PDA

View Full Version : Birthers : tea party = Truthers : liberty movement




Matt Collins
04-27-2011, 11:34 AM
Analogy time:

The Birthers are to the tea party what the Truthers are to the liberty movement.


Both may contain some validity, but there are bigger, more tangible, more important issues to focus on (other than Obama's birth and 9/11) that can allow a shorter, quicker, more decisive path to achieving the goals of both groups.

Badger Paul
04-27-2011, 11:36 AM
Agreed. A waste of time.

Fredom101
04-27-2011, 11:38 AM
Exactly. Freedom is the issue. The birther thing is ridiculous. I disagree with making 9/11 truth a forefront issue but at least it has implications on our freedom. Obama could be from Mars and it doesn't matter, because statism is still the same.

doodle
04-27-2011, 12:50 PM
WMD Truther = Proven Right.

If more people had been WMD Truthers back in 02-03, we may have saved many lives and about $3 Trillion and avoided Obama.

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 01:11 PM
WMD Truther = Proven Right.

If more people had been WMD Truthers back in 02-03, we may have saved many lives and about $3 Trillion and avoided Obama.

^This

Petar
04-27-2011, 01:16 PM
I'm not sure what you mean Matt, everyone knows that you are the most important form of truth in America...

Anti Federalist
04-27-2011, 01:19 PM
I'm not sure what you mean Matt, everyone knows that you are the most important form of truth in America...

Burn.

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 01:19 PM
Analogy time:

The Birthers are to the tea party what the Truthers are to the liberty movement.


Both may contain some validity, but there are bigger, more tangible, more important issues to focus on (other than Obama's birth and 9/11) that can allow a shorter, quicker, more decisive path to achieving the goals of both groups.

Sorry Matt, but that's a stupid analogy. We would still have Obamacare regardless of how the birther thing came out except it would be called Romneycare. We would not have the Patriot Act, these three wars, the TSA groping our children and radiating the rest of us, the NSA warrantless wiretaps g or GITMO if it were not for 9/11. And no matter how you try to spin it or slice it, the official story on 9/11 is tripe. I know that. Ron Paul knows that. He just can't come out and say it in so many words. Even if the government didn't specifically blow up the towers (and I'm not saying they didn't), the government had actionable intelligence that could have prevented 9/11 without violating the constitution. They chose not to act on it. They purposefully chose not to act. The "incompetence" theory is BS and it only gives those who want to make government even bigger an excuse. "Oh the government is incompetent? We need to add a new competence layer. We'll call that new later the Department of Homeland inSecurity. On top of that we'll add a director of national intelligence. And if that's not enough we'll get the states involved. The gullible tea partiers running around in states like Tennessee freaking out over mosques and fearmongering over 'Sharia Law' will help the police state grow at the state level and there's not a freaking thing the so called 'liberty movement' can do because they are too afraid to truly address the root of the fear which is the governments false story about 9/11."

Seriously, it's posts like this that make me wonder if I'm wasting my time and money with the liberty movement. In Alabama we there is a weed called Kudzu. The only way to kill Kudzu is to kill the root. You can cut back all of the leaves all day, but at the end of the day it will grow back. Matt, everything that you and I and others do is nothing but attacking the leaves of the tyranny monster. It will grow back unless you attack the root. The federal reserve itself is really just a leaf, or at worse it is a vine. It is not the root of the problem. The "principalities and powers" behind the federal reserve, the C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y is the root of the problem. That same conspiracy was behind 9/11. There is no doubt about that from anyone who has honestly looked into this. This conspiracy rules people by fear. And they want you to be afraid. They want you to fear that by exposing them you will somehow weaken your power when the exact opposite is true. You wonder why the tea parties accept Rand and not Ron? Because Rand told them what they wanted to hear with regards to Gitmo and torture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJhQdOBxpUg) and "strong national defense". Great. I'm happy Rand twisted the truth and won. But I don't want to have to lie forever to win election. I want to change the electorate. Nothing changes people more than realizing that the very thing that conned them into giving up their freedoms was a bold faced lie.

Anti Federalist
04-27-2011, 01:23 PM
Analogy time:

The Birthers are to the tea party what the Truthers are to the liberty movement.


Both may contain some validity, but there are bigger, more tangible, more important issues to focus on (other than Obama's birth and 9/11) that can allow a shorter, quicker, more decisive path to achieving the goals of both groups.

Analogy Fail.

Proof of birthers claims would result in the removal of a corporatist puppet, to be replaced immediately with another corporatist puppet.

Proof of 9/11 malfeasance calls into question the entire avalanche of police state measures and wars that have turned our nation upside down, wreaked havoc around the world, resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and effectively destroyed any semblance of liberty and living in free society at home.

Why are you stirring the pot needlessly anyway? Yeah, we get it, you don't like "truthers".

You made that point years ago now.

PaulConventionWV
04-27-2011, 01:23 PM
I agree that birthers aren't really that relevant to the campaign. I really don't care what the rhetoric is there because I knew there was something fishy going on in government before Obama was there! However, I would beg to differ that there is any truth in the 9/11 "truther" movement. The scenario they wish to convey is a completely invalid. There is no way the government could have set up a conspiracy of that magnitude and have nobody find out about it before it happened. It would take years and thousands of secretly paid out employees to rig the WTC towers with explosives, not to mention all the money! The whole idea they portray is just a falsity, and though I hate their stupidity in accepting that rhetoric, I am happy to join with them in the liberty movement. Just please don't associate your crazy ideas with us. Are there conspiracies? Yes, but that is not one of them.

Anti Federalist
04-27-2011, 01:27 PM
Search is your friend.

Every claim you make has been rebutted, countless times already.


I agree that birthers aren't really that relevant to the campaign. I really don't care what the rhetoric is there because I knew there was something fishy going on in government before Obama was there! However, I would beg to differ that there is any truth in the 9/11 "truther" movement. The scenario they wish to convey is a completely invalid. There is no way the government could have set up a conspiracy of that magnitude and have nobody find out about it before it happened. It would take years and thousands of secretly paid out employees to rig the WTC towers with explosives, not to mention all the money! The whole idea they portray is just a falsity, and though I hate their stupidity in accepting that rhetoric, I am happy to join with them in the liberty movement. Just please don't associate your crazy ideas with us. Are there conspiracies? Yes, but that is not one of them.

Galileo Galilei
04-27-2011, 01:27 PM
Analogy time:

The Birthers are to the tea party what the Truthers are to the liberty movement.


Both may contain some validity, but there are bigger, more tangible, more important issues to focus on (other than Obama's birth and 9/11) that can allow a shorter, quicker, more decisive path to achieving the goals of both groups.

A big difference is that the birthers never had proof, they only raised suspicions. With 9/11, they have proof. For example the video of WTC 7 shows it coming down in a controlled demolition. The anti-truthers claim that bin Laden set the bombs but have no evidence to support that rash claim.

Also, an international team of scientists found sophisticated explosives in the WTC rubble. When the arson investigators find stuff like that, it is easy to convict people in court.

ababba
04-27-2011, 01:27 PM
There is scientific evidence that 911 was an inside job, the free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds of building 7 admitted by the government.

That said, its a balance between what you know is right and what you feel is politically acceptable. Every man has a different point at which the scale tips for them.

