9-11 Truthers & Holocaust Deniers

Discussion in '9/11' started by Ronstar, Sep 11, 2016.

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. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    963
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Does everything have to be spoon-fed to you? Ok. These links which you could have found yourself are from the link I posted.
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/KillingHope_page.html
    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html


    Here's something that's not from that link.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_01_03_03_mockingbird.html
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------
    The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that 6 million people had died by 1987 as a result of CIA covert operations, called an "American Holocaust" by former State Department official William Blum.
     
  2. DrewBedson

    DrewBedson Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I asked a question. You posted links that talk about actions not imperialism.
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    963
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anyone who clicks on those links and reads the info can see that you're being deliberately obtuse. That's not the behavior of a truth-seeker. That's the behavior of a checkmated sophist. It's pretty clear that you are not an objective truth-seeker.

    I never expect you pro-official version posters to admit anything so that's not my objective here. I know you're going to support the official version of things come hell or high water so the only thing I expect to do is get you to say lame things by posting info that's so clear that you people have to say lame things to maintain your positions.

    The last few posts of yours have been pretty lame so all I can do now is say checkmate.

    I'm not going to waste too much time arguing with the Black Knight.

    Black Knight Scene - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG1P8MQS1cU
     
  4. DrewBedson

    DrewBedson Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You have yet to present any proof of your contention so the board is yet to be set up.
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,949
    Likes Received:
    934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the board is setup ok, just that you are debating with a pigeon.
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon chess

    This guy actually thinks he wins debates and feels the need to report it on a random basketball forum, where the regulars there hold him with the same contempt he attracts on every forum:-

    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201736&page=40&p=8726173&viewfull=1#post8726173
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    963
    Trophy Points:
    113
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,949
    Likes Received:
    934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are regulars fed up with your madness.

    None of your posts demonstrate this. People like you shouldn't even be allowed near a computer, propagating ignorance is the scourge of the internet. Also, the site is populated by basketball enthusiasts. It is just a little insane to expect them to be interested in such antics.
     
  8. jack4freedom

    jack4freedom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,874
    Likes Received:
    8,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People like you should move to Red China or North Korea where the government gets to decide who is allowed to be near a computer. This way you could be spared from reading non officially sanctioned material. You poor thing, bless your little heart.
     
  9. DrewBedson

    DrewBedson Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So you are for Scott using a forum as proof rather than accredited source or factual information? If so I have a lot of posts I can link to that explain a lot but prove nothing as they are not sources but merely people chatting and debating. I should be able to win every debate from here to the end of time with them.
     
  10. phoenyx

    phoenyx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    63
    My guess is that you saw a post from Scott that linked to another post on here, and then concluded that he is using this "forum as proof rather than accredited source or factual information". For starters, a forum post can actually have factual information. Secondly, I've rarely if ever seen Scott link to a forum post that didn't have links of its own, most if not all of which lead to articles or videos that don't originate from this forum.
     
  11. DrewBedson

    DrewBedson Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yes a forum post can have factual information but is more than likely heavily contaminated by hubris, bias and lack of clarity with the inherent problem of the poster not being an accredited an known unbiased source hence it proves nothing.

    As for a link to a post that links to other posts there is no clarity as a point or counterpoint that requires proof should have a stated contention with a quote that backs up the contention from well defined proof from a source who's credentials show unbiased impartiality and a reputation for providing accurate information. A youtube video authored and posted by annannonymous source or a forum post does not do this.

    It is not up to the person asking for poof to dig through posts, hours of video and dozens of links to try and find that poof but rather the person making the contention to provide
    accurate, reliable unbiased proof in an easy to access and understand format.

    As proof of my post please go here ......

    http://www.politicalforum.com/forum.php
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    963
    Trophy Points:
    113
  13. Guyzilla

    Guyzilla Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Messages:
    13,230
    Likes Received:
    2,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    THE SERIOUS problem with 9/11 truther, is it was designed to destroy anyone questioning any part. In large part to protect powerful BIN LADENS.
     
  14. DrewBedson

    DrewBedson Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Never said I did I just don't take unsourced anonymous posts and youtube vids seriously for the reasons stated as they are 100% biased.

    Have you a credible poll to back this statement up with?
     
  15. phoenyx

    phoenyx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Glad we agree on that.

    I've never seen a study of exactly how "contaminated by hubris, bias and lack of clarity" forums are in general, have you? That being said, from my own experience, forum posters views can frequently contain a fair amount untruthful information in them. Personally, I like referring to articles outside of this site to back up my own points, and Scott is very similar to me in this regard.


