Yep! Look at Jim Marrs --
A book about JFK.
Then a book about
aliens on earth.
Now a conspiracy book
about 9/11.
Posted on 10/31/2006 7:17:21 AM PST by dangerdoc
I have a friend at church who has seemed a little distant for a couple of months. Last week he approached my brother and I with a DVD he wanted us to see. It is the WTC conspiracy. He has fallen for it and thinks that Bush and the Jews brought down the towers. This is a guy that
I feel very bad for him. Honestly, a couple of months ago he was a very normal guy, now he seems like a paranoid schizophrenic. He may be too far gone but he has sucked his five sons into this delusion, one of them a decorated Iraq vetaran.
Does anyone have access to a MP4 video that refutes this nonsense that I can burn to a DVD and give him. Or is there a commercial video I can purchase? I don't know if he will watch it but I hope to give his boys the other side.
He is beyond discussion, when cornered, he thinks than Bin Laden was in on the plot with Bush and the Jews. I have not watched his video, I don't need the frustration.
He is trying to pass this video around to church members so they know who to vote for.
Was that photo taken right after Kerry droped his shotgun?
http://antitruther.blogspot.com/
check this out....I'm just getting started...
I buggered up a setting somehwere...I wanted to screen comments and disabled them I think...
new to blogging....not new to stomping assclowns into dust.
try and illustrate that the same people pushed the same stuff to a different MARKET in the 90's...
it's a damn marketing gimick to sell books and DVD's...gain noteriety..and build a following...
Forget trying to debate the subject...truthers have an answer for everything you could possible imagine...except for the fact that is simply repacked stuff meant for a different target audence...
Ask him why didnt the UN take over in 94' when they were supposed to with the black helecopters and unmarked tanks...
The hook is a dislike of Bush for what ever reason...it then bulds into a hatred for the Govt....eventually....the globalist bankers...otherwise known as JEWS...
Ask him if he is eventually prepared to shove jews into trian cars ...
truther retoric dove tales exactly with jihadist retoric...
Good luck to you...
if i ever meet a real truther...I'm simply going to beat him into a bloody pulp and save the energy...
The science of "buildings don't fall down" always works! If one of my physics students tried made the thesis that building #7 was damaged and had a fire and therefore "fell down" - he/she would be bounced from the program without a degree.
You have a mind like a steel trap, all right. No wonder you were able to discern The Truth when the rest of us just didn't have the brainpower to grasp such an advanced concept.
Please, please condescend to explain this "science" to us. Just as if we were "your physics students".
Hard-core conspiracy nuts are likely beyond saving, but it's not a good idea to just ignore them. They make arguments that are clear and superficially convincing to people who know even less than they do; if no one has an equally clear counter-argument, they win folks over. People listen to them not because they're right, or even very smart, but because they don't hear anyone else talking.
Just look how many people believe that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK -- not just the hard core of "researchers," but the real-world equivalent of "lurkers." It doesn't fill their day, in fact they probably rarely think about it until a pollster calls and asks the question.
Years ago, I used to spend a lot of time in places like alt.politics.white-power. The Internet was giving racist and neo-Nazi groups unprecedented access to millions of ill-informed people who were ready to buy into their superficially convincing arguments. Much more efficient than their pamphlets, newspapers, and public-access cable shows.
I never deluded myself that I was going to win over the committed bigots -- though most of the people I debated in the early '90s have since recanted their views and left the "movement." I was there for the lurkers. To provide a counter-argument with sourced facts and a dash of common sense.
I no longer seek out that kind of argument, because life is too short. But I do make a habit of arming myself with facts in case the argument comes to me. Not for the loons, but for the lurkers. The lurkers, in the OP's case, would be the sons, who might have been initially won over but might not be fully committed.
It's a tricky line to walk. Jump on a conspiracy theory too soon, and you run the risk of spreading it when it might otherwise have died in the cradle -- you can't debunk claims point by point without repeating them. Wait too long, and by the time you get there it's entrenched. The latter happened with the JFK assassination, aided and abetted by sloppy science and even a Congressional joint committee; by the time books and TV investigations were brought to bear, the conspiracy theory had become part of the cultural background hum, pretty much taken for granted.
The oft-cited Popular Mechanics story is the best comprehensive, methodical investigation I've found. It's worth reading and bookmarking. A while back, I bookmarked this page as a counter to the claim that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon; there are clearly identifiable 757 parts all over the grounds. Sadly, that page has suffered from bit rot, and most of the image links are broken now.
Yep! Look at Jim Marrs --
A book about JFK.
Then a book about
aliens on earth.
Now a conspiracy book
about 9/11.
Help me out here, there's something else I just don't understand.
If you think Bush was behind the attacks, how can you be comfortable being a Bush supporter and a Bush voter?
If you think the Israelis were behind it, why would you have a tagline asking us to pray for the peace of Jerusalem?
Talk about compartmentalization...
Help me out here - in my comment, did I say Bush was behind it? Did I say Israel was behind it?
Stick to the structural math. The buldings do not fall down. Can you show us any report in history where a burning skyscraper just fall down from a fire, let alone three in one day?
If the towers frame work "pancaked" in collapsing (as shown on tv) it does not account for the complete disintigration of the support columns.
