What if Medina IS a truther?

[Deborah K]

Should it make any difference? I don't believe she is one, I'm not, but I wouldn't use it as a litmus test either. I know it makes you a pariah if you're running, but why should it? Why?

[Liberty Star]

If asking questions and for more detail is being a "truther", we're all truthers ; no responsible person would be anything but a truther when dealing with extremely important events. All non-neocons by definition then would be truthers and neocons would be falsers.

Now what if all of America was a truther when it was time to go find Iraqi WMDs with a cost of over a trillion dollars and killing,maiming or injuring of almost 100,000 Americans?


Quote from another post:

Are we just giving this Beck idiot and his sidekicks too much credibility here to let them define what happened in that interview?

Medina's interview response to an ambush question is measured, outside of neocons circles this is not going to play too badly. It would be a distraction no doubt and there will be political attack ads and so forth but all that can easily be overcome. Most people are focussed on real issues resulting from recent screw ups cheerled by likes of Beck. When did it become politically wrong to not certify blindly and ask for more info about what any gov says about major war/geopolitical events?

If we had less blind believers and more people willing to ask questions, we would have saved over a trillion dollars and many lives looking for non-existent WMDs in Iraq. I commend Medina for this interview. Asking questions about extremly important affairs is never ever wrong. That's all she said, there are questions. Stating that is not taking a position.


All this spotlight in the end could be a blessing in disguise for DM. Too early to say but won't be surprised if her numbers jumped a week from now and she gains even more traction from Feb 15 moneybomb.

[LibertyEagle]

It shouldn't. But, you're right, there certainly has been an effort to make it a deal killer. Come to think of it, reminds me of some other things that have been worked that way too.

[CharlesTX]

To the masses it makes a difference as it equates to being a kook. It's another way of labelling to discredit, like being called an "anti-semite" or a "racist". It's the new buzzword which is holding a lot of weight right now. And in time it will get watered down like "racist" and "anti-semitic".

[Peace&Freedom]

It's only an epithet if you let the gatekeepers stay in control of deciding who to marginalize. We only got somewhere on the Fed issue when we stopped being cowed into silence over it, out of fear of being called a kook. If social labeling is holding us back from standing up for finding out the truth, we will always fail.

[LibertyEagle]

It's only an epithet if you let the gatekeepers stay in control of deciding who to marginalize. We only got somewhere on the Fed issue when we stopped being cowed into silence over it, out of fear of being called a kook. If social labeling is holding us back from standing up for finding out the truth, we will always fail.

You honestly believe that? Personally, I hadn't noticed any of us being cowed into silence about the FED. What I did notice is that the state of the economy, the massive bailouts, AND last, but not least, MSM coverage of the issue, finally caused mainstream America to find out about the FED and start looking into it.

I still wonder why the MSM started covering it. But, that's for a different thread. :)

[Deborah K]

Who rated the thread two stars?? Isn't this a legitimate question? If not, show some hair and explain why.

[xd9fan]

who gives a shit??????

Most politicains are crooks and should be "dealt with"

she just needs to stay on message.......Gee Glenn I dont hear people wanting a 9-11 cold case reopened.......they want jobs, and freedom.

[nayjevin]

Kooky is trusting a government investigation :)


Should it make any difference? I don't believe she is one, I'm not, but I wouldn't use it as a litmus test either. I know it makes you a pariah if you're running, but why should it? Why?

It's way far to say 'beyond a shadow of a doubt our government was complicit' and it's way far out there to believe the commission report is the end-all be all. Medina rationally chose neither end, the way I see it.

[FrankRep]

Should it make any difference? I don't believe she is one, I'm not, but I wouldn't use it as a litmus test either. I know it makes you a pariah if you're running, but why should it? Why?
Should it make a difference?

The Voters say Yes. Majority rules.

[xd9fan]

in the end texas will get it right...

Perry is slick
Hutch is in the woods and out of touch....and shes washingtondc
Medina is you and me.....she real......and they know this

[Pennsylvania]

Who rated the thread two stars?? Isn't this a legitimate question? If not, show some hair and explain why.

I think some people probably rated before they read the OP.

[LibertyEagle]

she just needs to stay on message.......Gee Glenn I dont hear people wanting a 9-11 cold case reopened.......they want jobs, and freedom.

'Tis true. But, I don't think Deborah is really talking about Medina here.

[Brett]

If she is a truther, she's still the best candidate in the current Texas race, but it eliminates me from going out of my way to support her. More time for Kokesh and Rand.

Plus I'd no longer support Medina 2016 for president. (although we could do a hell of a lot worse)

[CapitalistRadical]

It doesn't matter to me. I care only about policies and philosophy when voting. But then, I and most of you are rather uncommon voters. The majority is very different, and they care about all sorts of irrelevant factors like truther litmus tests, and they won't vote for atheists, they usually won't vote for openly gay people, or people with open marriages, or who have taken ecstasy, etc.

[FrankRep]

If she is a truther, she's still the best candidate in the current Texas race, but it eliminates me from going out of my way to support her.

Debra Medina is NOT a 9/11 Truther
http://www.medinafortexas.com/getPost?p=272

[jmdrake]

You honestly believe that? Personally, I hadn't noticed any of us being cowed into silence about the FED. What I did notice is that the state of the economy, the massive bailouts, AND last, but not least, MSM coverage of the issue, finally caused mainstream America to find out about the FED and start looking into it.

I still wonder why the MSM started covering it. But, that's for a different thread. :)

I can only speak for our local 2008 RP campaign. When we did sign waiving it was mutually agreed not to wave signs about "Ending the war" or "Ending the fed" or "End the IRS" or "Stop the NAU" or basically any message other than "Who is Ron Paul" and "Google Ron Paul". The idea (which I totally disagreed with) was that we didn't want to turn off any potential voters and instead we wanted to prick people's curiosity so that people would go look up Ron Paul on the internet for themselves and be totally wowed and go vote for him. It was a pathetic strategy, but that's what we did. Long after the campaign people would see my bumper sticker and say "Yeah. Just who was that Ron Paul guy? I kept seeing he's signs all over the place and didn't get it." I think whoever came up with this idea didn't realize that most people have never read or even heard of Atlas Shrugged.

[The Deacon]

She may as well have mildly criticized the Israeli government, for what the media has done with this.

[Peace&Freedom]

You honestly believe that? Personally, I hadn't noticed any of us being cowed into silence about the FED. What I did notice is that the state of the economy, the massive bailouts, AND last, but not least, MSM coverage of the issue, finally caused mainstream America to find out about the FED and start looking into it.

I still wonder why the MSM started covering it. But, that's for a different thread. :)

I go back to the early '90's in activism, and distinctly remember back then if you raised the issue of the Fed, you were often met with "oh, that's conspiracy kook stuff." Gatekeeper techniques stay the same, only the issue changes.

