9-11 trial taking place, Truthers absent

Discussion in '9/11' started by Ronstar, Oct 5, 2014.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,681
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

    http://nypost.com/2014/10/05/airport-security-ignored-pre-911-warnings-on-hijackers-court-docs/

    right now in the USA, the involved airliners are being sued over 9-11.

    they are being accused, for one thing, of letting the hijackers board the planes without stopping and questioning them over their intentions.

    so...where are the Truthers???

    why aren't they protesting the case, demanding that the "No Plane Theory" be brought before the case and jury???

    why aren't they bringing their evidence about thermite?

    why aren't they bringing their evidence about dancing Zionists?

    they talk day & night about a new investigation, but here they are...totally ignoring a current trail that they could use to bring their "evidence" to light!!!!
     
  2. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Old news.... Please note:
    "— only revealed now as part of the discovery in a settled 9/11 wrongful-death suit against the airlines and the government —"

    Unless you have a specific court & docket #, forget it, your post is a false alarm.
     
  3. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    So you are confirming:

    1. There were real hijackers.
    2. There were real planes.
    3. There were real victims(not "actors")

    Thank you. Glad we can now agree on the basics.
     
  4. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,826
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A couple of points here: First, what would you have them do? Last I checked, courts of law don't allow "walk-in" testimony. This is no new opportunity for the people you are talking about to present evidence.

    Secondly and more importantly, you mention a few different theories here. Thermite, no-planes, Zionists. Which illustrates the point that there is no one "truther" group, but many different people with different views. But they can generally be divided up into two main groups: LIHOP and MIHOP. The MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) people are who you hear the most from (Alex Jones and the like). But the LIHOP people (let it happen on purpose) merely say that ample evidence was available to stop 9/11, people were virtually screaming it from the rooftops, but nothing was done. That is precisely what this court case IS about. So a major subsection of "truthers" ARE getting evidence for their side presented here.
    Yep, pretty much what the LIHOP people have been saying all along.
     
  5. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We have agreed upon NOTHING!
    don't start making assumptions......

    There were NOT hijackers
    There were NOT airliners used as weapons
    and in total the 9/11/2001 "commission" was a white-wash job!
     
  6. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Sounds like the Pancake Theory of Conspiracy Groups. These IHOP terms are unnecessary to explain sprawling fraud the so called "truth" movement is. Not only are they cultish and ridiculous, they imply a feeble "coke vs pepsi" marketing campaign. And, much like coke and pepsi, they're both saccharine, over priced, carbonated crap.

    Now I want some pancakes.
     
  7. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    My apologies. Clearly I misunderstood the intention of your post.
    Though the point remains, if you and others really hold these beliefs, why there isn't clamoring over this breaking news.

    And thank you for going on record about your 911 views.
     
  8. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,826
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's not any substance to respond to here, just a bunch of smartass condescension. "Coke vs Pepsi" is a stupid comparison. The people who say the goverment "Made It Happen" are the ones with all the crazy theories about no planes, thermite, etc. The "Let It Happen" group merely assert that the people responsible for ensuring our safety did exactly what we all saw them do: not a *******n thing. George Bush sat back and read his goat book, NORAD dutifully looked the other way for incoming Soviet missiles from the Cold War, and, as this lawsuit seeks to prove, airport security ignored credible warnings about specific events and individuals and likewise sat on their hands. In fact, there is zero doubt that it was allowed to happen. After all, no one even tried to stop them, now did they?
     
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,442
    Likes Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's nothing crazy about the thermite theory.
    http://www.ae911truth.org/faqs/646-...een-used-to-demolish-the-wtc-skyscrapers.html

    However the no-plane theory was thought up by a public-relations firm to discredit the truther movement.

    "provocateurs,shills and disinfo agents"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYedTmaHt1A

    The no-plane theory is ridiculous. No real truthers take the no-plane theory seriously.

