Doubt is not a theory.
Disbelief is not a theory.
It might just be me, but on issues where I've developed sufficient belief to allow me to take a strong position, I've got at least an elevator speech to explain that position.
I have to say that it's fascinating to me that people who have devoted some portion of a decade insisting upon the incorrectness of the common belief about something can't at least come up with an executive summary of their view about what actually happened.
lazy nihilism rulz
Well, since I have already laid out the evidence and arguments related to so many of these issues, it would be STUPID to ignore what is already out there. I can appreciate the desire for simplification on the part of those who do not understand the evidence, so their minds are not overly taxed.
Well, if any of you did any research, even on the net, you would know that I have made hundreds of interviews and given many public lectures and TV appearances. For a simple over-view, you can check out what I have here:
"Ouch! Ed Schultz is a phony and a fraud!"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05...y-and-a-fraud/
For those who are willing to invest more time in understanding the events of 9/11, there is a nice summary-overview, which is linked in that article:
"False Flag Terror and the Rise of the Global Police State" (9 September 2011)
Well, since there are varying strengths of "Holocaust denying", you can wimp out by trading on the equivocation. The point is that, in the strong sense of those who deny the Holocaust, they are denying that the German government committed these atrocities, while 9/11 Truthers are affirming that the American government was complicit in the crime. The differences mean that those who are making that charge are committing an obviously faulty analogy, although it is apparently good enough to take in some here.
Incidentally, neither is ish condescension.
So, by my count, you've still failed to answer the one question asked of you in this thread.
Well, I guess you don't understand that I WROTE MOST OF THOSE ARTICLES, where I took pains to spell out the evidence and explain the conclusions that follow from it. A great place to begin is with "NPT" or "No Planes Theory".
To being with, "NPT" does not mean that no planes were involved. We know that a plane flew toward the Pentagon, but then flew over it. What is means is "No 'official conspiracy' Planes" or, better, "No Big Boeings"; thus,
(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
Consider: Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11, while the planes associated with Flights 93 and 175 were no de-registered by the FAA until 28 September 2005. How can planes that were no in the air have crashed or planes that crashed have still been in the air four years later?
Moreover, Pilots for 9/11 Truth had established that Flight 93 was in the air but over Champaign-Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to be crashing in Shanksville, and that Flight 175 was also in the air but over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was supposed to be effortlessly entering the South Tower.
Since I have explained all of this and presented the evidence in this study,
let's start with this explanation of NPT:
“Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04...f-rob-balsamo/
If that is not enough, check out the earlier study about the four crash sites,
explain what you think I have wrong and why:
"9/11: Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02...-video-fakery/
"Disconnected articles and YouTubes"? That's a bit much. Every one of the article I have listed, most of which I authored, are directly related to NPT, which is crucial to understanding the events of 9/11. If those four crash sites were fabricated, as the evidence shows, there is no possibly way that 19 Islamic terrorists were responsible, while the proof of governmental complicity is overwhelming. I hope that is not too much for you to grasp.
Since an outline of my position was presented in post #9, I guess it was my mistake to suppose that those posting here are even reading this thread.
It's amazing how pretty much every truther, even the minor celebrities of the truth movement, can't produce when asked the questions raised in this and the other threads I started. When a midlevel poobah like Jim Fetzer reduces himself to childish insults and linkbombing on a basketball message board, it's time to seriously reconsider the whole thing.
This is why the truth movement is an impotent joke to most people. They had a full decade to put together a narrative that fits all the disjointed contentions they have made. Apparently, that never occurred to one person in the entire truth movement because it has never happened -- nor has any one of them realized what a powerful tool it would be to actually convince other people.
Really, Jim. I'm calling you out just like I have other truthers in the past -- and for all your education and research and writing, you really have nothing to show after all these years. All that time and energy you spent was for nothing because now you are either too lazy or wholly incapable to connect the dots you have presented to people over the last decade. "Truth" be told, I suspect the latter. Just like any other truther, you seem to be afraid to even attempt a narrative because you know it will be picked apart pretty easily by the likes of New York City tour guides and anonymous basketball message board posters.
Your arrogant bluster and condescension are not helping you convert anybody. Of course, that may not even be your goal. As long as you have some supporters, you can maintain your speaking engagement, radio appearances and other trappings of conspiracy celebrity without doing much more than you already have. If that is your reason for avoiding rather simple questions from a simple man for whom you claim to be fighting, just say so. I would respect that much more than what you are currently doing here.
What's wrong with post #9? Are you even reading the posts on this thread?
Well, when I came here, I suspected I would encounter childish phonies and frauds. You have not disappointed me, ChumpDumper. You are a nice example of the kinds of puerile at udes displayed on many other threads. A sketch of my views was presented in post #9. It got the idea across -- and I have suggested beginning with NPT. If you want to show that I am mistaken, then cite some claim I have made, explain why I have made it, and then explain what I have wrong and how you know. Is that too much for you? Did you miss post #33? Or is that just too much for you, too? Does anyone take you seriously?
I'm asking you what you think really happened on 9/11. If you believe that all four crash sites were faked, say you believe all four crash sites were faked and go on from there.
I hope that is not too much for you to grasp.
Why do we have to do the work for you?
You are the one who wants to change our minds, remember?
We don't want sketches. We don't want hedges. We don't want stonewalling. We don't want condescension. We don't want insults.
We want a narrative showing what you think really happened on 9/11.
Too much for you?
Dumber than a post! That much should have been obvious to anyone who has read post #9 or post #33. If you aren't going to read them, just leave!
There is no reason to humor someone like you when they are farting around. I have produced proof after proof of that contention. If you think I'm wrong,
then cite what I claim, explain why I claim it (so I can tell you understand my position), then explain what you think I have wrong and why. Try it.