The PM article was beneath the dignity of engineering disciplines as evidenced by it's inability to be honest.
You can not watch the video of #7 going down and say it was so badly damaged that it fell on it's own accord. Of course there is the oft reported analysis that maybe it fell in sympathy with its tower brothers.
Can you show me where any two skyscrapers have been hit with trasncontinental jets carrying a nearly full fuel load?
And why haven't you answered my question anout the firefighters? Either the men of the FDNY (and more than 99% of all firefighters, materials scientists, architects, etc.) disagree with your assessment, or they have been silenced. If it's the latter, please explain how.
anout=about
Oh, and would you please explain what hit the Pentagon?
Maybe they're among the majority of Americans who do not believe the "official"story of what happened on 911.
A new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks.
According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:
Question asked
"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?
Telling the truth 16%
Hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure 3%"
The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job.
If you don't believe Bush or the Israelis were behind it, why do you perpetually link to sites that do?
Do you like swimming in the same pool with Bush-haters, America-haters, and Jew-haters? Seriously.
Stick to the structural math.
Show it to me. I've heard that physics treachers can do math.
The buldings do not fall down.
They sure looked like they were falling down. They didn't fall up.
Can you show us any report in history where a burning skyscraper just fall down from a fire, let alone three in one day?
I reject the premise. No one said the buildings "fell down from a fire", and there aren't many buildings in the world comparable to the WTC towers, none that are exactly like them, and none that sustained the identical damage.
If the towers frame work "pancaked" in collapsing (as shown on tv)
you mean, as happened in real life and captured on TV
it does not account for the complete disintigration of the support columns.
Again, I reject the premise. I never heard anyone say the support columns "disintegrated" even partially, let alone completely. The columns may have failed completely, but that's a whole different matter.
The PM article was beneath the dignity of engineering disciplines as evidenced by it's inability to be honest.
As I have never read the Popular Mechanics article, that is immaterial, particularly to the question I asked. But my husband is an engineer, so I'll ask him to read it and see whether it's beneath the dignity of his discipline.
You can not watch the video of #7 going down and say it was so badly damaged that it fell on it's own accord.
You can't watch the video of #7 going down and conclude anything other than that the building is going down. The video is doo-doo. It is shot from the north, when everything important was happening to the south. The quality is poor. It is also filmed from many blocks away, and shows perhaps the upper third of the building, no more. It may be the only video that exists (it's the only one I've seen), but it's crap and proves nothing except that the building collapsed. And we knew that already.
Of course there is the oft reported analysis that maybe it fell in sympathy with its tower brothers.
Ah yes. I remember you repeating that fairly oft in the past.
So---who or what do YOU think is responsible for 9/11 attacks and the collapse of the three buildings? Now that I know you don't think it's Bush or the Jews, you've got me curious.
Smack him upside the head and say "Stop it!"
Apply as needed.
Let me address polls in a moment. First, let's address this where the rubber hits the road.
So, you're saying that the majority of firefighters, architects, materials scientists and engineers...
...know and can prove that 9/11 was an inside job
...but are not doing anything with that information?
Where are the mass demonstrations as these millions who know it AND are the only ones who can prove it go to the streets to demand the truth? In the case of firefighters, are people who lost 343 comrades too apathetic to act? Are those brave enough to run into burning buildings too scared to speak out?
There, now let's deal with your bizarre idea that these polls prove anything. Don't you have to take statistics before you can become a physics teacher?
First, the poll question is a New York Times/CBS News poll. Are you really going to go on record describing them as a credible source?
Second, the poll regards "9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks." Ergo, if anyone thinks the administration is doing any CYA on any aspect of the intel prior to the attacks, you are placing them in the 9/11 conspiracy camp. If a guy believes Richard Clarke over Condi Rice on the briefing issues, he's going to be in that "hiding something" 53% category. Meanwhile, he could think you conspiracy trolls are the biggest idiots. "Apples and oranges, get your apples and oranges! Nice and fresh, and not comparable at all!"
Third, polls (especially polls from the least credible newspaper and broadcast net in the news business) mean diddly. Even if they were compiled according to a "scientific" method, that doesn't mean anything, except that they weren't half-assed "I asked the people in the copy room what they thought" poll.
If scientific polls of the American people prove anything, than they proved that Bill Clinton was a good president (over 60% much of the time) and that John Kerry won a landslide in 2004. Do you believe any of those "scientific" pronouncements?
Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job.
Sure they did. Source, please? This should be fun.
Now, please also tell me what hit the Pentagon and when we have another case of two skyscrapers being hit by fully loaded transcontinental jetliners. Also, please tell me how those explosive charges were installed in the buildings without anyone noticing. And why, if the administration had the covert ops resources and willingness to kill 3,000 Americans in cold blood, did they not also just plant WMDs in Iraq?
Your friend is a retard.
...but enough with the recycled South Park jokes!
There's really nothing you can say or do to change his mind. He believes this because he wants to.
Fair question. Seconded!
Show it [Structural math] to me. I've heard that physics treachers can do math.
Fair question. Seconded!
So---who or what do YOU think is responsible for 9/11 attacks and the collapse of the three buildings?
Fair question. Seconded!
Who agrees with you?
the jihadist
I hear a Zot comming...better duck...
IMO you have to be nuts to fall for this conspiracy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.