    The proof that 9/11 was an inside job is crushing.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=348380&p=1063729867#post1063729867
     
  10. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree. Disinformation is commonly used by corrupt gov'ts who work on behalf of wall street, bankers, and the elites.

    This attack is a combo of the oligarchs and radical muslims. The oligrachs simply used the radicals. Just flying planes into those places would not be spectacular enough, they needed something tremendous. There are too many things that happened at the trade center that day, that cannot be explained away simply by radicals flying planes into buildings.

    If you follow the money, determine who made great profits from this attack, you will know the culprits. 9-11 was in part an inside job, just like the gulf of Tonkin incident. Or allah brought those buildings down.

    Of course, the naysayers can trust our elites and gov't if they want. I trusted LBJ once, trusted my gov't. And volunteered to go to nam because of that false flag. I won't be fooled again, but you guys can.

    The 9-11 commission was a whitewash, and there is enough evidence for that today so that it should not be questioned. I doubt Pres Bush was involved, but he was the perfect president for this to happen while he was in office. I suspect Cheney, but the oligarchs are the real suspects. And the CIA had to be involved, in a compartmentalized manner, so that the numbers are quite small, the treasonous men. Corporations have no allegiance to this nation, nor do the big bankers. That much goes without saying.

    Personally I was a skeptic until this year. I have listened to too many notable men, even a general, who says this was an inside job, plus the accounts of people who were there, and who's accounts do not match the idea that just some hijackers were responsible. I think you have to take leave of your senses in order to believe the official, gov't story.
     
  11. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    On the contrary, it is an accurate portrayal of a stupid political frame.

    This is misleading. LIHOP = Let It Happen On Purpose, so no, it is not merely asserting people did nothing. It is implying the did nothing with an "Inside Job"ish agenda.

    The criticism of the Bush administration's handling of 9/11 and the foreknowledge of the attacks has been ably handled by reputable news outlets and journalism, none of whom are part of the "truth movement". It is only the "truth movement" that is suggesting the attacks were "allowed". This is not the same as merely saying nothing was done to stop them.

    But thank you for confirming the "thermite" theory is bat--crap woo.

    Now perhaps you can share with us where this Pancake Conspiracy Theory jargon [LIHOP/MIHOP] came from.
     
  12. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    "Real truthers"? Is that anything like a real Scotsman?

    The entire truth movement is ridiculous.
    There are no shills or agents. WAKE UP....there is no conspiracy.
     
  13. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,826
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It would be more accurate to call our two party system a Coke vs Pepsi situation. Of the people who disbelieve the official story, there are many many different viewpoints. To label them all as "Coke and Pepsi truthers" is a just a lazy smear tactic.

    There are really only two possibilities: complicity and gross incompetence. Given the fact that no one was fired, demoted, or held accountable in any way, for incompetence speaks volumes. Also, using a proxy to do your dirty work is an established practice which allows you to maintain plausible deniability. It is a known fact that Bin Laden had been used as a CIA asset in the past. It's much more likely that he continued to assist them, then that the entire government just went full retard and left the proverbial door to the vault unlocked accidentally.

    I don't know where the LIHOP/MIHOP jargon originated, but I didn't invent it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
     
  14. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    A CT using Wikipedia as a source? That's a step in the right direction. Most CT's avoid it as a haven of "disinfo".

    For those not lazily accepting any conspiracy woo to come down the pike, a simple search for
    911 origin of lihop mihop

    yields results including this link oilempire.us/lihop-mihop.html that states:

    "This LIHOP / MIHOP debate was apparently created by a fringe member of the truth movement who vociferously claims that none of the plane crashes happened."

    While the writer appears to know who this person is, they unhelpful don't say. Another search for
    lihop mihop no plane crashes
    includes this truther website truthmove.org/forum/topic/789

    "The MIHOP and LIHOP labels were purportedly coined by Nico Haupt in 2002: " I invented the acronym 'LIHOP' at the same time [we] created [the] '9/11 Science and Justice Alliance'."

    To summarize: you are endorsing the jargon and debate framing of an individual who subscribes to a theory that Scott asserts was invented to discredit the "truth" movement.