[jmdrake]

Should it make any difference? I don't believe she is one, I'm not, but I wouldn't use it as a litmus test either. I know it makes you a pariah if you're running, but why should it? Why?

You're right. It shouldn't. It had about as much relevance at Tim Russert grilling Ron Paul about the civil war. I wish Medina had turned the tables on Beck and asked him "Do you really think this is more important the politicians who vote for bailouts or who try to force little girls to take experimental STD vaccines?"

[Deborah K]

If she is a truther, she's still the best candidate in the current Texas race, but it eliminates me from going out of my way to support her. More time for Kokesh and Rand.

Plus I'd no longer support Medina 2016 for president. (although we could do a hell of a lot worse)

She's the best candidate and yet you won't support her if she were a truther? Why?

[Bruno]

I wouldn't care.

What if she thought the U.S. had knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened? If the U.S. knew the Lusitania was carrying weapons to England and allowed the Germans to torpedo it? She'd be right on both of those. I agree with her response from yesterday's interview:

http://www.medinafortexas.com/getPost?p=272

[FrankRep]

She's the best candidate and yet you won't support her if she were a truther? Why?

But she is not a Truther (http://www.medinafortexas.com/getPost?p=272).

[Deborah K]

But she is not a Truther (http://www.medinafortexas.com/getPost?p=272).

I agree. I just want to know why people wouldn't vote for her or others if they were truthers. I'm trying to understand the rationale behind it.

[Peace&Freedom]

Notice the trepidation of a few non-truthers here in committing to supporting a liberty candidate if they were a truther. By contrast. I don't know of many truthers who would hesitate to support a liberty candidate who wasn't a truther. This is a sad state of affairs.

[FrankRep]

I agree. I just want to know why people wouldn't vote for her or others if they were truthers. I'm trying to understand the rationale behind it.
It's political suicide to be associated with 9/11 Truthers.
That's the rationale.

[LibertyEagle]

I go back to the early '90's in activism, and distinctly remember back then if you raised the issue of the Fed, you were often met with "oh, that's conspiracy kook stuff." Gatekeeper techniques stay the same, only the issue changes.

Yeah, I know. But, what changed that was not us, in my opinion, it was the economic environment and the fact that the MSM finally started talking about it. Sad, but I think, true. This is more a statement of the huge control that the MSM has over people's thinking.

[Dr.3D]

It's political suicide to be associated with 9/11 Truthers.
That's the rationale.

But how did it come to be this way?

Is it because of all of the government hype about not believing any "ridiculous conspiracy theories"?

[Deborah K]

It's political suicide to be associated with 9/11 Truthers.
That's the rationale.

Why??? Why is it political suicide?

[jmdrake]

Yeah, I know. But, what changed that was not us, in my opinion, it was the economic environment and the fact that the MSM finally started talking about it. Sad, but I think, true. This is more a statement of the huge control that the MSM has over people's thinking.

I would say it's a combination of things. We've had bad economic times before. For that matter the Federal Reserve was in existence when the Great Depression happened. But one thing the Campaign for Liberty did right was to focus the message after Ron Paul's presidential campaign ended to ending the Fed. Ron talking about it every chance he got was helpful. So were the rallies and writing congressmen and senators. Peter Schiff helped. Videos like American From Freedom to Fascism and Fall of the Republic have helped. And yes the open corruption from Bernanke and Geithner has helped too.

[jmdrake]

Why??? Why is it political suicide?

Because we allow it to be political suicide. Debra's gotten a big influx of cash but it would be great if it were bigger. If she got a million dollar moneybomb haul the joke would be on Glenn Beck.

[YumYum]

It's political suicide to be associated with 9/11 Truthers.
That's the rationale.

I want to be a 9/11 Truther. Where do I sign up?

[MelissaWV]

I agree. I just want to know why people wouldn't vote for her or others if they were truthers. I'm trying to understand the rationale behind it.

"Truther," to me, is a term which belongs to people who believe in a certain theory as the truth (other than the Government version). I think the ambiguity of the term is what's messing things up. "Truther," to a lot of the country, is just a catch-all for people with valid questions of any kind, because it brings to mind the bonkers people I refer to as "Truthers." Why bonkers? People who 100% KNOW that it was a hologram, or explosives were used, or the calls made from the planes were faked, or the hijackers had guns, or it was a missile that crashed into the Pentagon... often have holes in their stories, too. Quesitoning those inconsistencies, or missing knowledge, often gets one the label of being "pro-Government" (or worse). People who believe they 100% KNOW what happened, on either side of things, bother me in the same way as people who 100% KNOW what "God wants" or who 100% KNOW anything about any other still-debated conspiracy theory. Questions are great... assertion without absolue evidence is folly. It would cause me to wonder about her judgment, personally, if Medina supported one theory as fact over others.

She doesn't, though. She supports the right of people to ask questions, and the obligation to investigate things thoroughly.

[Deborah K]

Was it really necessary to add the disclaimer?

[Cult of One]

Political labels, once assigned, can be manipulated and changed to mean anything. The answer, don't become labeled.

[MelissaWV]

Was it really necessary to add the disclaimer?

With the way stuff on this site is lately, I figured it was coming...

[FrankRep]

Why??? Why is it political suicide?
The Mass Media holds the power and the media will character assassinate you.

Rick Perry knows how to work the media.


Perry said GOP candidate Debra Medina's remarks Thursday "were an insult to the thousands of Americans who lost loved ones."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=230989

[RCA]

Who rated the thread two stars?? Isn't this a legitimate question? If not, show some hair and explain why.

I just gave it 5 stars.

[LibertyEagle]

But how did it come to be this way?

Is it because of all of the government hype about not believing any "ridiculous conspiracy theories"?

I think there has been an effort by more than the government to put anyone and everyone who has any question whatsoever about that horrible day, to be categorized as a "nut". What I'm saying is, I think there have been various people who have intentionally made outrageous claims (the more outrageous, the better) for the primary purpose of making the whole subject untouchable.

My opinion only.

[sofia]

I have a hunch that the number of people who have some doubts about 911 is higher than we think it is. Could it be that many people keep their doubts to themselves out of fear of persecution?

Not sayin the majority of Americans are secret truthers....but this issue may not be the deal breaker that Beck makes out to be. The Texas election will tell.

If Debra drops to single digits, we'll know that people arent ready for 911 truth.....but if she ends up winning.....well, perhaps the Emperor's fake clothes are starting to wear.

[moostraks]

It's political suicide to be associated with 9/11 Truthers.
That's the rationale.

Because questioning the government can only occur when and how the msm say it may?

They spun the fact that there were some legitimate problems with the initial investigation (it wasn't an absolute consensus so why not clarify the issues where discrepancies exist) to being a kook then go on a truther rant. It is illogical that wanting truth in the government is kooky.