This is an internet forum where we have the freedom to discuss what we think is right, without direct consequences on what actually gets implemented. We don't need to worry much about the other side of the scale. If we were personally running for office, it may be relevant.

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 01:32 PM
Serious note. Every person who starts a thread attack 9/11 truth in general politics forever gives up the right to complain about truthers.

PaulConventionWV
04-27-2011, 01:41 PM
Search is your friend.

Every claim you make has been rebutted, countless times already.

Um, no. Let me guess, you're a fan of Loose Change? That was a marketing ploy. It's just not possible for the government to do that. Hell, they could barely cover up the Kennedy assassination and you're telling me they can blow up two buildings in NYC, spending tons of money over several years with thousands of employees, and nobody tweets? If you're going to argue against that, you're going to have to give me a reason for why this is even plausible.

Also, after reading on, it has come to my attention that some people are "doubting" their participation. If you are really that egotistic that you need to abandon your principles because of a few disagreeing parties, then maybe you should leave. But let me ask you this: where will you go? Do you have a better option? Sit on your ass? Let me know how that works.

PaulConventionWV
04-27-2011, 01:45 PM
A big difference is that the birthers never had proof, they only raised suspicions. With 9/11, they have proof. For example the video of WTC 7 shows it coming down in a controlled demolition. The anti-truthers claim that bin Laden set the bombs but have no evidence to support that rash claim.

Also, an international team of scientists found sophisticated explosives in the WTC rubble. When the arson investigators find stuff like that, it is easy to convict people in court.

If it was so obviously controlled, why did they allow videos of it? Do you really think they would demolish a building in plain sight several hours after being doused in smoke by the falling of the other towers? Your claim that you have proof is just dogma. You can't even bear the fact that you might be wrong. Just stop.

PaulConventionWV
04-27-2011, 01:47 PM
That's it. Everyone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job needs to read this link:

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 01:48 PM
Um, no. Let me guess, you're a fan of Loose Change? That was a marketing ploy. It's just not possible for the government to do that. Hell, they could barely cover up the Kennedy assassination and you're telling me they can blow up two buildings in NYC, spending tons of money over several years with thousands of employees, and nobody tweets? If you're going to argue against that, you're going to have to give me a reason for why this is even plausible.

Also, after reading on, it has come to my attention that some people are "doubting" their participation. If you are really that egotistic that you need to abandon your principles because of a few disagreeing parties, then maybe you should leave. But let me ask you this: where will you go? Do you have a better option? Sit on your ass? Let me know how that works.

1) The federal government covered up the existence of an entire city in Tennessee that was doing unethical radiation experiments on people.
2) The most likely scenario is not that the entire government was involved, but compartmentalized moles who had infiltrated the government. After all the government is soooo incompetent that infiltration must be easy. KGB files proved that McCarthy was right and the federal government was infiltrated during the cold war. Why do you think it couldn't happen again?

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 01:50 PM
If it was so obviously controlled, why did they allow videos of it? Do you really think they would demolish a building in plain sight several hours after being doused in smoke by the falling of the other towers? Your claim that you have proof is just dogma. You can't even bear the fact that you might be wrong. Just stop.

Because they knew that enough people like yourself would be so gullible that it wouldn't matter. Thankfully not everyone is that gullible.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HcliJUk0VY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjwZD5jWoZk

Galileo Galilei
04-27-2011, 01:53 PM
Serious note. Every person who starts a thread attack 9/11 truth in general politics forever gives up the right to complain about truthers.

making jokes about mass murder isn't funny. There is no way to compare a lie about where you were born to mass murder. 9/11 was unconstitutional.

Anti Federalist
04-27-2011, 01:54 PM
Um, no. Let me guess, you're a fan of Loose Change? That was a marketing ploy. It's just not possible for the government to do that. Hell, they could barely cover up the Kennedy assassination and you're telling me they can blow up two buildings in NYC, spending tons of money over several years with thousands of employees, and nobody tweets? If you're going to argue against that, you're going to have to give me a reason for why this is even plausible.

Also, after reading on, it has come to my attention that some people are "doubting" their participation. If you are really that egotistic that you need to abandon your principles because of a few disagreeing parties, then maybe you should leave. But let me ask you this: where will you go? Do you have a better option? Sit on your ass? Let me know how that works.

Umm, they have spoken up. That's where a great deal of the credible evidence comes from, is from people on the inside who have spoken up.

So the establishment can murder a president and get away with it, start wars that kill millions, inject or expose thousands of people to biological warfare agents, build the worlds first nuclear weapons and keep the reasons behind all of these secret, but could not pull off an intelligence coup the scope of 9/11, then I would politely suggest that you are the one who is delusional.

But as I stated, search is an amazing function. These points have already been discussed here ad nasueum.

Some people take the body of evidence and make an informed decision that the way government claimed the events of that day occurred is impossible. That's the stated of opinion of many "kooks", including Judge Nap, not to mention myself, in the liberty movement.

Some do not, as is their right.

Needlessly stirring the pot over an issue that never fails to generate dissension seems to be Matt's specialty.

Anti Federalist
04-27-2011, 01:56 PM
That's it. Everyone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job needs to read this link:

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

A Mad magazine knock off?

Now you're being a smart ass, right?

PaulConventionWV
04-27-2011, 02:04 PM
A Mad magazine knock off?

Now you're being a smart ass, right?

Read it.

freshjiva
04-27-2011, 02:04 PM
Analogy Fail.

Proof of birthers claims would result in the removal of a corporatist puppet, to be replaced immediately with another corporatist puppet.

Proof of 9/11 malfeasance calls into question the entire avalanche of police state measures and wars that have turned our nation upside down, wreaked havoc around the world, resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and effectively destroyed any semblance of liberty and living in free society at home.

+14 trillion.

juleswin
04-27-2011, 02:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0

Heres a little exercise for the nay sayers
Compare what the govt says and what can be experimentally proven. This is not a documentary like loose change or Missing links so you dont need any long time commitment to watch it. It tries to test the govt theories and by method of elimination disproves all the govt explanations for the attack.

Watch, rate and pass it along if you like it

Anti Federalist
04-27-2011, 02:57 PM
Read it.

*sigh*

I already have, years ago when it was written.

Who was talking about Loose Change anyway?

But feel free to believe whatever you like.

At this point all the arguments have been made pro or con anyway. I'm convinced, barring any new, concrete revelations, that 9/11 was an inside job, that certain government agencies and people knew exactly what was going to happen that day and willfully engaged in a criminal conspiracy to thwart efforts to stop it and worked actively to make it happen.

So don't base your evaluation of the worth of fellow patriots based on it.

ExPatPaki
04-27-2011, 03:01 PM
1) The federal government covered up the existence of an entire city in Tennessee that was doing unethical radiation experiments on people.


Do you have a link regarding this? Couldn't really find anything via Google search.

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 03:03 PM
Read it.

Watch it:


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481

I dare you.

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 03:09 PM
Do you have a link regarding this? Couldn't really find anything via Google search.

Information on Oak Ridge Tennessee AKA "the secret city".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Ridge,_Tennessee

Information on the radiation experiments that were done at Oak Ridge.

http://www.rps.psu.edu/mar96/science.html

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 03:11 PM
Umm, they have spoken up. That's where a great deal of the credible evidence comes from, is from people on the inside who have spoken up.

