Interesting comment cause that's exactly how I would characterize the same old "official" supporters who frequent forums like this. Guess it's up to the intelligent reader.
One of the reasons why I've been posting less here (and more in, say, the birther threads) is that I've realized the 9/11 deniers have long ago crossed over from humorous and have just become sad. To live in this wonderful world of information availability and free education, and be so stupifyingly, colossally wrong, as they are, in some ways I pity them.
When your life is filled with paranoia and fear, everything becomes a conspiracy. "9/11 Truth" is nothing more than a defunct cult, the few scattered hangers still trying desperately to find someone to support their twisted views, which they have trouble expressing in the first place.
Someone with an interest in truth, honesty and facts would not find the simple act of calling or emailing someone to verify identity so incredibly daunting. Someone with little interest in truth, honesty and facts verifies a person's identity based solely on the assumption of their own intelligence. You should really watch this video. http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford.html
Yes, it certainly does. If the agenda was to seek the truth as you claim, you would have emailed the source and found out for yourself. I emailed him last night and here is the text of the exchange. Mr. Fetzer responded with . . . I then requested his permission to post the exchange here. Which he granted. As you can see, he seems very prompt and accommodating when contacted by email. Perhaps instead of being so quick to throw the shill card, RWF, you should contact him yourself. I'm sure he would answer your question via email. It appears that he has corresponded via email with two other members here besides myself already. I know Hannibal said he contacted him. I don't know who the other one was though. Note for the conspiratorially minded: I've listed the timestamps on the emails in Pacific Time to illustrate the flow. I removed my last name and email address from this posting.
People who are interested in logic evidence and truth apparently find it appropriate to run away and hide when presented with multiple scholarly, and scientific challenges to their premises. Odd how that works.
Well, if these are indeed Jim's words, he seems to share my attitude towards the shills that advocate no "funny business" occurred on 9/11....rather, the commission "got it right",saying anything to try and get us to believe their disinformation and propaganda.
Devil's advocate: Do you not refute the multiple scholarly, and scientific challenges that RTW's side has produced, as there are Ph.D men and women that believe wholeheartedly in the 9/11 conspiracy and have contributed great time and effort into it? Play fair.
Can you cite an example of these? I mean, Dr. Judy Wood has a PhD, and she postulates that Directed Energy Weapons, powered by a hurricane, destroyed the buildings from space. She has spent years of effort and published a few books. That doesn't make her theories less insane.
I do refute them, if they can be called such, directly. I do not run and hide from them. I point out exactly where they are wrong. You want fair? Go back and review the exchange I had with Fetzer. I challenged his claims head on, and provided actual data to substantiate my claims. Fetzer provided incredulity, he provided innuendo, he provided character attacks, but when faced with a direct challenge to his premise he chose to run away.
Yes, I thought that was kind of interesting as well. What do you mean "if"? Do you still doubt that it is indeed Fetzer? Why don't you email him yourself?
You must be new to the cult of 9/11 denial. Being a 9/11 Denier means never admitting you were wrong.
You called the user Jim Fetzer a shill. You were provided with contact information to confirm his identity. You refused to avail yourself of the information and continued to call him a shill. I emailed Jim Fetzer and he confirmed that the user Jim Fetzer here is indeed him. I posted his emailed response. You don't seem convinced but STILL won't email him yourself. Who's not telling the truth here?
I suggested one possibility of what the poster may or may not be. IMO, I did not think it was Fetzer. I could have been wrong. Very minor point in the overall scheme of things, but, take your bows if you feel the need. Continue to focus on side issues, and avoid the major issues. Seems to work to a degree. Sometimes it's more telling watching who responds to what and to what degree (if they even address the point at all). Lots can be learned by simply watching people, and their agendas running out ahead of them. Saves time in assessing who represents what, or more precisely, WHAT they represent. Thank you for making it easy.
For 'truthers', it is much easier to backpedal and make excuses than actually contact the source. Actual evidence is contrary to their cult.
I'm confused...wouldn't this be "trolling"? Wouldn't "cult" be insulting? The rules are so consistent sometimes, I have trouble following.
It is not trolling as it is the poster's opinion and germain to the discussion. "Cult" is not insulting because he is talking about a group, not an individual. If you are going to try and get "truthers" special protection, good luck with that as you will have single handedly made every insult against Democrats and Republicans or any other group a TOS violation, thus killing debate. He is also speaking the truth which weighs heavily in his favor.
Wouldn't constantly calling other posters shills in an attempt to divert from actually providing evidence to back up one's speculations be considered trolling? Answer: yes
I specifically call no one a shill. I try to stick to sweeping generalizations like I've been taught here. Would you like an email address as proof?
So, according to you, calling truthers a cult is somehow NOT the same as you calling anyone who doesn't agree with your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) a shill? How so? Truthers is a "sweeping generalization", is it not? Yet you consider that a personal attack. You whined that the rules are consistant, yet that is what they are suppose to be. I realize you probably meant inconsistant, but those freudian slips sometimes get the better of people.