What is even more perplexing is how some here follow msm's rationale in agreeing with the fact that 9/11 was utterly and completely investigated without any issues being raised and anyone who blinks on this issue is a kook. We are allowing them to define the issues of importance.

No biggie we already have them define the creation of the universe and when life begins and any number of other things with some being socially acceptable and some being deeply stigmatizing, just go with the peer pressure...:rolleyes:

FWIW I am personally sick of politicians that play the game and I disagree with the fact that we should pressure candidates into caving on issues to what is socially acceptable. How in the world will we know who is a real liberty candidate and who is not?

[Deborah K]

The Mass Media holds the power and the media will character assassinate you.

Rick Perry knows how to work the media.


Perry said GOP candidate Debra Medina's remarks Thursday "were an insult to the thousands of Americans who lost loved ones."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=230989

It doesn't surprise me that he would capitalize on this setback. It needs to be known that Beck was convinced beforehand with no concrete evidencethat she was a truther and set her up. I wrote this to him:

Haven't you learned anything?

Glenn:

I’ve been a fairly regular viewer of yours for nearly four years now. I’ve seen you do what you did to Medina one other time and that was to Ron Paul. You viciously maligned him, clearly without bothering to research his life, principles and record. And you have done the same to Medina. What is this – How to attack a liberty candidate 2.0?

While she clearly mishandled your out-of-left-field questions, she has since cleared up the misunderstanding. Just wondering, did you do any research at all on her? Ever watched any of her debates? Read anything she’s written? Or did you just go nutzoid when you heard unfounded “rumors” that she was a truther. No evidence needed, guilty until proven innocent.

You were on the attack from the beginning because you already had your mind made up for you:

GLENN: Tell me a little bit about yourself because, you know, the tea party people, they are coming out of the woodwork. People are just popping up, and I think that's good but it's also a little dangerous because we don't know anything about you. Tell me who you are.

MEDINA: Registered Nurse, long time Republican Party grassroots activist from South Texas, entered the gubernatorial race a year ago today…….

GLENN: Okay. The question was tell me about you. Who are you?

MEDINA: Registered Nurse, grassroots activist, 20 years in Republican Party, grassroots politics from south Texas…

You were so hell-bent against her from the beginning that even when she answers your question, instead of politely asking for more info on her background, you were rude to her.

The interview was disgraceful. You let yourself be duped again for failure to do your own research on yet another liberty candidate. YOU are the one who doesn’t get it.

[sofia]

"Truther," to me, is a term which belongs to people who believe in a certain theory as the truth (other than the Government version). I think the ambiguity of the term is what's messing things up. "Truther," to a lot of the country, is just a catch-all for people with valid questions of any kind, because it brings to mind the bonkers people I refer to as "Truthers." Why bonkers? People who 100% KNOW that it was a hologram, or explosives were used, or the calls made from the planes were faked, or the hijackers had guns, or it was a missile that crashed into the Pentagon... often have holes in their stories, too. Quesitoning those inconsistencies, or missing knowledge, often gets one the label of being "pro-Government" (or worse). People who believe they 100% KNOW what happened, on either side of things, bother me in the same way as people who 100% KNOW what "God wants" or who 100% KNOW anything about any other still-debated conspiracy theory. Questions are great... assertion without absolue evidence is folly. It would cause me to wonder about her judgment, personally, if Medina supported one theory as fact over others.

She doesn't, though. She supports the right of people to ask questions, and the obligation to investigate things thoroughly.


way to set up a 911 straw man (holograms etc) while ignoring the much more obvious truths of 911.


Do some actual research before you start smearing people who have studied this in depth.

[jmdrake]

"Truther," to me, is a term which belongs to people who believe in a certain theory as the truth (other than the Government version). I think the ambiguity of the term is what's messing things up. "Truther," to a lot of the country, is just a catch-all for people with valid questions of any kind, because it brings to mind the bonkers people I refer to as "Truthers." Why bonkers? People who 100% KNOW that it was a hologram, or explosives were used, or the calls made from the planes were faked, or the hijackers had guns, or it was a missile that crashed into the Pentagon... often have holes in their stories, too. Quesitoning those inconsistencies, or missing knowledge, often gets one the label of being "pro-Government" (or worse). People who believe they 100% KNOW what happened, on either side of things, bother me in the same way as people who 100% KNOW what "God wants" or who 100% KNOW anything about any other still-debated conspiracy theory. Questions are great... assertion without absolue evidence is folly. It would cause me to wonder about her judgment, personally, if Medina supported one theory as fact over others.

She doesn't, though. She supports the right of people to ask questions, and the obligation to investigate things thoroughly.

Yeah, I agree. On the flip side I've counter arguments that don't make sense either. (The funniest I saw was that the buildings fell into their own footprint because they acted like "wings"). I've seen people swear 7 fell because of the diesel fuel, but never do a mea cupla when NIST came out and said diesel fuel wasn't a factor. I don't think is wrong to question the questioners nor is it wrong to question the questioners of the questioners. ;)

And yes. The label is far too broad. Glenn Beck would have us believe that there's never been any traitors within our government. Has he never heard of Robert Hansen?

[jmdrake]

I have a hunch that the number of people who have some doubts about 911 is higher than we think it is. Could it be that many people keep their doubts to themselves out of fear of persecution?

Not sayin the majority of Americans are secret truthers....but this issue may not be the deal breaker that Beck makes out to be. The Texas election will tell.

If Debra drops to single digits, we'll know that people arent ready for 911 truth.....but if she ends up winning.....well, perhaps the Emperor's fake clothes are starting to wear.

Well I'm hoping for a win. But it was an uphill battle before this. There's a better than odd chance that she'll neither drop to single digits nor make those last few points needed to beat KBH. Best way to prevent that is to donate.

[squarepusher]

1030 architectural and engineering professionals
and 6488 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.


http://www.ae911truth.org/


also, thank you for changing the thread title. I'm partially retarded, and questions and the likes oftenconfuse me, having the thread simplified with an auto-summary in the title really helps me.

[dannno]

I want to be a 9/11 Truther. Where do I sign up?

Watch the following (all free online)

Loose Change: Final Cut

Who Killed John O'neill?

Fabled Enemies

[LibertyEagle]

Glenn Beck would have us believe that there's never been any traitors within our government. Has he never heard of Robert Hansen?

See, that's what is so contradictory about Beck. He rails on and on about conspiracy-laden stuff almost daily on his TV show. Showing linkages between subversive organizations, Marxist-connections of the people in our government, and on and on. He has even gone back through history doing same.

Yet, with 9-11, it is apparently completely unacceptable to ask any questions whatsoever. We are supposed to believe we have been told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Total hypocrisy.

[MelissaWV]

way to set up a 911 straw man (holograms etc) while ignoring the much more obvious truths of 911.


Do some actual research before you start smearing people who have studied this in depth.