So the establishment can murder a president and get away with, start wars that kill millions, inject or expose thousands of people to biological warfare agents, build the worlds first nuclear weapons and keep the reasons behind all of these secret, but could not pull off an intelligence coup the scope of 9/11, then I would politely suggest that you are the one who is delusional.

But as I stated, search is an amazing function. These points have already been discussed here ad nasueum.

Some people take the body of evidence and make an informed decision that the way government claimed the events of that occurred is impossible. That's the stated of opinion of many "kooks", including Judge Nap, not to mention myself, in the liberty movement.

Some do not, as is their right.

Needlessly stirring the pot over issue that never fails to generate dissension seem to be Matt's specialty.

Why the evidence that has come out doesn't matter.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEovJYZsiDY

AuH20
04-27-2011, 03:23 PM
Analogy Fail.

Proof of birthers claims would result in the removal of a corporatist puppet, to be replaced immediately with another corporatist puppet.

Proof of 9/11 malfeasance calls into question the entire avalanche of police state measures and wars that have turned our nation upside down, wreaked havoc around the world, resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and effectively destroyed any semblance of liberty and living in free society at home.

Why are you stirring the pot needlessly anyway? Yeah, we get it, you don't like "truthers".

You made that point years ago now.

They're both significant. I wouldn't discount the birther's crusade as being any less relevant than the 911 truth movement. Do you realize the sheer audacity involved to even attempt something like this? I can't even take out a library card without a valid driver's license. Every mainstream media outlet in the U.S. should be burnt down to the ground, if Obama is not who they say he is. I'm not even a birther, and I think there is something is being covered up. There are too many inconsistencies and headfakes going on.

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 04:09 PM
They're both significant. I wouldn't discount the birther's crusade as being any less relevant than the 911 truth movement. Do you realize the sheer audacity involved to even attempt something like this? I can't even take out a library card without a valid driver's license. Every mainstream media outlet in the U.S. should be burnt down to the ground, if Obama is not who they say he is. I'm not even a birther, and I think there is something is being covered up. There are too many inconsistencies and headfakes going on.

Wait a minute. Just yesterday you said this:


Conspiracy talk isn't taboo. Criticism of the Federal Reserve was once considered treasonous and anti-Semitic. However, in the curious case of 9/11 if you have no tangible proof (witnesses, collaborators, black boxes, etc.) that can be processed in the court of law, please shut up. Do you realize the gravity of the allegations if the government did kill it's own citizens? We would turn in have to violently dismantle the government and the so-called security apparatus in the country.

So people talking about 9/11 should "shut up" because people would have to "violently dismantle the government", but the birther movement should continue even though it somehow being proved right would be "Every mainstream media outlet in the U.S. should be burnt down to the ground"? Huh? :confused:

For the record there have been far more "headfakes and inconsistencies" with regards to 9/11 than with regards to Obama's birth certificate. Even members of the 9/11 commission called their work was "far from the truth".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/12/911thebigcoverup

This just proves something I've suspected all along. People are okay with conspiracy theories as long as they fit their particular politically correct agenda.

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 04:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0

Heres a little exercise for the nay sayers
Compare what the govt says and what can be experimentally proven. This is not a documentary like loose change or Missing links so you dont need any long time commitment to watch it. It tries to test the govt theories and by method of elimination disproves all the govt explanations for the attack.

Watch, rate and pass it along if you like it

Yes. That's a great video. Did you see the follow up that showed how thermite could be used as horizontal and vertical cutter charges?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

I have a good thread on that in my sig. Or you could click here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?272532-9-11-Experiments-The-Great-Thermate-Debate

Matt Collins
04-27-2011, 04:47 PM
Serious note. Every person who starts a thread attack 9/11 truth in general politics forever gives up the right to complain about truthers.
:p ;) :D

Matt Collins
04-27-2011, 04:52 PM
Sorry Matt, but that's a stupid analogy. We would still have Obamacare regardless of how the birther thing came out except it would be called Romneycare.

We would not have the Patriot Act, these three wars, the TSA groping our children and radiating the rest of us, the NSA warrantless wiretaps g or GITMO if it were not for 9/11. And no matter how you try to spin it or slice it, the official story on 9/11 is tripe. I know that. Ron Paul knows that. He just can't come out and say it in so many words. Even if the government didn't specifically blow up the towers (and I'm not saying they didn't), the government had actionable intelligence that could have prevented 9/11 without violating the constitution. They chose not to act on it. They purposefully chose not to act. The "incompetence" theory is BS and it only gives those who want to make government even bigger an excuse. "Oh the government is incompetent? We need to add a new competence layer. We'll call that new later the Department of Homeland inSecurity. On top of that we'll add a director of national intelligence. And if that's not enough we'll get the states involved. The gullible tea partiers running around in states like Tennessee freaking out over mosques and fearmongering over 'Sharia Law' will help the police state grow at the state level and there's not a freaking thing the so called 'liberty movement' can do because they are too afraid to truly address the root of the fear which is the governments false story about 9/11." I'm not debating the merits or even the outcome of the 9/11 and birth certificate issues. If either of them were proven true in a court of law and then acted upon, the ramifications would be wonderful.

But that is taking the long way to get where we want to go. I am saying that there are easier ways to accomplish our goals that going after 9/11 scenarios just like the tea party going after Obama's citizenship.


I want to change the electorate. Nothing changes people more than realizing that the very thing that conned them into giving up their freedoms was a bold faced lie.And there is a good point. One thing I do think AJ is useful for getting the people to NOT trust their government and to think outside of the box.

But keep in mind that "winning the election" is different than "electoral victory". Ron won the election in 2008 but did not achieve electoral victory.

One Last Battle!
04-27-2011, 04:55 PM
If 9/11 was a controlled demolition, then where are the passengers of the planes who died?

Yeah, I still haven't received a decent answer to that yet.

Petar
04-27-2011, 05:02 PM
If 9/11 was a controlled demolition, then where are the passengers of the planes who died?

Yeah, I still haven't received a decent answer to that yet.

"planes who died"?

If you want a "decent" answer, then please formulate a "decent" sentence.

Thanks.

One Last Battle!
04-27-2011, 05:10 PM
Way to dodge the question. If I said "the passengers", you would be saying something like "What passengers?"

I ask again: Where are those passengers?

Anti Federalist
04-27-2011, 05:14 PM
Wait a minute. Just yesterday you said this:


Originally Posted by AuH20
Conspiracy talk isn't taboo. Criticism of the Federal Reserve was once considered treasonous and anti-Semitic. However, in the curious case of 9/11 if you have no tangible proof (witnesses, collaborators, black boxes, etc.) that can be processed in the court of law, please shut up.

Do you realize the gravity of the allegations if the government did kill it's own citizens?

We would turn in have to violently dismantle the government and the so-called security apparatus in the country.

So people talking about 9/11 should "shut up" because people would have to "violently dismantle the government", but the birther movement should continue even though it somehow being proved right would be "Every mainstream media outlet in the U.S. should be burnt down to the ground"? Huh? :confused:

For the record there have been far more "headfakes and inconsistencies" with regards to 9/11 than with regards to Obama's birth certificate. Even members of the 9/11 commission called their work was "far from the truth".

