From http://www.truthmove.org/
Quote:
| Truthmove.org - 11/18/06 - Ground Zero Our local, incredibly committed 9/11 truth debunker (Mark Roberts/Gravy) faces random citizens who don't buy his intentions. Sure, not all of our facts are equally relevant, or sourced. But our intentions are genuine. Mark says he's about the facts, but people see through that and recognize what he is trying to do. |
34 comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaMxaykpi5o
watch this.
Thats an nbc news report, as you might notice. What was that again, a myth?? So, they faked Rumsfelds speech, or what#??#
No-one denies that Rumsfield said that, however, you may hear us referring to it as a myth because it is a MYTH that it had anything to do with 9/11.
well, see my reply in the other thread. He clearly said it did not happen. period.
Can you actually read??
or are you saying that yes Rumi said it, but its not true, or what`?
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be investigated, I'm saying that it has NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Ah, soooo, let me ask, did it get investigated?
Does this fit your worldview, the fact that 2.3 trillion got lost and nobody bothers about investigatin it?
To me it indicates that it was not a big deal.
If this really was such a major world financial crisis it would be all over the front of the anti-Bush papers.
No big deal?
Yea sure, 2.3 trillion, 8000$ per PERSON. No big deal.
Cause its not all over the 'anti-bush' papers. Sure, thats a clear sign that its no big deal. Cause they do the thinking for us, and decide whats a big deal and what is not. 2.3 trillion is nothing. I mean, what else could be done with that money? I dont know. No big deal.
Know what? You seem to be quite an astonishing idiot.
Right back at'cha buddy.
What is your intention over here? Are you trying to prove that 9/11 was a conspiracy by using the $2.3 trillion issue?
What are YOUR opinions on what happened on 9/11?
no, im not trying to prove anything about 911 with this. What im trying to show is that you were wrong by saying its a myth. And by that, maybe give you a hint that your worldview might not be complete yet. Thats all. My opinion on 911? Well, to be honest, im not really interested in conspiracy theories, be it the official or an alternative one. All i know is that theres been a big coverup , still ongoing.
You KNOW there's been a big cover up? Okay, since you know and we don't, please do tell what has been covered up. Specific details on what exactly was covered up, because you just KNOW. I'll be waiting for your evidence.
well, how about this:
why don't you "debunk" 911 Press for Truth? And i dont' mean with 2 sentences , but, point for point , as your hero Mark did for Loose change. Ey?? Anyone of you 'smart' "debunkers" wanna give it a try?
No wonder you guys love to talk about squibs and other weak points in Loose change , when we got this.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250
I've never suggested that I'm smart enough to debunk movies. Luckily enough people like Mark Roberts, Markyx, Popular Mechanics, Every structural engineer in the world and Ronald Wieck do that for me.
Ok so, why don't you ask them to debunk 911 Press for Truth?
None of those "debunker heroes" you list have gone anywhere near the topics presented in that movie.
Now you prove me wrong.
Sure thing:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2237683#post2237683
ok, lets see what theyre coming up with.
and btw, why do you say that i 'defend CT's heavily' ??
See, as i said, i don't support any conspiracy theorie, unlike you , who defends the official one. I DO defend people who ask the right questions. Maybe someday youll understand this.
I do understand it, ya big goof. I'm not telling people to shut up, I'm telling people thats the search for truth involves finding answers, and not just answers that fit into what they want to believe.
well, i agree with that.
now if only those "debunkers" would not only say so but also ACT according to this rule, i would be silent here.
ok, i quickly browsed thru that 10 page thread over at the JREF forum, about press for truth.
Somebody correct me if im wrong (and point me to the point), but it looks like this is 10 pages of mostly personal attacks, namecalling, 'holocaust-denier' comparisons, and the like. Now , you show me , where does the fact that theres ties between ISI and the hijackers get "debunked" in those 10 pages?
That is confirmed by the FBI, btw, so dont bring the 'myth' argument.
so, thats all the "debunkers" have to say about this?? pretty weak, dont you think? or is there *anything i missed??
Hey FX9, what questions/issues do you think that debunkers still need to address in 911 Press For Truth?
basically everything.
i'd like to see a step-by-step one. theres soooo many points in there. have you seen the film?
heres a few examples:
- can the "conflicts of interests", as it gets mildly called, be "debunked" (zelikow, etc..)
- as i said, the money trail to pakistan / ISI . Confirmed by the FBI. Why was this not investigated?
How can it be that the chief of the ISI, who, according to the fbi has transfered money to the hijackers, was meeting officials in the US during the days of sept. 11? Why do we never hear of Pakistan as an 'evil' place , given all this? Why was he not arrested or anything at all afterwards?
- Randy Glass. The FBI whistleblower (!!)
- What do the debunkers have to say about how Bush / Cheney etc. worked "together" with the commission? Does this look all good??