Right. If I ask questions about someone's theory, I need to "do some research." I've encountered all manner of theory on this forum about 9/11, and in general it ends with someone so entrenched in their version of the truth that they call anyone who disagrees a name or two, and that's that. I'm glad to see you believe that EVERYTHING I posted is a straw man and has nothing to do with the "much more obvious truths."

It really is a religion to some people. "More obvious truths" sounds like I'm required to have your particular viewpoint, or I'm a moron (who can't see the obvious). Thank you for demonstrating quite prettily precisely the sort of closed-minded claptrap I was speaking of.

[constituent]

I think there has been an effort by more than the government to put anyone and everyone who has any question whatsoever about that horrible day, to be categorized as a "nut". What I'm saying is, I think there have been various people who have intentionally made outrageous claims (the more outrageous, the better) for the primary purpose of making the whole subject untouchable.

My opinion only.

no, i share that opinion too. :)

[nayjevin]

Why??? Why is it political suicide?

I think it is assumed to be because so many likely republican voters believe strictly in the muslim terrorist aspect. To question the report, but still believe it was muslim terrorists, would not necessarily be widely considered political suicide. But 'truther' has somehow turned into 'the government did it' (inside job meme?).

[Deborah K]

I think it is assumed to be because so many likely republican voters believe strictly in the muslim terrorist aspect. To question the report, but still believe it was muslim terrorists, would not necessarily be widely considered political suicide. But 'truther' has somehow turned into 'the government did it' (inside job meme?).

Then "questioners" should be distinguished from "truthers" and they're not. Even so, if someone firmly believes the gov't brought the buildings down, I would rather have someone suspicious of the gov't in office, than ANYONE else!!

[moostraks]

Yet, with 9-11, it is apparently completely unacceptable to ask any questions whatsoever. We are supposed to believe we have been told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

It doesn't add up. And I'm not even a Truther.

Good point...and funny thing is most of us feel the need to clarify we aren't truthers (myself included). Makes me more inclined to believe that where there is smoke thehre is fire on this issue, or that is at least how tptb might want to rangle the opposition with a nice pretty bow into kooky land. Not sure which at this point, and not willing to really try to find out.

[dannno]

Right. If I ask questions about someone's theory, I need to "do some research." I've encountered all manner of theory on this forum about 9/11, and in general it ends with someone so entrenched in their version of the truth that they call anyone who disagrees a name or two, and that's that. I'm glad to see you believe that EVERYTHING I posted is a straw man and has nothing to do with the "much more obvious truths."

It really is a religion to some people. "More obvious truths" sounds like I'm required to have your particular viewpoint, or I'm a moron (who can't see the obvious). Thank you for demonstrating quite prettily precisely the sort of closed-minded claptrap I was speaking of.

I am 100% certain that the damage to the Pentagon was not caused by the commercial plane that witnesses saw flying toward the Pentagon before the explosion. After closing in on probably 100+ hours of research on the Pentagon alone over my lifetime of research on the incident, I have found zero holes in this claim. I can THEORIZE that the damage was caused by explosives and/or other advanced weaponry, because I know for a fact that it was not caused by the plane that witnesses saw flying toward the building. There is evidence that explosives were used, but just because explosives were used doesn't mean that other advanced weaponry wasn't used as well. But I don't claim to know exactly how it was carried out.

I haven't seen anybody claim with absolute certainty that holograms were involved in the attack. Most truthers are sure about certain things, but then use theories to describe what could have happened regarding things that we just can't know about in order to show that their story has continuity. Some people see a person talking about these theories, and then claim that 9/11 was an inside job with absolute certainty, and for some reason they assume that all of theories they espoused were espoused with absolute certainty when in fact it was only the conclusion that they were certain about.

I'm guessing most people here haven't done 100+ hours of research into the Pentagon incident. Most truthers are misunderstood because the public has not been exposed to the same things that we have exposed ourselves to, because we went out and seeked the information for ourselves.

[CapitalistRadical]

I have some remaining questions about the Official Version, but I don't really have an alternate hypothesis, and I certainly don't believe that the twin towers were subject to controlled demolition.

[CapitalistRadical]

I am 100% certain that the damage to the Pentagon was not caused by the commercial plane that witnesses saw flying toward the Pentagon before the explosion. After closing in on probably 100+ hours of research on the Pentagon alone over my lifetime of research on the incident, I have found zero holes in this claim.

The official version seems pretty suspicious to me as well. Did the FBI ever release all of the video frames from the parking lot camera? My main problem with any alternate hypothesis is, what did they do with the missing airplane?

[Brian4Liberty]

If asking questions and for more detail is being a "truther", we're all truthers ; no responsible person would be anything but a truther when dealing with extremely important events.

Yes. People who are not fully informed about this "issue" may have that innocent opinion about it, and are not aware that the term "truther" has been demonized. Who wouldn't want to know the unbiased truth? It doesn't mean a person subscribes to any particular theory. You can believe that the truth is that 9/11 Commission report is 100% accurate and comprehensive.


To the masses it makes a difference as it equates to being a kook. It's another way of labelling to discredit, like being called an "anti-semite" or a "racist". It's the new buzzword which is holding a lot of weight right now. And in time it will get watered down like "racist" and "anti-semitic".

You are correct, it is a way to discredit. I haven't seen any "watering down" though.


Should it make a difference?

The Voters say Yes. Majority rules.

Beck says "yes". The voters haven't spoken yet.


She may as well have mildly criticized the Israeli government, for what the media has done with this.

And the winner is: The Deacon.

It's the same issue. Many "truther" theories eventually point to Israel, thus it is a single issue.


Debra Medina is NOT a 9/11 Truther
http://www.medinafortexas.com/getPost?p=272

There we go. The truth.

[Bossobass]

It's funny how we supposedly live in the 'land of the free' but can so easily have our opinions and beliefs squashed like a bug.

My answer to stupid questions regarding trust in the government, of which the 9/11 one is the stupidest of all time, is:

"I am not a crook."
"Read my lips."
"I did not have sex with that woman."
"Mission accomplished."

I don't buy the official government story regarding:

9/11
JFK
RFK
MLK
Gulf of Tonkin
USS Liberty
The Maine
The Lusitania
CPI
OPEC oil embargo
Cold War
Osama Bin Laden

And anyone who does should ping me because I have some swamp land in New Jersey they might be interested in.

TV is shit. Beck (and every other TV driveler) is an insult to intelligence.

Bosso

[pcosmar]

Odd
From the many threads and comments, It seem that a lot of folks would prefer a lair than a truther. :(

[dannno]

The official version seems pretty suspicious to me as well. Did the FBI ever release all of the video frames from the parking lot camera? My main problem with any alternate hypothesis is, what did they do with the missing airplane?

No good video has ever been released of the Pentagon incident despite the fact that nearly 50 cameras were pointed at it (public and private) and they were all confiscated.