And people wonder why we get wound up about this.

Umm, it has already been well documented and vetted and admitted to by government that it has killed it's own citizens, specifically during the chemical/biological/medical weapons testing done during the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s as part of the "Cold War".

As to "black boxes", cops and firemen have already stated that they witnessed federal agents removing "black boxes" from the WTC rubble. (Black in quotes as they are actually bright orange.)

ababba
04-27-2011, 05:19 PM
If 9/11 was a controlled demolition, then where are the passengers of the planes who died?

Yeah, I still haven't received a decent answer to that yet.

They died when the planes crashed...

Petar
04-27-2011, 05:29 PM
Way to dodge the question. If I said "the passengers", you would be saying something like "What passengers?"

I ask again: Where are those passengers?

Way to ask a stupid incoherent question...

My guess is that being a passenger on a plane that flies into a building will probably kill you, even if hypothetically that building also happens to be wired for demo...

Do you have some alternate theory concerning the fate of the passengers that you would like to share?

Peace&Freedom
04-27-2011, 05:30 PM
Analogy time:

The Birthers are to the tea party what the Truthers are to the liberty movement.


Both may contain some validity, but there are bigger, more tangible, more important issues to focus on (other than Obama's birth and 9/11) that can allow a shorter, quicker, more decisive path to achieving the goals of both groups.

The birther issue is a constitutional issue, and there are no "irrelevant" constitutional issues. We do not get to go a la carte in being pro-constitution.

There is no bigger or relevant issue than that of 9-11 truth, as the movement's persistence in emphasizing it has served to 1) stop or delay further false flags the perpetrators have wanted to execute to complete the evolution of this country into a closed martial law state, and 2) the absence of promoting the issue has given license to the warmongers to keep painting it "the towelheads did us in and hate our freedoms, so we have to keep striking back." Note how Paul's most recent interview with Hannity was dominated by his keeping the congressman on the defensive about "doing something" about the Mosque at Ground Zero, "otherwise we'll be under Sharia law!"

Paul's logical responses will continue to go nowhere in the face of the "we have to strike back" emotionalism tactics of the neo-cons. Until the real (US/CIA/Mossad/MI6 et al) perpetrators of 9-11 are brought to justice, the STATISTS will keep bringing up 9-11 in the form of 'fighting off terrorist Muslims' and thus keep the framework of the debate squarely around interventionism. If elected, how will even Paul resist the drumbeat to intervene when the military/intelligence industrial complex tries to mousetrap him into an invasion, by means of another inside job/false flag? Or, if we never face the reality of government false flags now, are we mousetrapping ourselves ahead of time into accepting the government's next cover-up?

One Last Battle!
04-27-2011, 05:33 PM
They died when the planes crashed...

But I thought it was a controlled demolition! Planes don't enter into the equation!

Anti Federalist
04-27-2011, 05:35 PM
Nice post, I owe you a rep.

BTW, I've been meaning to ask for years now...who is that in your avatar?

You and Aaron Russo perhaps?


The birther issue is a constitutional issue, and there are no "irrelevant" constitutional issue. We do not to be a la carte in being pro-constitution.

There is no bigger or relevant issue than the 9-11 truth, as the movement's persistence in emphasizing it has served to 1) stop or delay further false flags the perpetrators have wanted to execute to complete the evolution of this country into a closed martial law state, and 2) the absence of promoting the issue has given license to the warmongers to keep painting the "the towelheads did us in and hate our freedoms, so we have to keep striking back." Note how Paul's most recent interview with Hannity was dominated by his keeping the congressman on the defensive about "doing something" about the Mosque at Ground Zero, "otherwise we'll be under Sharia law!"

Paul's logical responses will continue to go nowhere in the face of the "we have to strike back" emotionalism tactics of the neo-cons. Until the real (US/CIA/Mossad/MI6 et al) perpetrators of 9-11 are brought to justice, the STATISTS will keep bringing up 9-11 in the form of 'fighting off terrorist Muslims' and keep the framework of the debate squarely around interventionism. If elected, how will even Paul resist the drumbeat to intervene when the military/inteligence industrial complex tries to mousetrap him into an invasion, by means of another inside job/false flag? Or, if we never face the reality of government false flags now, are we mousetrapping ourselves ahead of time into accepting the government's next cover-up?

Anti Federalist
04-27-2011, 05:36 PM
But I thought it was a controlled demolition! Planes don't enter into the equation!

WTC 7 was what?

Petar
04-27-2011, 05:41 PM
But I thought it was a controlled demolition! Planes don't enter into the equation!

Your tone is one of sarcasm, but notice that no one has made any such claim to the effect which you mock.

You sir are a true idiot.

One Last Battle!
04-27-2011, 05:48 PM
Your tone is one of sarcasm, but notice that no one has made any such claim to the effect which you mock.

You sir are a true idiot.

Hmm. You aren't doing very well, nor are you convincing. It is looking like Truthers are the gullible ones.

If what you are claiming so far is right, then terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into WTC. Then the government blew up WTC7 because, you know, they like to blow up buildings with explosives.

Wait, what? Why did they blow up WTC7 again? Do you think it made any difference in results whatsoever? If they didn't blow up WTC1 and WTC2, then blowing up WTC7 makes no sense. Actually, blowing up WTC7 doesn't make sense regardless. Do you hear people saying "remember WTC7" outside of truthers? Not really. If it was a government conspiracy, they WOULDN'T have gone for WTC7.

Petar
04-27-2011, 06:17 PM
Hmm. You aren't doing very well, nor are you convincing. It is looking like Truthers are the gullible ones.

If what you are claiming so far is right, then terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into WTC. Then the government blew up WTC7 because, you know, they like to blow up buildings with explosives.

Wait, what? Why did they blow up WTC7 again? Do you think it made any difference in results whatsoever? If they didn't blow up WTC1 and WTC2, then blowing up WTC7 makes no sense. Actually, blowing up WTC7 doesn't make sense regardless. Do you hear people saying "remember WTC7" outside of truthers? Not really. If it was a government conspiracy, they WOULDN'T have gone for WTC7.

The point is that you are acting as if "truthers" are arguing that hijacked planes and controlled demolitions are somehow mutually exclusive.

No one is making this idiotic claim except for yourself.

One Last Battle!
04-27-2011, 06:22 PM
The point is that you are acting as if "truthers" are arguing that hijacked planes and controlled demolitions are somehow mutually exclusive.

No one is making this idiotic claim except for yourself.

You sure aren't working hard to explain your positions. But then, you just resort to insults when your arguments fall apart, 9/11 truthist gullible sheep that you are.

I mean, it was obviously pot smoking monkeys from Mars. They used their stealth craft to bomb the buildings to ferment dissent on Earth as a move to make conquest easier.

Petar
04-27-2011, 06:26 PM
You sure aren't working hard to explain your positions. But then, you just resort to insults when your arguments fall apart, 9/11 truthist gullible sheep that you are.

I mean, it was obviously pot smoking monkeys from Mars. They used their stealth craft to bomb the buildings to ferment dissent on Earth as a move to make conquest easier.

Yes, I am suddenly making the claim that 9/11 involved pot smoking monkeys from Mars, and it is true that you are not an idiot.