    This does not make sense...unless you are too lazy to do the research.

    And yes, it was gross incompetence. But "LIHOP" is NOT arguing incompetence, by definition, > "Let It Happen On Purpose".
     
  15. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Sorry, I missed this part. It's a very interesting statement. Which PR firm do you think is involved?

    There are a handful of truthers known to have worked for similar companies.
     
  16. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,826
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Funny you say I'm too lazy to do the research, considering that you were the one who wanted to know the origin, but instead of looking it up yourself, asked me where it came from. I only did a cursory search because I don't CARE where the term came from, because I know what it means, and the LIHOP acronym accurately describes my belief on the subject. And I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what Scott has to say about it.

    Correct, I am not arguing incompetence, I am arguing complicity, because that level of incompetence is absurd, and would have been met with mass firings that did not occur. Once that is ruled out, complicity remains as the only plausible explanation.
     
  17. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    And this is why the "truth movement" has no credibility. No one cares crazy theories invented by Nazi apologist are being promoted by truther leaders.
    No one cares fraudulent fake research papers are used to support Richard Gage's lifestyle, sorry, "non profit".
    No one cares if a convicted sex offender is recruited to push Gage's so called theories.
    No one cares that the propaganda you are pushing was invented by frauds with an agenda that boils down to make money off the gullible.

    Normal people involved with a real political cause do care, even if they don't agree about the details or all the strategy. Even those evil left/right democrat/republicans care, and take great pains to denounce and distance themselves from scandal. The "truth" movement never does. This is how it's obvious it's fraudulent.

    Well, obvious to those of us not in the cult. Your "not caring" might land you in trouble one day when you follow stupid advice from conspiracy crazies because you didn't care.

    And, for the record, you accused me of being lazy first.
     
  18. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,826
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    See, here's your problem: you say "truth movement" as if it's a monolith. The only thing most of us agree upon is that we're being lied to, that the official story is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on its face. Beyond that, I'm under no obligation to support any specific person's theories, or the person themselves. Much of what you just posted there was pure ad hominem anyway. But even that doesn't matter, because you are using Ad Homs for people like Gage, who aren't even promoting the same theory as I am! So why should I care? You're just using the broadest brush you can carry and saying "and that's why you have no credibility".


    And on that point, you have continued to be lazy with your broad brush association fallacy.
     
  19. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18

    Not correct. The following statement implicitly allows for the reality real movements are not "monoliths":

    "Normal people involved with a real political cause do care, even if they don't agree about the details or all the strategy. Even those evil left/right democrat/republicans care, and take great pains to denounce and distance themselves from scandal. The "truth" movement never does. This is how it's obvious it's fraudulent. "

    The "truth movement: is not a real grassroots movement. It's some weird tea party/patriot astroturf hybrid.

    Now perhaps you'd like to get back on topic and explain why "truthers" are ignoring the breaking news?
     
  20. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,826
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, let's get back on topic. Because my point was that certain "truthers", like myself, are not ignoring it (in fact, I would say that anyone in this thread is not ignoring it, else they wouldn't be discussing it, eh?) Now, I can't explain the actions of large numbers of individuals who act of their own accord. There isn't a big "truther" meeting where we all explain our individual motivations to each other. But I would suppose that many of those people who used to loudly protest at these types of things have probably seen the futility of it. And, as for myself, I say let the trial commence. I would like to see what these people have to say for themselves when confronted by the people who directly warned them that Mohamed Atta and other al Qaeda hijackers were casing their security checkpoints. Should be amusing to watch them try to claim that it was all just another "big mistake". I hope somebody, even some low level putz, might finally be held accountable for letting the hijackers have free reign to commit those murders.
     
  21. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    TRUE, the planes were FAKE, there were NO airliners crashed at the alleged crash sites on that day. 9/11/2001 = FALSE FLAG ATTACK
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And STILL you have no proof of that bogus claim
     

Share This Page