However the reason that I claim the damage was not caused by the commercial airliner is because for the damage that was caused to the Pentagon to have occurred, the plane would have had to have flown through the light poles that were downed over the highway, one of which hit a taxi cab. The rest were found later off to the side of the road.

The Citizens Investigation Team decided to go to Arlington and find as many official witnesses as possible, as well as scouring neighborhoods and businesses for other witnesses who saw the plane. They did most of their interviews on video tape, on-site where the witness was when the incident occurred to avoid any confusion.

What they found is corroborated testimony from official witnesses including two Pentagon Police officers and about a dozen others who saw the plane approach the building. Key witnesses at Fort Meyer, near Colombia and Pike, and especially the former CITGO station on S. Joyce (you can see all these places in the map I link to below). They found that every single witness has been able to corroborate a north-side of the CITGO gas station flight path. Not one witness has contradicted this north-side flight path. There is even video evidence of the police officer parking his car on the north side of the CITGO, precisely as he described in his testimony. If you look at google maps, you can see that it would be impossible for the plane to fly on the north side of the CITGO, hit the light poles, then proceed to cause the damage that was caused in the direction that it was caused. The light poles corroborate the damage to the Pentagon, but the flight path doesn't corroborate with either. This means the light poles were downed earlier, except possibly the final light poll that struck the taxi, which we don't know how that came down but there is no indication that it was a plane. Even the taxi driver insinuated in one of his statements to CIT that there is a conspiracy.


So what happened to the missing plane?


Probably something along the lines of this:


http://www.thepentacon.com/images/Flyover.gif



Go to google maps and take a look at the Pentagon. You will see that there is a commercial airport right behind it (Reagan National). Any planes flying in that area would have appeared to be coming or going from the airport.

http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=h&lat=38.86562&lon=-77.059429&zoom=15&q1=arlington%2C%20va

You can also see Fort Meyer and all the other locations detailed above.

You can find several websites and videos done by the Citizens Investigation Team online. Most are posted on google video or on their website.

[Brian4Liberty]

As Jeff Foxworthy would say:

"If you don't believe that the 9/11 Commission report is absolutely 100% accurate and comprehensive....You may be a truther." ;)

[CapitalistRadical]

...

That's very interesting. So the plane flew along one path, but the actual impact and light poles indicated a different path?

I'm still not sure what happened to the actual airplane with the passengers on it.

I don't yet see the better alternative hypothesis. It seems more difficult from an operational standpoint to knock down light poles without being seen, and dispose of an airplane with passengers, and fire off a missile. It would be better to kill three birds with one stone, and aim the airplane at the Pentagon.

On the other hand, I remember the most well-placed camera, which they released the footage from, but redacted the frames that show the craft! After some 9/11 Truth activity, they released one more frame, which was blurry, and still retained the smoking gun frames.

[MelissaWV]

That's very interesting. So the plane flew along one path, but the actual impact and light poles indicated a different path?

I'm still not sure what happened to the actual airplane with the passengers on it.

I don't yet see the better alternative hypothesis. It seems more difficult from an operational standpoint to knock down light poles without being seen, and dispose of an airplane with passengers, and fire off a missile. It would be better to kill three birds with one stone, and aim the airplane at the Pentagon.

On the other hand, I remember the most well-placed camera, which they released the footage from, but redacted the frames that show the craft! After some 9/11 Truth activity, they released one more frame, which was blurry, and still retained the smoking gun frames.

Which is pretty much where I am, personally, on the Pentagon issue. Could the plane have been packed with explosives and gone off early? That'd explain the reluctance to release the relevant frames. So would the Pentagon having a weakness or some other aspect that people didn't want made public. People actually familiar with the area know that a plane going in for landing at Reagan (which would have records of that plane) would not look like it was hitting the Pentagon, or anywhere close. There is a great deal that doesn't add up with the official story, but I notice even dannno has to use "probably" when he refers to what happened to the passengers. This is precisely what I was talking about earlier: You can have your "I know 100% what happened," but when it comes down to it, no one does. I don't even think the people that participated know 100% what happened anymore.

[Stary Hickory]

Well if she is a truther is gives me serious reason to doubt her judgment. If someone can believe that they can believe a lot of other things that might not be healthy. The first statement she gave was not super radical but it was a bit odd. What she said totally made it sound like she was a truther though, but her later statement was more than adequate and was well spoken.

I am still supporting Medina, but It has made me think a little less of her. You have to make a personal decision to support people based on their ability to use judgment and principles to govern effectively. The truther slip up does give some people doubts. And really people have every right to change their opinion of her based on her beliefs. That is why they listen to her in the first place, to learn more about her. If people have learned something they consider negative, well who is to blame here? Better people know where she stands and elect her honestly.

I hope she makes it though this, I don't expect her to do anything unwarranted. I think she can do a lot of good. But if a moderate supporter like me can be given pause by that statement, it could have easily scared off those sitting on the fence or her weaker supporters. I decicided I will donate some money to her campaign. After listening to the beck clip some more, I decided I don't like how he mocker her afterwards. That was pretty lame. And instead of trying to honestly represent her today, based on her expanded statement, it seems he is more interested continuing to antagonize the situation. The people deserve to know the truth about Medina, however let's be honest had a politician you did not like slipped up and said something in a similar manner, you would have been all over it.

Beck did go after Van Jones for the 9/11 truther thing, but I certainly thin Medina is not in the same ballpark as Vam Jones, and Beck ought to make that incredibly clear or else he is doing a huge disservice to the voting public.

[CapitalistRadical]

Which is pretty much where I am, personally, on the Pentagon issue. Could the plane have been packed with explosives and gone off early? That'd explain the reluctance to release the relevant frames. So would the Pentagon having a weakness or some other aspect that people didn't want made public. People actually familiar with the area know that a plane going in for landing at Reagan (which would have records of that plane) would not look like it was hitting the Pentagon, or anywhere close. There is a great deal that doesn't add up with the official story, but I notice even dannno has to use "probably" when he refers to what happened to the passengers. This is precisely what I was talking about earlier: You can have your "I know 100% what happened," but when it comes down to it, no one does. I don't even think the people that participated know 100% what happened anymore.

Exactly. While there are certainly holes in the official version, in order to construct an alternative story, we have to put ourselves in the shoes of conspirators. You want the plan to enjoy the greatest chance of success, with as few variables as possible. Maximum impact with smallest risk of failure or exposure. That's why I discount controlled demolition theories. If you're able to hijack two airplanes and crash them into the twin towers, who cares if the buildings actually fall? That's scary enough as it is! Let 2 stumps stand. It will have enough of a psychological effect.

[ARealConservative]

of course it shouldn't matter.

I don't remember how Dr. Paul worded it in the manifesto, but his point was that actual issues no longer matter in the election process. It is a competition of one-liners and hair styles. There are no issues of substance discussed anymore. I'm not sure of the populace is intelligent enough to deal with substance anyway.