Bman
04-27-2011, 06:29 PM
Your tone is one of sarcasm, but notice that no one has made any such claim to the effect which you mock.

You sir are a true idiot.

Lets take it down a notch.

Petar
04-27-2011, 06:32 PM
Lets take it down a notch.

Ok.

Let's try "general asshole" instead of "complete prick".

One Last Battle!
04-27-2011, 06:59 PM
Yes, I am suddenly making the claim that 9/11 involved pot smoking monkeys from Mars, and it is true that you are not an idiot.

No, I am saying that pot smoking monkeys from Mars are responsible, not you. You don't seem to have any idea what happened, being a gullible truther. The pot smoking monkeys obviously have been infiltrating us with operatives to spread silly ideas as to what caused 9/11 for the purpose of undermining our unity. I challenge you to prove me wrong. The evidence is ALL there.

GEE, IT SURE WOULD BE COOL IF YOU COULD RESPOND TO MY ACTUAL ARGUMENTS RATHER THAN JUST CALLING ME AN ASSHOLE

But no, you have to resort to smears because you have nothing to back you up.

Petar
04-27-2011, 07:01 PM
No, I am saying that pot smoking monkeys from Mars are responsible, not you. You don't seem to have any idea what happened, being a gullible truther. The pot smoking monkeys obviously have been infiltrating us with operatives to spread silly ideas as to what caused 9/11 for the purpose of undermining our unity. I challenge you to prove me wrong. The evidence is ALL there.

GEE, IT SURE WOULD BE COOL IF YOU COULD RESPOND TO MY ACTUAL ARGUMENTS RATHER THAN JUST CALLING ME AN ASSHOLE

But no, you have to resort to smears because you have nothing to back you up.

I'm really sorry that I don't feel like arguing about pot smoking martian monkeys with you, and you still are not an idiot.

One Last Battle!
04-27-2011, 07:16 PM
I'm really sorry that I don't feel like arguing about pot smoking martian monkeys with you, and you still are not an idiot.

Then why should regular people argue with YOU about the big bad government orchestrating 9/11?

Also, I already know I am still not an idiot thx

Petar
04-27-2011, 07:19 PM
Then why should regular people argue with YOU about the big bad government orchestrating 9/11?

Also, I already know I am still not an idiot thx

Regular people should do as I have done, and honestly research the matter on their own.

Matt Collins
04-27-2011, 07:49 PM
We can disagree all we want, but name calling is not tolerated around here.

Rocco
04-27-2011, 07:49 PM
Not to get in the middle of this, but your arguments whole premise is ridiculous (and i'm not even a 9/11 truther). Just because there was a controlled demolition doesnt mean that the planes couldnt have been flown into the building to create the distraction. Just because it was a controlled demolition doesnt mean planes cant be flown into the buildings


Then why should regular people argue with YOU about the big bad government orchestrating 9/11?

Also, I already know I am still not an idiot thx

Peace&Freedom
04-27-2011, 07:50 PM
Nice post, I owe you a rep.

BTW, I've been meaning to ask for years now...who is that in your avatar?

You and Aaron Russo perhaps?

It's definitely Russo, from a photo-op of us at the '04 LP national convention. I was the NY State Chair at the time, and was one of his sponsors for the LP nomination for president. God bless his soul, he stood for tax truth, 9-11 truth, exposing the NWO, and for the constitution. He would have been a birther.

Petar
04-27-2011, 07:57 PM
We can disagree all we want, but name calling is not tolerated around here.

Stop disagreeing with me you idiot.

Just kidding.

speciallyblend
04-27-2011, 07:59 PM
if we could take all the energy from birthers and truthers and just vote out the neo-cons and the gop leadership that would be more effective then complaining about birth certificates and blown up buildings!! something tells me the gop will elect obama:(

ababba
04-27-2011, 08:00 PM
The type of argument "well what happened to x if your story is true" although completely and clearly ridiculous in this case, is a bad argument quite generally, even when applied in seemingly more reasonable contexts.

A person can prove a building was demolished by controlled demolition without knowing who exactly carried it out. We might be able to know that it required a certain minimum number of people but not happen to be aware of their names for obvious reasons.

A person can know that somebody is dead without knowing the cause of death. We can also say that somebody is dead with a high likelihood but not know for sure because their remains have not been positively identified yet.

This doesn't have much to do with whether the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. A plane crashing into a building killing the passengers does not rule out controlled demolition.

AuH20
04-27-2011, 08:02 PM
Wait a minute. Just yesterday you said this:



So people talking about 9/11 should "shut up" because people would have to "violently dismantle the government", but the birther movement should continue even though it somehow being proved right would be "Every mainstream media outlet in the U.S. should be burnt down to the ground"? Huh? :confused:

For the record there have been far more "headfakes and inconsistencies" with regards to 9/11 than with regards to Obama's birth certificate. Even members of the 9/11 commission called their work was "far from the truth".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/12/911thebigcoverup

This just proves something I've suspected all along. People are okay with conspiracy theories as long as they fit their particular politically correct agenda.

You're misconstruing what I said. I never said investigation into 911 was a bad thing. It's an ongoing case as far as I'm concerned. What I don't like is when you have jokers definitely declaring that the government was an active participant WITHOUT any courtroom evidence. The same thing can be said with this birther/Columbia U. issue. We don't know what to believe, but there is compelling data suggesting things may not be what they seem.

ababba
04-27-2011, 08:02 PM
if we could take all the energy from birthers and truthers and just vote out the neo-cons and the gop leadership that would be more effective then complaining about birth certificates and blown up buildings!! something tells me the gop will elect obama:(

A truther might say the same thing, that if we took all the energy in the liberty movement and got behind 911 truth it would be a more effective tool for promoting liberty than elections, which we are unlikely to win anyway.

What makes your argument better than their argument?

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 08:03 PM
If 9/11 was a controlled demolition, then where are the passengers of the planes who died?

Yeah, I still haven't received a decent answer to that yet.

I gave you the answer the last time you asked this ridiculous question. Planes flying into buildings and buildings being brought down by controlled demolition are not mutually exclusive. After all WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane. And it was outside the main debris field from WTC 1 and WTC 2. Not all 9/11 truthers even subscribe to the controlled demolition theory and I'm pretty sure that most that do think the actual planes hit the buildings.

That said, you need to read Operation Northwoods (the declassified 1960s Pentagon plan for the U.S. government to use terrorism against its own people to excuse an attack on Cuba). The actual U.S. government plans to attack its own people are far more bizzare than anything 9/11 truthers have theorized.

MSM news article:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

The actual document:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

Pay close attention to page 13 of the pdf (numbered as page 10 in the document). It talks about the military using a drone (remote controlled aircraft) with preselected passengers and a fake passenger list. Is that what I think happened on 9/11? No. But at one point people in our military were seriously considering such a bizarre and evil plan.

Matt Collins
04-27-2011, 08:04 PM
if we could take all the energy from birthers and truthers and just vote out the neo-cons and the gop leadership that would be more effective then complaining about birth certificates and blown up buildings!! something tells me the gop will elect obama:(
Well that's just it, most are not interested or willing to get active in electoral politics at the county and state level which is what it takes :-(

Anti Federalist
04-27-2011, 08:05 PM
It's definitely Russo, from a photo-op of us at the '04 LP national convention. I was the NY State Chair at the time, and was one of his sponsors for the LP nomination for president. God bless his soul, he stood for tax truth, 9-11 truth, exposing the NWO, and for the constitution. He would have been a birther.

