. Disinfo lol. Comeon dude, it's the internet. You're going to find these people."
no you won't....of all the truthers I've talked to and in their own encounters....noone has found a person who believes that....
its fake....disinfo garbage....
no truther entertains that idea....and I didn't think anyone who debates truthers bothered with that either...till I saw this post...
"He's essentially calling onebornfree a government plant. I'm calling that absurd."
more likely...he's just someone who wants to disrupt this thread....and maybe get some laughs by making people angry...
The OP is on the CIA payroll.
Someone please read this official report from popular mechanics and explain to me how the hell everyone knew WT7 was coming down minutes before it did.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874
Judging from the vast historial experience of steel buildings collapsing symmetrically due to fires alone, they we're absolutely certain it was coming down. /sarcasm
Perhaps you should read this previous thread before you accuse onebornfree of trolling.
limitgov: It should be OBVIOUS that anyone saying no planes hit the tower are disinformation plants...who's job is to make real truthers look bad.
I don't get it. Assuming ,for the sake of argument that you are a "real truther" , posting "real truth", how could someone like myself, an "un-truther" [ or "disinformation plant"] posting "un truths" and "disinformation" , as far as you are concerned, possibly make the " truth" look bad?
The truth is the truth, and needs no defense, not even from you, surely?
Regards, onebornfree.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
You're right. It doesn't make him look bad. It makes you look like an idiot.
Andy: You're right. It doesn't make him look bad. It makes you look like an idiot.
How so?
Regards onebornfree
"The truth is the truth, and needs no defense, not even from you, surely?"
But to say something like no planes hit the buildings...and pose as someone who questions the official story...
its disingenuous. You're either lying or trying to get off at getting people mad.
While I do believe 9/11 was an inside job, I don't think it's very productive for us to discuss it with non-libertarians.
I'd rather discuss the violence of taxation than to have someone think I'm just "one of those crazy people."
While I do believe 9/11 was an inside job, I don't think it's very productive for us to discuss it with non-libertarians. I'd rather discuss the violence of taxation than to have someone think I'm just "one of those crazy people."
QFT. Buying into the official explanation of the events of 9/11 is the least of the average person's intellectual and moral problems.
Clayton -
I do believe our government has murdered more innocent people in the middle east than on 9/11...
Clayton: While I do believe 9/11 was an inside job, I don't think it's very productive for us to discuss it with non-libertarians. I'd rather discuss the violence of taxation than to have someone think I'm just "one of those crazy people." QFT. Buying into the official explanation of the events of 9/11 is the least of the average person's intellectual and moral problems. Clayton -
"There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau
/thread
If the 9/11 conspiracy is true, how come we never get any evidence?
How hard are you looking?
Scientists have found thermite in multiple samples collected from the remains of the WTC. They published a peer-reviewed paper on their findings. You can download it here http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Edit: I still stand by what I said in this thread; that trying to prove conspiracies isn't a great use of time and energy. It's just that the former Alex Jones-listening conspiracy nut in me gets annoyed when someone says there's "no evidence."
Who is this "we" are you referring to, Drew Brando?
why is it hard to believe msm collusion in 9/11? isn't the license that makes them rich a leash to the ready arm of the state?
The truth needs to defense. You are right about that. But spreading stupidity, like "there were no planes" confuses things. Especially when the people saying "there were no planes" say , we need a real investigation. That confuses the issue with stupidity and masqurade as real people who really do want answers. Its purposefully trying to make people who want real answers look bad. Will most people even converse with such a stupid statement like "there were no planes" no, but some will...and they will be further confused.
why is no-planes stupid? most people follow msm slavishly, and will prefer this security to any possible confusion. the odd, dissenting eyewitness can be easily be brushed off and it's a little too convenient that actors and msm executives should dominate the narrative very early on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0
i think reynolds' qui tam case was about casting doubt on the nist report and the official 9/11 commission's findings. if the case had no merit and was considered vexatious, then costs would probably have been awarded. that they weren't is a victory of sorts. i don't think reynolds' was ever naive enough to believe that there was going to be any successful criminal prosecution.
holmgren was quite right to be pessimistic about the chances of the no-planers of winning any significant number of the public to this camp. people will distrust government up to a point, but insist that the media is a vigilant watchdog. it's too distressing to think of criminal complicity.
even those who believe what was captured on film were real passenger planes, as i did until quite recently, must appreciate the strong suspicions of complicity aroused by the naudet brothers' "documentary".
http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%20Home%20Page.htm