Which is why we are so reliant on a fair MSM and why our movement is still in its infancy.

[AuH20]

Exactly. While there are certainly holes in the official version, in order to construct an alternative story, we have to put ourselves in the shoes of conspirators. You want the plan to enjoy the greatest chance of success, with as few variables as possible. Maximum impact with smallest risk of failure or exposure. That's why I discount controlled demolition theories. If you're able to hijack two airplanes and crash them into the twin towers, who cares if the buildings actually fall? That's scary enough as it is! Let 2 stumps stand. It will have enough of a psychological effect.

I agree that the controlled demolition theory is extremely far fetched as well. Secondly, many of the so-called truther 'experts' overlook the fact that the twin towers had a steel tubing exoskeleton which shouldered the horizontal load tonnage. Once that sheathing was compromised by the large aircraft, it was only a matter of time before the floors started to compress downward. Thirdly, thermite is a commonly used substance to weld steel beams. How do I know all this? I work for a construction firm and previously worked for a firm that was actively involved in both cleanups. ;)

With all this said, could the Mossad somehow orchestrated the hijackings? Certainly. Could the hijackers gained entrance to the cockpits on the runway at Logan Airport or LAX? Sure. Could this be covered up? Absolutely.

[jmdrake]

Exactly. While there are certainly holes in the official version, in order to construct an alternative story, we have to put ourselves in the shoes of conspirators. You want the plan to enjoy the greatest chance of success, with as few variables as possible. Maximum impact with smallest risk of failure or exposure. That's why I discount controlled demolition theories. If you're able to hijack two airplanes and crash them into the twin towers, who cares if the buildings actually fall? That's scary enough as it is! Let 2 stumps stand. It will have enough of a psychological effect.

Well that's one way to look at it. Another way is not to discount anything that you can't disprove. WTC 7 simply wasn't hit by a plane. And the damage done to it was much less than damage done to buildings that did not fall. Is it the strongest attack on the official story? Maybe. Maybe not. But I can't discount it a priori based on the evidence. I've yet to hear any genuine "debunking" of WTC 7 beyond "Well it's not the simplest way to do it".

[dannno]

Which is pretty much where I am, personally, on the Pentagon issue. Could the plane have been packed with explosives and gone off early? That'd explain the reluctance to release the relevant frames. So would the Pentagon having a weakness or some other aspect that people didn't want made public. People actually familiar with the area know that a plane going in for landing at Reagan (which would have records of that plane) would not look like it was hitting the Pentagon, or anywhere close. There is a great deal that doesn't add up with the official story, but I notice even dannno has to use "probably" when he refers to what happened to the passengers. This is precisely what I was talking about earlier: You can have your "I know 100% what happened," but when it comes down to it, no one does. I don't even think the people that participated know 100% what happened anymore.


My question is why is it necessary to know what happened to the passengers when you can prove that the official story is wrong? We can hypothesize about it all day, and there are several possibilities.. but all of them are irrelevant to the fact that the plane people saw could not have hit the Pentagon.

The plane that people saw COULD have had passengers on it, or it COULD have been a drone that switched off with the original plane hundreds of miles away. There is no way to know that, but it is irrelevant to the evidence that points to the fact that the plane could not have physically done the damage to the Pentagon that it did.

[MelissaWV]

My question is why is it necessary to know what happened to the passengers when you can prove that the official story is wrong? We can hypothesize about it all day, and there are several possibilities.. but all of them are irrelevant to the fact that the plane people saw could not have hit the Pentagon.

The plane that people saw COULD have had passengers on it, or it COULD have been a drone that switched off with the original plane hundreds of miles away. There is no way to know that, but it is irrelevant to the evidence that points to the fact that the plane could not have physically done the damage to the Pentagon that it did.

Chasing one's tail. My original point was about the fact that my problem is with people who claim their version is the 100% correct one, whether they be the Government or a common citizen.

[Peace&Freedom]

There is a great deal that doesn't add up with the official story, but I notice even dannno has to use "probably" when he refers to what happened to the passengers. This is precisely what I was talking about earlier: You can have your "I know 100% what happened," but when it comes down to it, no one does. I don't even think the people that participated know 100% what happened anymore.

The Pentagon issues are always going to be murkier than the WTC in terms of challenging the official story, because as a government space the cover-up was much easier to control or manipulate there than in lower Manhattan, which was a public area. The reason we have much more independent photos, video and eyewitness testimony available from WTC is because the feds couldn't confiscate all of it, as they did like lightning to the videos that could have possibly shown what hit the Pentagon.

The official story also has its problems explaining the passengers, as from the photos available the plane (if it was a plane) that hit the building was apparently too small to be a commercial 757, thus couldn't have held the passengers. There is absolutely no evidence of the two 12 ton titanium turbine engines that come with a 757 in the wreckage. Add this with the other anomalies and you do have a case for questioning the official story at the Pentagon---the lack of 100% certainty is more a reflection on a lack of access to the rest of the evidence, due to the government's hoarding of the data.

[dannno]

You want the plan to enjoy the greatest chance of success, with as few variables as possible. Maximum impact with smallest risk of failure or exposure. That's why I discount controlled demolition theories. If you're able to hijack two airplanes and crash them into the twin towers, who cares if the buildings actually fall? That's scary enough as it is! Let 2 stumps stand. It will have enough of a psychological effect.

You have to look at the circumstances that happened before 9/11 to find out why controlled demolitions took place.

The buildings were filled with asbestos and were in need of millions (or billions?) in renovations. They applied to demolish the buildings several times and were denied, due to the asbestos content of the buildings. I believe completing the asbestos work would have taken the cost into the billions.

The buildings were sold several months earlier to a private individual, who promptly insured them against terrorist attacks.

There are a lot of reasons why WTC7 was taken down, and it could be argued that the falling of WTC 1 and 2 were meant to overshadow the falling of WTC 7, which of course they did because most people have no idea a third building fell that day. The SEC had some big cases including Enron that were being stored in WTC 7, and the evidence was destroyed. Several banks were in WTC 7, along with the NY branch of the CIA that housed a lot of investigative materials on Al Qaeda. All lost. National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, The Department of Defense (DOD) were also tentants of WTC 7. Any evidence they needed to get rid of was stored in WTC 7 that day.

[MelissaWV]

For some reason, people either didn't read what I said, or read some magical version of it I wasn't privy to writing...

- Questioning = good. All of the stories/theories have holes. Some holes are more glaring than others.

- Saying you know 100% what happened = moronic. I don't care if you're the Government or a Martian or a regular Joe.

Beyond that, and you're just reading into things for your own fun and enjoyment.

[CapitalistRadical]

It's not enough to “prove” that there are holes in the official story. I need an alternate hypothesis that is more plausible than the official version. I haven't really seen one.