That is an awesome photo.

Russo seemed like a real class act.

Wish I could have met him before he passed away.

BlackTerrel
04-27-2011, 08:10 PM
Analogy time:

The Birthers are to the tea party what the Truthers are to the liberty movement.


Both may contain some validity, but there are bigger, more tangible, more important issues to focus on (other than Obama's birth and 9/11) that can allow a shorter, quicker, more decisive path to achieving the goals of both groups.

I disagree. If either the birther claim or the truther claim were true it would be a huge issue and should be discussed and brought out into the open.

Of course I think both are BS.

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 08:12 PM
You're misconstruing what I said. I never said investigation into 911 was a bad thing. It's an ongoing case as far as I'm concerned. What I don't like is when you have jokers definitely declaring that the government was an active participant WITHOUT any courtroom evidence. The same thing can be said with this birther/Columbia U. issue. We don't know what to believe, but there is compelling data suggesting things may not be what they seem.

Fair enough. But I think you are misconstruing the definition of "courtroom evidence". If there was a courtroom in America that wasn't deathly afraid of touching this there is a lot of evidence that would be admissible in court. And there is definitely enough evidence to support an obstruction of justice conviction as well as one for criminal negligence. But we live with a government that won't even prosecute proven acts of torture. So this evidence will not see a courtroom other than the court of public opinion.

AuH20
04-27-2011, 08:16 PM
Fair enough. But I think you are misconstruing the definition of "courtroom evidence". If there was a courtroom in America that wasn't deathly afraid of touching this there is a lot of evidence that would be admissible in court. And there is definitely enough evidence to support an obstruction of justice conviction as well as one for criminal negligence. But we live with a government that won't even prosecute proven acts of torture. So this evidence will not see a courtroom other than the court of public opinion.

I'm a fellow traveler but I'm not on-board with all the theatrics and some of the hyperbole with Loose Change. I don't buy the 911 Commission Report and believe it to be an egregious coverup. The million dollar question being why was it being covered up? Shadow CIA operation (AKA the other CIA branch which basically does as it pleases)? the Mossad? Outright negligence (Able Danger)? I'm open to these avenues of inspection.

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 08:20 PM
Hmm. You aren't doing very well, nor are you convincing. It is looking like Truthers are the gullible ones.

If what you are claiming so far is right, then terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into WTC. Then the government blew up WTC7 because, you know, they like to blow up buildings with explosives.

Wait, what? Why did they blow up WTC7 again? Do you think it made any difference in results whatsoever? If they didn't blow up WTC1 and WTC2, then blowing up WTC7 makes no sense. Actually, blowing up WTC7 doesn't make sense regardless. Do you hear people saying "remember WTC7" outside of truthers? Not really. If it was a government conspiracy, they WOULDN'T have gone for WTC7.

It seems just the opposite is true. The government needed to blow up WTC 7 just to convince people like you that it would be impossible for the government to be involved. That tactic worked well for the Nazis.

Joseph Goebbels

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

And who said WTC 1 and 2 weren't also brought down? If you know anything about the construction of the twin towers you should know that it was built to withstand multiple strikes from jumbo jets. But they were hit by planes and went down, so it must be that the engineers were just "wrong" right? And WTC 7 fell, so it couldn't have had state involvement because if just WTC 1 and 2 fell by themselves you would believe that it was with state involvement? Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself?

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 08:39 PM
I'm not debating the merits or even the outcome of the 9/11 and birth certificate issues. If either of them were proven true in a court of law and then acted upon, the ramifications would be wonderful.

But that is taking the long way to get where we want to go. I am saying that there are easier ways to accomplish our goals that going after 9/s11 scenarios just like the tea party going after Obama's citizenship.


Matt, you totally missed my point about kudzu. I'll repeat it. The "quick easy" accomplishments you're talking about is like cutting kudzu. But if you don't get to the root of kudzu it grows stronger in about a month. We don't have much kudzu here in Nashville. But there's some out by 100 Oaks mall. If you have some time I'll show you what it looks like so you can understand the analogy. Oh, and the blossoms make great jelly.

Obama's birth certificate is also a leaf and not a root. People aren't being groped at the airport because of where Obama was born. They aren't being groped because Obama is president. People were being groped back when Bush was president, but the far right talk radio jocks didn't talk about that. The reason people are being groped is because people believe the government has to keep groping us to keep us safe. That's it. That's the "root". If we won the TSA fight that would just be cutting off a leaf. The same tyranny would come back in a different form using the same "We must protect you from another 9/11" excuse. Take down Obama with the citizenship issue and Joe Biden steps in to take his place. Take down 9/11 as an issue and you've killed the kudzu crown because nobody who understands what really happened will be capable of being fooled by false flag terrorism again regardless of WHO is president.



And there is a good point. One thing I do think AJ is useful for getting the people to NOT trust their government and to think outside of the box.

But keep in mind that "winning the election" is different than "electoral victory". Ron won the election in 2008 but did not achieve electoral victory.

And realistically he won't win an electoral victory this time either. (Stone me for being honest). And why is that? Why could Rand win if he was ready to run for president and not Ron? Because Rand won by changing the message. Ron can win but we have to change the people hearing the message. Now I'm all for pushing as hard as possible for Ron to win. I hope to be pleasantly surprised. And if Rand runs for president in 2016 using the same tactics he used in the KY senate campaign, I'll hold my nose and vote for him. But I hope that at least by 2016 enough people will have changed so that they no longer fear the "Al Qaeda" bogeyman. Getting people to let go of fear is the key. At this point in my life I fear nothing and no one. So there's no way to convince me to give up "liberty" for "security". The "birther" issue doesn't help free people from fear. In some ways it feeds into fear because people are wondering "Is he really a Muslim"? If people still want to pursue the birther issue even after the latest developments, more power to them. But it's miles away from exposing 9/11.

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 08:44 PM
I'm a fellow traveler but I'm not on-board with all the theatrics and some of the hyperbole with Loose Change. I don't buy the 911 Commission Report and believe it to be an egregious coverup. The million dollar question being why was it being covered up? Shadow CIA operation (AKA the other CIA branch which basically does as it pleases)? the Mossad? Outright negligence (Able Danger)? I'm open to these avenues of inspection.

Ah. I see. I hated the first Loose Change film, and I still somewhat dislike it. My thought at the time was "There are a lot of better 9/11 films out there which don't go into questionable territory. Why is this one being hyped so much?" In subsequent released questionable material was taken out, more eyewitness testimony was put in, and the production quality went up.

Still, if you want to see a 9/11 film without any speculation, check out 9/11 Press for Truth. It was produced in coordination with 9/11 victim's family members. Everything in it was taken straight from MSM documentation.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 08:48 PM
I disagree. If either the birther claim or the truther claim were true it would be a huge issue and should be discussed and brought out into the open.

Of course I think both are BS.

I'll make a deal with you. Watch the following film, and if after watching it you still think it's all "BS" I'll increase what I was thinking about giving for the debate day money bomb by $25.00. But you have to be specific as to why you think it's BS and you just can't say "I think the government was too incompetent" or "read Popular Mechanics" or some other artful dodge. Your criticism has to be specific to the film itself. Deal?