- who on earth, and, more importantly, WHY, could anyone be against a new proper investigation, where every commissioner has access to all documents, and not just the chief, who was / is very close to the white house (zelikow). How and why could anyone be against that, given the thousands of points that seem totally off with the comission we had (i only mentioned very few, but theres zillions)?? Even you debunkers should welcome that, since it would "silence" the sceptics, wouldnt it??
Thats a start.
We in the debunking trade know that there are errors in the 9.11 commission, but evvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvery political document will be sugar coated in order to make Bush and stuff seem better. Everyone knows this.
Also, regarding that holes in the commission thing, there are a lot of holes in evolution, does this make it false?
I think that you should register at the James Randi forum and express your views. Everyone there will be more helpful than me. If you're really on a quest for info, you'll register there.
So that pakistan connection i mentioned, you call this 'sugar coating' to not follow on that , and to say 'the financing of the attacks is of little practical significance' (thats from the commission report). Do you agree with that statement? Do you think the monetrail behind 911 is not important???
Im not going to reg. at that debunker forum. Feel free to pass my questions above on, and i'd be happy to read what they write. But i really dont have the time to fight with debunkers about this. I just want to read what they have to say about this. The information is out there, they dont need me to know this. Its official. Why do they ignore this?
also, let me add, i have seen how *lots* of people have asked Ronnie and Mark (the two fulltime "debunkers") about these questions. Not once have they responded , except with some sidestepping into personal attack or some random 'sugar coating' nonsense. Can't you see trough those people?? Maybe if you ask them theyll respond, who knows.
If you're really on a quest for info, you'll register there.
why dont you answer my questions?
I'm answering your question as such: I don't know the answers, If you're really on a quest for info, you'll register at JREF.
Not wanting to debate is not an excuse.
as said, i dont want to debate, im just looking for the "debunkers" views on this. and, as also already said, your chief "debunkers" have bee n asked many times about this. and i know where they try to steer the debate to. which is why i wont register over there. im reg'd on other forums where they are around too, so no need. im asking you guys to "debunk" it, im not asking to debate those points with you. theres nothing to debate about the points themselfes, they are FACTS.
btw, your website makes a great example for the credibility of so called "debunkers". LOL. enough now. bye
Well I haven't looked into what you're talking about. And you can't talk about credibility, asshole, you're the one who's been saying 'fuck this, fuck that, fuck you'.
Someone might have an answer to what you're asking, but it is not me. You don't really care if your information is right or wrong, you just wanted to feel the glory of being able to say "LOL I DEBUNKED A DEBUNKER". Well, you didn't. I don't know every single detail of events before, during and after 9/11... and neither do you. Nor does anyone.
First you attacked me for being 18 and you claimed that I was claiming I knew everything, then you attack me for not knowing everything.
You've got a lot of growing up to do, especially with the way you treat people. It doesn't matter if you're 10, 28, 47 or 63, you might bring up valid points, but no-one will address them if you're acting like a complete dick about it and not willing to share it with a wider audience (JREF).
Sleep well, JA.
yea yea, keep on being played by the "debunkers". maybe someday youll realise what they are all about. maybe itll be the day you start to look at questions like those i posted above. how come youre not interested in them, because you actually pretend to run a f** "debunking" site..??
i never claimed to know everything, but i know the basics, and those things belong to the basics. as i said, confirmed by the FBI. why don't you double-check that , to know for sure, ey?
I actually worked on the film 9-11: Press for Truth, and I think it's simultaneously hilarious and frustrating to read what people write about it/us.
I like that it is considered the standard for non-crazy, 9-11 filmography.
I get annoyed when people think we're just angry, Bush bashing, "truthers." We tried very hard to source our material through out the film, and we framed the entire work as a media criticism for the most part.
Yes, the 9-11 Truth movement has proposed some very strange hypothesis to explain certain facets of what happened before, during, and after the attacks. But those who refuse to question the official story in the least seem to not even notice when the official story changes.
For instance, was Zacarias Moussaoui the "20th Hijacker" as it has been reported? If so, why was he in Flight training to be a pilot? All four planes had pilots. If he was to be a pilot, was there to be a fifth plane? Media reports at first indicated that there were potentially several more hijack teams, but then those reports disappeared. In fact, in the first few days after 9-11, the amount of hijackers who died in the attacks dropped from over twenty, to nineteen. Also, hijacker names changed after the first names released turned out to be people who were still alive. If it was so cut and dry, why couldn't we just look at the flight manifests to see who was onboard? Why aren't the hijackers names even listed on the flight manifests that are available to the public?
There is so much back and forth with the "official story," that I don't know how anyone even keeps track of it.
Anyway, thanks for watching our film. Keep your eyes peeled for our new one, which is in development now.
Post a Comment