I agree that the collapse of WTC 7 looks very smooth, and Silverstein's comment is suspicious, but I don't see the conspiratorial usefulness of planting explosives in an adjacent building like that. It really added little to the emotional impact. Was the building already booby trapped because of the command center therein? Can they collapse buildings faster than we think? My questions are not satisfactorily answered.

What did add to the emotional impact was those anthrax letters.

[revolutionisnow]

Well if she is a truther is gives me serious reason to doubt her judgment. If someone can believe that they can believe a lot of other things that might not be healthy. The first statement she gave was not super radical but it was a bit odd. What she said totally made it sound like she was a truther though, but her later statement was more than adequate and was well spoken.

I am still supporting Medina, but It has made me think a little less of her. You have to make a personal decision to support people based on their ability to use judgment and principles to govern effectively. The truther slip up does give some people doubts. And really people have every right to change their opinion of her based on her beliefs. That is why they listen to her in the first place, to learn more about her. If people have learned something they consider negative, well who is to blame here? Better people know where she stands and elect her honestly.

I hope she makes it though this, I don't expect her to do anything unwarranted. I think she can do a lot of good. But if a moderate supporter like me can be given pause by that statement, it could have easily scared off those sitting on the fence or her weaker supporters. I decicided I will donate some money to her campaign. After listening to the beck clip some more, I decided I don't like how he mocker her afterwards. That was pretty lame. And instead of trying to honestly represent her today, based on her expanded statement, it seems he is more interested continuing to antagonize the situation. The people deserve to know the truth about Medina, however let's be honest had a politician you did not like slipped up and said something in a similar manner, you would have been all over it.

Beck did go after Van Jones for the 9/11 truther thing, but I certainly thin Medina is not in the same ballpark as Vam Jones, and Beck ought to make that incredibly clear or else he is doing a huge disservice to the voting public.

People that believe 8 guys from caves(half of which were still alive afterwords) were able to make 3 NYC skyscrapers collapse at near freefall speeds into their own footprint with only 2 airplanes makes me question their judgment. It makes me wonder if one day the media or some politician will stand up and declare how drinking bottles of bleach is actually good for you, and since you believe so much of what they say you will throw every bit of common sense, knowledge of basic physics, and science out the window and just say o-k.

http://www.takeourworldback.com/itwasntmuslims.htm

[dannno]

Chasing one's tail. My original point was about the fact that my problem is with people who claim their version is the 100% correct one, whether they be the Government or a common citizen.



It's like if I was a prosecutor and proved that a man killed his brother-in-law, beyond a reasonably doubt, and then you were the defense attorney and asked me why the socks in his hamper didn't match. I could come up with a lot of theories as to why the socks don't match, and then you could try to obfuscate by saying that my entire case is a "theory" just because I made some speculation about the socks... Now pretend the socks were the murder weapon. It's intellectually dishonest to say that I can't be certain about the murder just because I can't explain why the pair of socks don't match.


My point is that it is easy to mis-understand people who are certain about the government aiding in the attacks who might theorize about pieces that we don't have proof for. Just because I can't prove what happened to the people on the plane doesn't mean I can't prove that the government aided in the attacks. I can, with 100% certainty, prove that they were behind it. I can't tell you what happened to the passengers. I can speculate on certain events, and then people can pretend that everything I'm saying is a theory, but they are being dishonest with themselves.

[dannno]

- Saying you know 100% what happened = moronic. I don't care if you're the Government or a Martian or a regular Joe.



I've never seen anybody say that they know exactly what happened on the truther side. I've seen people who are certain that the government was involved, and they have their favorite theories that make the most sense about what happened regarding the side-plots and whatnot, but there is literally nobody on the truther side that I have seen who claims to know every detail about what happened.

My point is people see "I am certain that people in the government were involved" and "I think the people got switched off and the planes were drones" and some how in their mind convince themselves that the person believes that they are "certain" that people got switched off and the planes were drones. They can't separate fact from speculation, the listener, not the truther.

[dannno]

I agree that the collapse of WTC 7 looks very smooth, and Silverstein's comment is suspicious, but I don't see the conspiratorial usefulness of planting explosives in an adjacent building like that. It really added little to the emotional impact.

See post #72, thoroughly explained.

[torchbearer]

I go back to the early '90's in activism, and distinctly remember back then if you raised the issue of the Fed, you were often met with "oh, that's conspiracy kook stuff." Gatekeeper techniques stay the same, only the issue changes.

this is true. but 99% of everything libertarians were talking about prior to 2007 was considered cooky.
end the fed
get out the UN
end the war on drugs
etc.
instead of having a debate over the merits of these policies- the opposition merely laughed at it and labeled it kooky. no debate was had.

[pcosmar]

What if Medina IS a truther?

So what if she is?
I have never been a "truther", but I am a "questioner".

All I have heard on the Media and Official side is Lies and disinformation.

I think it might be nice to have a bunch of truthers in positions of influence.
It would beat the bunch of lairs that we have now.

[CapitalistRadical]

See post #72, thoroughly explained.

Yes, but it extends the circle of trust and planning to include people who would be very interested in seeing 7 fall. Not that this is impossible, but it adds pressure upon the hypothesis.

[dannno]

Yes, but it extends the circle of trust and planning to include people who would be very interested in seeing 7 fall. Not that this is impossible, but it adds pressure upon the hypothesis.

No, actually a lot of the people who benefited had no idea. It was their handlers taking care of them. The handlers have a lot of interest in preserving the handled who have been loyal to them.

[MelissaWV]

I've never seen anybody say that they know exactly what happened on the truther side. I've seen people who are certain that the government was involved, and they have their favorite theories that make the most sense about what happened regarding the side-plots and whatnot, but there is literally nobody on the truther side that I have seen who claims to know every detail about what happened.

My point is people see "I am certain that people in the government were involved" and "I think the people got switched off and the planes were drones" and some how in their mind convince themselves that the person believes that they are "certain" that people got switched off and the planes were drones. They can't separate fact from speculation, the listener, not the truther.

Then we have, point blank, had entirely different experiences. I have had people say (to use the point in your post) "People got switched off and the planes were drones." When I asked where those people would have gone, or where the switching would have happened, I got a lot of answers that were pretty much bunk. One person insisted that the commercial airliners were landed at Andrews AFB, the people were walked off the planes, shot (execution-style), and disposed of, in an elaborate plan that they had lots and lots of details for, and that involved no fewer than two dozen people, not to mention also involving the fact that no one noticed a commercial jet flying low over the Beltway to land at Andrews AFB (there are always cars on the Beltway; it's kind of a strange risk to take with such an elaborate plan). That's merely an example. When people VOLUNTEER these theories, and I have questions, I ask. There inevitably comes a time in the conversation where they accuse me of simply believing what the Government has told me.