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 08:49 PM
Well that's just it, most are not interested or willing to get active in elector.al politics at the county and state level which is what it takes :-(

Yeah. We just fund the local meetup groups and come out to support folks like you. How totally selfish of us. :rolleyes:

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 09:08 PM
if we could take all the energy from birthers and truthers and just vote out the neo-cons and the gop leadership that would be more effective then complaining about birth certificates and blown up buildings!! something tells me the gop will elect obama:(

Most of the birther energy comes from neocons who are just tickled pink that we invaded Iraq. Oh yeah, and these are many of the same people who's votes we need to take the GOP leadership. That's why Rand Paul said "I don't know" to the question whether or not Obama was born in America. (Yes, Rand placated the birthers just like he placated the war hawks. That's what it takes to win. Which is why it's laughable that people think the birther issue has somehow "hurt" us).

As for the truthers what the hell do you want? Seriously? Many truthers suffer silently at in general and in the Ron Paul movement as a whole. If truthers stand up and are counted it's all "You people are just selfish and are trying to destroy Ron Paul's campaign! Don't mix messages!" If truthers follow that advice it's all "If the truthers would just devote more energy to getting Ron Paul elected we'd have won by now". Say what? Ron Paul repeatedly told Alex Jones in 2007/2008 that many of the people that came up to Dr. Paul at events were Alex Jones listeners. Lot's of truthers donated money, went door to door, worked phone banks. And at the end of the day the thanks is nonsense like "If you would just do more than blah blah blah." I remember in 2007 our local meetup leader was complaining to me about truthers. I then told her "I don't believe the official story on 9/11 either". She had no clue about that. That's the way it should be. I didn't talk about 9/11 on any Ron Paul forum until I got sick and tired of attacks by fellow Ron Paul supporters like the ones I've seen in this thread. Really, it's like I don't put "black" in my name like "BlackTerrel" or "TheBlackPeterSchiff" and I see others attacking them for doing that but then attacking black people for not supporting Ron Paul. If blacks or truthers make our presence known we get attacked for pushing some "agenda". If we don't we get attacked for not being present.

Oh, a couple of other things about that Meetup organizer. She's a great lady, but she hasn't hung in there. Maybe she doesn't have the same sense of urgency that those of us who believe true evil has been carried out from within out government have? And what about her reason for believing the official story? It wasn't because she thought the government facts were so compelling. It was because it was too scary for her to even think about. Well I don't frighten that easily.

BlackTerrel
04-27-2011, 09:11 PM
I'll make a deal with you. Watch the following film, and if after watching it you still think it's all "BS" I'll increase what I was thinking about giving for the debate day money bomb by $25.00. But you have to be specific as to why you think it's BS and you just can't say "I think the government was too incompetent" or "read Popular Mechanics" or some other artful dodge. Your criticism has to be specific to the film itself. Deal?


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481

Can you give me specific points rather than an hour and a half worth of video?

kahless
04-27-2011, 09:18 PM
The movement fears the bogus race card will continued to be played with this issue with the end result being it will destroy any chance of a Republican victory. The Democrats and MSM are making the birther = racism = Republican issue central to the 2012 campaign.

This is why you will never hear Ron talk about the birther issue and rightfully so. Let other people do it outside the campaign.

jmdrake
04-27-2011, 09:22 PM
Can you give me specific points rather than an hour and a half worth of video?

No. I think $25.00 should be enough incentive for you to watch something that frankly you should be willing to watch for free. I will say this. It's a video that covers mainstream media articles that conclusively show the government at least had to have or knowledge of the attacks and purposefully chose not to act.

Matt Collins
04-27-2011, 10:11 PM
Yeah. We just fund the local meetup groups and come out to support folks like you. How totally selfish of us. :rolleyes:
I'm obviously not referring to you in that statement. Most |= all

PaulConventionWV
04-27-2011, 10:37 PM
*sigh*

I already have, years ago when it was written.

Who was talking about Loose Change anyway?

But feel free to believe whatever you like.

At this point all the arguments have been made pro or con anyway. I'm convinced, barring any new, concrete revelations, that 9/11 was an inside job, that certain government agencies and people knew exactly what was going to happen that day and willfully engaged in a criminal conspiracy to thwart efforts to stop it and worked actively to make it happen.

So don't base your evaluation of the worth of fellow patriots based on it.

If you're saying they knew about it and let it happen, that's one thing. But if you're saying that there weren't any planes and that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, that's something completely different. They probably did let it happen, but they couldn't have deliberately blown up the towers with explosives. That would be so impractical.

Petar
04-27-2011, 10:48 PM
Well that's just it, most are not interested or willing to get active in electoral politics at the county and state level which is what it takes :-(

Most people are not interested in getting involved in local politics, so what makes you think that those of us who happen to believe that 911 was an inside-job are any worse?

You may believe that our cause is somehow disruptive to a political path such as the one that you are taking, and on one hand I do agree with you.

However, if we are correct, and if an evil cabal within the United State/world government was responsible for 911, then I hope that you are capable of understanding that our causes are also intimately connected, and must necessarily come together at some point.

Anti Federalist
04-27-2011, 10:55 PM
If you're saying they knew about it and let it happen, that's one thing. But if you're saying that there weren't any planes and that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, that's something completely different. They probably did let it happen, but they couldn't have deliberately blown up the towers with explosives. That would be so impractical.

Well then arguing about the ways and means really, to me, doesn't matter too much.

If they "let it happen" or "facilitated the event" or "made it happen" or "blew the buildings", it all amounts to the same thing AFAIK.

Murder by government and a completely illegitimate warfare/police state.

PaulConventionWV
04-27-2011, 11:16 PM
A truther might say the same thing, that if we took all the energy in the liberty movement and got behind 911 truth it would be a more effective tool for promoting liberty than elections, which we are unlikely to win anyway.

What makes your argument better than their argument?

Uh, it's because they're wrong. Nobody listens to 9/11 truthers. Did you hear that question at the debate in 2007? They were trying to discredit Ron by associating him with truthers and getting him to either agree or tell them to shut up. It would NEVER be an effective strategy to argue about brithers/911. We all know it doesn't matter if the president was born in this country or another country or if he was "technically" born here because they're going to get their big government shill either way. Just focus on getting Ron elected, and that's the best you can do. 9/11 will only drive people away. Do you really think it's going to be easier to bring whoever it was to justice than to get Ron elected? Puh-lease!!! We don't even have any clues as to who's responsible. We can say Bush let it happen, but what good does that do? Bush is gone. It's time to move into the future.

PaulConventionWV
04-27-2011, 11:19 PM
It seems just the opposite is true. The government needed to blow up WTC 7 just to convince people like you that it would be impossible for the government to be involved. That tactic worked well for the Nazis.

Joseph Goebbels

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

And who said WTC 1 and 2 weren't also brought down? If you know anything about the construction of the twin towers you should know that it was built to withstand multiple strikes from jumbo jets. But they were hit by planes and went down, so it must be that the engineers were just "wrong" right? And WTC 7 fell, so it couldn't have had state involvement because if just WTC 1 and 2 fell by themselves you would believe that it was with state involvement? Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself?