    That, my friend, is what we call a run-on sentence :p. I like quotes myself, and I think Scott has probably done some (I may have even seen some). I think sometimes he may just get tired of posting the same things over and over again and decides to just make it simple by referencing where he's already done so (or where others have already done so). I think that, ultimately, it's not the best strategy- from my own experience, I've found that you have to lure the opposition into a discussion by providing information on a linked article (an excerpt) and then post the article, in the hopes that they are enticed by the 'preview' to read on. Even if they aren't, however, the excerpt itself is frequently enough to draw them into conversation concerning its points. If they can engage in the excerpt, I can then bring up more from the article in future posts. I have in the past quoted extensively from large articles by posting different parts of an article, or even books, as a thread veers on different points of a given subject.

    Most posters in a forum are anonymous- adding another anonymous source or 2 doesn't bother me. That being said, I'm not generally a huge fan of videos when it comes to discussions. I much prefer articles. While one can transcribe what is said in a video, it's a lot of work. I've done it on some occasions if the material is rare enough to warrant it, but copying and pasting excerpts from an article is much easier.

    I have frequently found that those who defend official stories are obsessed with those who disagree with them to provide proof that they're right in their disagreements, even as they are completely unconcerned that many of the assertions of a given official story have the flimsiest of evidence to back them up. But let's get into proof for a second. Wikipedia's entry on Proof (truth) defines it as follows:
    "A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition.[1][2][3][4]"

    But who determines what is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument? In a forum, every forum poster decides this for themselves. In this sense, proof is in the eye of the beholder. Faced with this, I think we should focus on finding evidence. Sure, it would be nice if we could all agree with each other as to what is true and thus consider issues to have been proven to be true, but based on long experience, I've found if we could just agree on what constitutes -evidence-, we'd have gotten somewhere.
     
  16. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm a "9/11 truther" but not a holocaust denier. There are too many eye witness accounts for the holocaust for it to not have happened.
     
  17. DrewBedson

    DrewBedson Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    A stopped clock is right twice a day. The trick is,which clock and when do I look at it? Further complicating things would be if there was a vidfeo of a stopped clock that may change before the video ends?

    Yes he is. This post for example is a goldmine of hate sites, white supremacists, racists, anti antisemitism, Holocaust Denial and his link to Flint gives forth a battery of you tube videos that I suspect were made by the same sorts he links to.


    Thanks. Was taking a break while my crew and I were waiting for a Cat to get floated in to bury the pipe section we just lowered in. Very difficult to edit with the I phones.

    In any case, the forum is about the exchange of ideas, not spelling and grammar tips. If you wish, ask the administrator to start a new category devoted to this and suggest that you would make the perfect mod.

    :roflol: We get it, he links to racist hate sites for crying out loud and when he runs out of ammo posts videos posted by God knows who then links to the post containing all the links to the hate sites and videos. He's been sucking up this stuff like a sponge and actually believes the racist, often white supremacist sites are somehow credible and impartial enough to be used as proof LOL.

    Easier than that. You post your contention, provide a source that proves it by quoting it and then link to it so people can check it for context to ensure you were not simply taking words out of context and then inventing meanings. The more reliable the source the more you point will get across.

    I didn't ask him what an anonymous poster said, I asked him to prove a point and such whomever he proves it with must be from a credible source and, have a record of authoring peer reviewed work that stands up to scrutiny. An anonymous you tube video certainty does none of that and nor does work published in books written by those who have gone to court and lost as they proclaimed that the Holocaust is false.

    That would require actually reading it in context from a neutral source, quoting it, further researching it for accuracy and then making a contention. Making a contention and then looking for a source to prove it is fairly bogus.

    Here, we all pretty much demand that the argument go in order - provide the contention, provide the quote and link to the source. If the source is laughable for example written by a known Holocaust Denier it's useless similar that proving something stating the Holocaust is real and linking to the USHMM as your sole supporting proof is also not on.

    You tube proves nothing. It proves some person made a video to state what he wanted to state. Articles written by specialist sites will be biased so also are not worth the bandwidth. Books are ok providing we all have a copy of it or it is published online by the author and that he is qualified to write about such things. I tend to trust pay intelligence services like Stratfor as they have no interest in publishing errant information as it makes their service unreliable and they lose money likewise Britannica has been the most award winning reference source for at least a hundred years with it's article being reviewed constantly as new editions come forth.
     
  18. DrewBedson

    DrewBedson Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I appoligise for the first quote, you did not refer to a clock rather I did and then placed the BB code improperly.
     