I think it's much more a matter of not taking ANYONE'S word for their theory being right, and doing research for oneself. There are even threads on this forum where people posted pictures/video that were supposed to show that a "different color of smoke" showed where a building was obviously being blown up rather than just falling down. This "different color of smoke" suspiciously looked like it was the difference between light and shadow between two buildings. When you bring things like that up, you are subjected to plenty of ridicule by people who will insist "NO! It's NOT a shadow!" as if shadows stopped existing for awhile just so their theory could hold water.

I could go on and on about this, because it's been nine years of hearing people tell me I'm an idiot if I don't realize this, that, or the other thing. The zealous nature of the people I've had those discussions with really does remind me of people who tell you that you must believe as they do, or you're going to burn in Hell.

Those are just my personal experiences, but please understand that a LOT of people have had that conversation, and the word "Truther" is going to be associated with the worst of the bunch, because that's the way things get marginalized. The worst of the bunch are precisely as I described. For fuck's sake I even had an argument with several people, in October 2001, who said they had no reason to believe the Towers were gone at all. There are bonkers people within every "group," and the trouble with conspiracies is that it's a label that covers everything from the Government engineering lovebugs, to JFK, to Roswell, to my left sock going missing in the dryer :(

[CapitalistRadical]

One person insisted that the commercial airliners were landed at Andrews AFB, the people were walked off the planes, shot (execution-style), and disposed of...

I remember very long exchange I had with a Truther who insisted that the fall of the towers contradicted basic physics. It turns out that I knew more physics than he did, and was able to construct a reasonable model of collapse that exhibited the observed behavior. Do you suppose he was convinced?

[KramerDSP]

It's funny how we supposedly live in the 'land of the free' but can so easily have our opinions and beliefs squashed like a bug.

My answer to stupid questions regarding trust in the government, of which the 9/11 one is the stupidest of all time, is:

"I am not a crook."
"Read my lips."
"I did not have sex with that woman."
"Mission accomplished."

I don't buy the official government story regarding:

9/11
JFK
RFK
MLK


Nice post. I keep going back to JFK.

Here's an article from ABC News in 2003 (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/JFK_poll_031116.html). This is ABC we're talking about here.


Just 32 percent accept the Warren Commission's 1964 finding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he shot Kennedy as his motorcade passed through downtown Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. Fifty-one percent think there was a second gunman, and seven percent go so far as to think Oswald wasn't involved at all.

Sixty-eight percent of Americans also think there was "an official cover-up" to hide the truth about the assassination from the public. And about as many, 65 percent, think that "important unanswered questions" remain, four decades after Kennedy's death.

While such suspicions are well-documented — and well-stoked by conspiracy theorists — for many people they're guesses, not convictions. In a new follow-up question, fewer than half of Americans, four in 10, say they're "pretty sure" there was a plot; another three in 10 say it's just a hunch. Similarly, half of those who suspect a second shooter say this, too, is just their hunch.

So, let's see. at least 65% of the population in 2003 were JFK Truthers. 65% of the population!


Suspicion has been long-running; as far back as 1966, a Harris poll found that 46 percent of Americans thought there was a "broader plot" in the assassination. This jumped to 60 percent in 1967, after New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison filed charges alleging a conspiracy (the man he charged, Clay Shaw, was acquitted in 1969).

Less than three years after Dallas, 46% of the population were JFK Truthers.

The biggest difference between the two seems to be that the JFK Truthers weren't carrying megaphones and crashing rallies and being nearly as demonstrative as the 911 Truthers have been in the past and continue to be. At least I don't think so.

But the point I'm trying to make is that, ala F You Frank (creator of Climate Change), we need to start asking people if they are JFK Truthers. Slowly, but surely, the term 911 Truther loses the acidity usually associated with it.

This is from someone whose only major question about the official story is whether Flight 93 was shot down. I just hate the term 911 Truthers, because of the negative connotations it presents to the average Joe in fly-by country.

[paulitics]

You honestly believe that? Personally, I hadn't noticed any of us being cowed into silence about the FED. What I did notice is that the state of the economy, the massive bailouts, AND last, but not least, MSM coverage of the issue, finally caused mainstream America to find out about the FED and start looking into it.

I still wonder why the MSM started covering it. But, that's for a different thread. :)

It wasn't until Ron Paul went on national television and started talking about how the fed is a private bank that this mother of all conspiracy theories became acceptable in the public discourse. He turned a conspiracy theory into a conspiracy fact. Before that, it was akin to believing in bigfoot.

[paulitics]

Should it make any difference? I don't believe she is one, I'm not, but I wouldn't use it as a litmus test either. I know it makes you a pariah if you're running, but why should it? Why?

I think she is agnostic. She has entertained the idea that 911 was an inside job, but hasn't committed to it. Unfortunately, the Beck's of the world think that if you have questions, than you are a truther, and somehow dangerous. I certainly think she is alot closer to truther, than someone like Palin who some here like to take out of context.

The "We are change" crew, does a really good job of portraying those who are truthers as confrontational assholes, who shout inside job at the top of their lungs. This is the image that most people have when they think of truther; the image of lunacy, instead of thoughtful , reasonable people that have questions.


I myself go back and forth, but know that the comission report is bunk. What I know is that there was information, intentionally left out of the report, and that there were either mistakes that a 4 year old could figure out, or outright lies. I think it is a combination of both.

So, there was a coverup of some sorts, but a coverup of what? How far does that rabit hole go? It would take another comimision of everyday citizens with alot of time and money to get answers. How much of it was incompetence, or was there something more sinister?

I don't know, but I do know Operation Northwoods did happen, and that should be enough to make anyone have questions. We all hope the government wouldn't murder its own citizens, but the plans were made before.

Personally I would just like the commission report to fix its own errors, so I can go back to sleep thinking the government are nothing but a bunch of imbecils.

[TheEvilDetector]

Mission Objective:

1) Divert Energy / Resources / Time away from growing Medina's Political Clout into a
non-helpful tangential discussion about an irrelevant event to Texas Elections such as 911.

2) Distract/Prevent Real and Potential Supporters from voting for her.

Mission Method:

Bring out the topic of 911. Connect Medina to 911 no matter how insignificant / non-existent her connections are.

Mission Assumptions:

1) 911 is an emotionally laden area in the American Psyche with a high likelihood of sticking long enough to make an impact.
2) Majority of people associate "911 truthers" with negative feelings/thoughts, due to heavy media bias and general population exposure to this bias over time.
(a.k.a brainwashing)

Missions Outcome:

Some initial reports of success. Long term outcome yet to be determined.

Mission Notes:

It appears that this method will continue to work for an indefinite period of time (see assumptions) against non-establishment candidates, so can be reused.
However overuse of this approach will lessen its effectiveness.

[andrewh817]

Isn't a truther someone who only believes or speaks the truth?