Nazis are irrelevant to this discussion. That is one of the most over-used quotes in history. We can go back and forth all day on whether or not WTC 7 needed to be done, but your assumption that it was because of the reason you suggested just shows your bias.

ababba
04-27-2011, 11:31 PM
Uh, it's because they're wrong. Nobody listens to 9/11 truthers. Did you hear that question at the debate in 2007? They were trying to discredit Ron by associating him with truthers and getting him to either agree or tell them to shut up. It would NEVER be an effective strategy to argue about brithers/911. We all know it doesn't matter if the president was born in this country or another country or if he was "technically" born here because they're going to get their big government shill either way. Just focus on getting Ron elected, and that's the best you can do. 9/11 will only drive people away. Do you really think it's going to be easier to bring whoever it was to justice than to get Ron elected? Puh-lease!!! We don't even have any clues as to who's responsible. We can say Bush let it happen, but what good does that do? Bush is gone. It's time to move into the future.

Well I would say this: It is more likely that a majority of the country will recognize that 911 was an inside job than that Ron Paul will be elected President.

Part of the reason nobody listens to truthers is because mainstream people are afraid to touch it. If more people start to discuss it seriously, others will be willing to express their own doubts.

A majority of the country doesn't believe the lone gunman theory for JFK, so there is precedent that these things get recognized as time passes.

And why draw the line at 911 theories? Ron Paul is more electable if he stops talking about the gold standard or hard money. Ron Paul is more electable if he moderates his views on foreign policy. Ron Paul is more electable if he doesn't say he wants to privatize social security and medicate. Ron Paul is more electable if he doesn't want to end the FED.

The difference between 911 and these things is most likely that you personally believe all of these things but you don't personally believe 911 truth. Its an excuse in my mind rather than a legitimate argument.

PaulConventionWV
04-27-2011, 11:32 PM
Well then arguing about the ways and means really, to me, doesn't matter too much.

If they "let it happen" or "facilitated the event" or "made it happen" or "blew the buildings", it all amounts to the same thing AFAIK.

Murder by government and a completely illegitimate warfare/police state.

You may have a point, but I'm sick of people arguing about thermate and structural nonsense that contributes nothing to the campaign. Anybody with common sense knows that it's impossible to cover up something like that. Were people just sneaking in and out of the towers by night for years? Did they build it into the towers a long time ago? Now there's a claim.

But really, even if you are correct and there's no difference between each claim, the people of the government probably feel better about themselves for letting someone else do it. However, my actual point is that this arguing is getting us nowhere. The truther movement is so small and so easy to disagree with, and the supposed perpetrators are so hidden that it will never get anywhere. Everyone here is salivating over some court case that's just never going to happen. Do you really think the government would let it happen?

PaulConventionWV
04-27-2011, 11:50 PM
Well I would say this: It is more likely that a majority of the country will recognize that 911 was an inside job than that Ron Paul will be elected President.

Part of the reason nobody listens to truthers is because mainstream people are afraid to touch it. If more people start to discuss it seriously, others will be willing to express their own doubts.

A majority of the country doesn't believe the lone gunman theory for JFK, so there is precedent that these things get recognized as time passes.

And why draw the line at 911 theories? Ron Paul is more electable if he stops talking about the gold standard or hard money. Ron Paul is more electable if he moderates his views on foreign policy. Ron Paul is more electable if he doesn't say he wants to privatize social security and medicate. Ron Paul is more electable if he doesn't want to end the FED.

The difference between 911 and these things is most likely that you personally believe all of these things but you don't personally believe 911 truth. Its an excuse in my mind rather than a legitimate argument.

You would have a point if we were running a constitutional republic. However, as a campaign, we have to face reality. The first reality is that the same government business continues whether or not 9/11 was an inside job and whether or not Obama was "technically" born here. It makes absolutely no difference, and we're not compromising our principles by casting doubt on those arguments. The problem with your assertion is that we would be abandoning some principle by not shouting it from the rooftops that Obama isn't a US citizen and that 9/11 was an inside job. Our constititional ideals are still firmly intact whether or not we embrace that rhetoric. We end the fed because it's unconstitutional, and guess what else... it hasn't happened yet. 9/11 is in the past and we have nothing to achieve by making that a central tenant of the campaign. In fact, I would like to see your argument for how that would not DESTROY the campaign, especially if Ron were to embrace that rhetoric. Denying 9/11 does not compromise our principles, and even if we are obligated to do it, it's not going to endanger freedom if we focus on the more relevant problems.

IBleedNavyAndOrange
04-28-2011, 07:41 AM
IMO, truthers are losing the debate by answering loaded questions intended to skew the argument.

"Who do you thing brought down WTC7?"

Typical response: speculation speculation speculation because reasoning reasoning reasoning.

That is the wrong response. It wont convince anyone.

Instead try something like: I don't want to speculate on who did what, I'm simply saying that it is impossible for a building to fall to the ground at the same rate as a bowling ball when the building fell through the path of greatest resistance (through every individual floor) which is why I believe there was a cover up.

Of course this is simplistic but that's the point. Turds like Hannity are going to paint people to make his audience see what he wants them to look like.

There are other points to be made like, how do a couple of passports survive a fireball that instantly incinerates humans? Passports jump out of pockets, planes and buildings?

But my biggest question of all is why can't I be skeptical of an event that gives rise to a 3 front foreign war? This event has been used to justify everything from random thugs sticking their hands in the pants of 6 year olds to spying on what books I get from the library.

Its been admitted the Gulf of Tonkin was a hoax.

The same government that perpetrated Waco and injected foreigners with syphilis.

They have the most highly sophisticated radar system ever developed but can't see a jumbo jet coming for the largest and most heavily defended military building in the country. And then they won't release any videos to backup their claims that said jumbo jet hit the building?

Cut us some slack for being able to shake the 9/11 coincidence theory worm and hook.

When we are out there convincing others that this freedom thing is the way it was and the way it should be we're not making our case by questioning the governments 9/11 coincidence theory or by wondering aloud how an American citizen could travel to Pakistan as barry claimed in his book.

We're on your side. We want to be left alone. We want to succeed or fail based on our own merit. We want our savings to maintain its purchasing power. We want the federal government to stick to the letter of the constitution. We know the intent of shall not be infringed and congress shall pass no law. We know abortion and gay marriage and 9/11 truth are poison issues that are best left alone when trying to bring others in the movement. We know that the official government storytelling is nonsense.

[/rant]

And sorry for going 100 different directions.

Matt Collins
05-02-2011, 03:12 PM
Looks like Obama has negated this issue for now.

jmdrake
05-02-2011, 03:41 PM
Nazis are irrelevant to this discussion. That is one of the most over-used quotes in history. We can go back and forth all day on whether or not WTC 7 needed to be done, but your assumption that it was because of the reason you suggested just shows your bias.

:rolleyes: Because I think 1 + 1 does not equal 3 I'm biased? And for the record, propaganda is relevant to the discussion. It matters not whether the propagandist in question was a Nazi, or a socialist.

jmdrake
05-02-2011, 03:44 PM
IMO, truthers are losing the debate by answering loaded questions intended to skew the argument.

"Who do you thing brought down WTC7?"


Says you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFPobKeSzKQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HcliJUk0VY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP8IuDZCWug