  19. phoenyx

    phoenyx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    63
    A+ for metaphors here, but I think we should head back to concrete examples :p.

    Or atleast that's what you believe.


    Tell me about it, laugh :p. I think I tried using my iphone for forum posts and just decided it wasn't worth the trouble.

    Laugh :p. I didn't bring it up because it was grammatically incorrect per se- it was more that I wasn't sure what you were trying to say. Anyway, I think you've since clarified.

    I get into the thorny issue of proof further down...

    And who determines whether or not a source is laughable? We all do. Ultimately, a discussion can only continue if both sides can find enough sources of information that both sides respect enough to continue the discussion in a relatively civil manner.


    I disagree. I think it ultimately depends on what material the video is showing. On the subject of 9/11, I've found excellent documentaries from groups such as Architects for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Citizen Investigation Team. I've found passages in some of these videos to be so good that I've even taken the time to transcribe them to text, so that their content can be more easily discussed.


    Again, I disagree, though I admit that relying on someone to be faithful to the contents of a given book involves trust. I have in the past quoted extensively from books on 9/11 by authors such as Jim Marrs and David Ray Griffin. I find that serious researchers can generally get their hands on copies of these books if they want to.

    My family had a complete Encyclopedia Britannica when I was young. It was great for most homework, but I found that on controversial subjects, you really needed to go further then what they could provide. It can be a good starting point, but you need go further for truly serious research on a subject. I've never paid for Stratfor, but I suspect it may be similar to Britannica.
     
  20. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Its late and I don't have time to wade through threads full of faulty reasoning, but I can pause to make a point about Stratfor:

    A surprising amount of so called Truthers or conspiracy merchants registered and paid for Stratfor services. This is interesting because many of these people would claim to be the targets of CIA sponsored government "shills"/ disinformation/agents, even though they would know the company they subscribed to was known to work with the CIA and other intelligence agencies:

    https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/...or-re-pakistani-intelligence-and-the-cia.html
    [just one reference;data base is searchable there are plenty more]

    Even more surprising, many conspiracy websites including Infowars and copvcia(Michael Ruppert) claiming to be targets of "agents" used their own email addresses to sign up for Strafor services. This came out when the site was hacked:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor#2011_hacking_incident
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012–13_Stratfor_email_leak

    Examples of "truther" email addresses used:

    https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/stratfor-had-two-alex-joneses/

    I underline the last sentence because the writer clearly is seeing a conspiracy involving these well known "truther" players. This is garbage. It's simpler than that. Whatever Jones, Ruppert and Rivero are up to, the fact they used their identifiable emails to register with a corporate intelligence organization proves non of these people really believe the CIA or any other government agency is "out to get them". They signed up for Stratfor services to keep their ear to the ground so they could con people better. They never expected to get hacked and be exposed.

    I expect other conspiracy flimflam artists were smart enough to use a disposable email and so have not been caught. But this should be enough of a red flag to see if they're lying about agents being after them, everything they've said about any conspiracy of "suppressed truth", particularly 911 trutherism, is probably garbage.

    Anyone who really thought they were in danger from "agents" and shills, wouldn't use identifiable email to pay for services with business associates of agents and "shills". These people are liars, pure and simple.

    Good night.
     
    Shinebox likes this.
  21. phoenyx

    phoenyx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Interesting info on Stratfor. I don't understand why you think that someone who believes in conspiracy theories wouldn't avail themselves of an information service like Stratfor. Another thing- I don't agree with everything Alex Jones believes. He endorsed Trump and I can't stand Trump. But I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater- I have found some articles on Infowars to be well researched.
     
  22. MVictorP

    MVictorP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2014
    Messages:
    7,663
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think their only common link is their healthy mis-trust of their governments. The fans of the two theories you mentionned also happen to distrust the JFK affair, where there's little to no jews involved.

    It isn't always about you, dude.
     
  23. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I did not say that. You are in denial.

    Read these words very carefully: if you claim to be a target of intelligence agencies, you would not use your personal identifying or business email address to sign up for said services. You would use an anonymous burner account no one could trace.

    Jones, Rivero , etc are lying to you.
    They were never CIA, etc targets, because there is no conspiracy.

    End of story.
     
  24. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,671
    Likes Received:
    3,923
    Trophy Points:
    113
  25. phoenyx

    phoenyx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why not? Why would Jones et al care if intelligence knew they were checking out Stratfor? It's not classified info, it's just an intelligence service. It's like cable news, but more expensive.
     

Share This Page