You haven't answered any question that has been put to you in this thread. Are you having trouble understanding what is being asked of you? I'd love to help you out.
Here is a reminder. Let me know what part you don't understand, Jim.
I have ALREADY GIVEN detailed explanations of my positions, which you are refusing to read. Well, that's your choice, but there is no point in my rewriting what I have already explained. I have suggested two articles to begin with related to NPT. You can respond to them or not, but for you to make these arrogant and condescending posts as though your were wroth listening to is just a bit too much. Does ANYONE HERE take you seriously?
Yeah, you still don't understand what was asked of you initially. You have never written anything like that before and I think you never will. I know that is why I ultimately can't take you seriously and suspect that is one reason others don't either.
Is calling people dumber than a post, a phony and fraud the way you win people over to your way of thinking?
Seems rather counterproductive for a public figure such as yourself.
Well, if you are reading the posts, both #9 and #33 should have given you a good idea of my position. And in "Ouch! Ed Shultz is a phony and a fake!" I provided an overview, which I why I recommended it. Here is what I wrote there as a summary.
In late 2005, I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization for experts and professionals across a broad range of disciplines, including but not limited to physicists, engineers (aeronautical, mechanical, structural) and pilots, too, although today many of these have their own societies, such as Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. During the course of our research, we have discovered that virtually everything the government has told us about 9/11 is provably false and, in many cases, is not even physically possible. The fires in the Twin Towers, for example, burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt; there were explosions in the subbasements that took place before either “plane” hit them, which drained their sprinkler systems of water, which would otherwise have extinguished the rather modest fires that remained after those spectacular fireballs; the government has never been able to place those 19 “hijackers” aboard any of those four planes; the purported phone calls from passengers aboard them were faked; Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled that day, while Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to be crashing in Shanksville, and Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was supposed to be hitting the South Tower. Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director of The 9/11 Commission, had as his area of academic specialization the creation and maintenance of public myths–yes, public myths! And that is precisely what The 9/11 Commission Report (2004) provided. Proof of the claims I have made may be found in the articles I have listed previously on this thread.
Last edited by Jim Fetzer; 05-07-2012 at 08:33 PM.
Yeah, that wasn't what I asked. You just threw out a bunch of disjointed talking points. You're getting better -- there weren't any YouTubes or insults.
I know from experience that this is really, really hard for truthers to do. In fact, to my knowledge no truther has ever been able to put together a workable narrative of events that fit alternative conspiracy thinking. Imagine what a breakthrough for your movement this would be!
You are being ridiculous. 9/11 was an "inside job". It was fake from beginning to end. Is that simple enough for you? 9/11 was a contrived event intended to instill fear into the American people in order to manipulate us to promote the Bush/Cheney political agenda: wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, taking control of Iraqi oil and dismantling the sophisticated Arab states that were inhibiting Israel from dominating the Middle East, and contracting civil rights here in the US in advancing the agenda of (what is turning out to be) a fascist police state, where the creation of some 300 FEMA camps, recruiting for personnel to man them, the deployment of 30,000 drones to spy on the American people, and the acquisition of 450,000,000 rounds of .40 caliber hollow point ammunition by the Department of Homeland Security--ammo that is not even permissible for use in warfare under the Geneva Conventions--all suggest that the culmination of 9/11 may soon be upon us, where the American government may be going to war against the American people. You appear to be faking reasons in order to avoid confronting the evidence.
Last edited by Jim Fetzer; 05-07-2012 at 08:53 PM.
Conspiracies are as American as apple pie, where the
"official account" is the most outrageous of them all.
"Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK"
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm
Attempts were made to blame the Palestinians and to
make it look as though it had been an inadvertent event.
“Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08...-within-plots/
It was driven principally by US/Israel citizens in the DoD,
who were motivated with oil, Israel and the neo-con agenda.
“9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”
http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPag...on_Agenda.html
Faulting the actions of the Israeli government is not anti-
Semitic; there are many indications of Mossad involvement.
“Is 9/11 Research ‘anti-Semitic’?”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-...090615-95.html
There were explosions in the sub-basements of the towers
that occurred 14 and 17 seconds before the "plane hits".
“Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job” (Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ongAndRoss.pdf
The "official account" is based upon false claims, many of
which actually involve violations of laws of physics, etc.
“20 Reasons the “Official Account” of 9/11 is Wrong”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09...-911-is-wrong/
9/11 research would be light-years ahead on how the towers
were destroyed but for the myth of "explosive nano-thermite".
“Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011...ld-to-911.html
Indeed, the government has never been able to prove that any
of the alleged 19 Islamic terrorists were aboard any of the planes.
Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime
of 9/11" http://www.opednews.com/articles/The...00811-366.html
David Ray Griffin, building on the prior research of A.K. Dewdney, has
shown that all of the phone calls alleged to have been made were faked.
David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=16924
An expert has observed, that of the millions of uniquely
identifiable aircraft parts, the US has yet to produce one.
Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), “Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True”
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/A...26Apr2006.html
All four of those crash sites appear to have been fabricated,
which is proven on the basis of records and on-site evidence.
“9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02...-video-fakery/
Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL when it was supposed to be
crashing in Shanksville, PA; and 175 was over Pittsburgh
when it was supposed to have been hitting the South Tower.
“Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04...f-rob-balsamo/
There is more, but this should give you the general idea: 9/11
was a fabricated attack meant to manipulate the American public.
You seem to be faking reasons in order to avoid answering the question I initially posed.
There is nothing ridiculous about recognizing the potential power of a strong narrative for something like the truth movement. You are either ignorant of that potential, wrongly dismissive of it or incapable of providing a worthy narrative.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote