More History of 9-11 Denial
Veronica Chapman contributes an article going through the early days of the 9-11 Denial movement. Her essential point seems to be that David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones have added nothing to the mix other than disinformation (because they aren't no-planers).
posted by Pat @ 12:34 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
As I wander through the labyrinth of this frustrating, occasionally amusing, and always utterly insane controversy, I am continually amazed that the fantasists convince themselves that wildly implausible things, things that have almost no chance of being true, have been demonstrated somehow.
Nobody in the controlled demolition industry takes the conspiracist moonshine seriously, but we are supposed to believe that everyone is on the same page regarding the use of explosives--of an "unconventional" (yeah, try "nonexistent") type--to bring down the buildings.
The loons have not yet figured out--and they never will figure it out-- that there are precisely zero disinfo agents at large. There are just crackpots disagreeing with other crackpots, all of them vying to see who can come up with the silliest denial of reality.
So, any group of five people can be infiltrated easily? So which poster on this forum is really a "truther" who has infiltrated their way into the.... ummm... whatever this is called "reality" movement to spread disinformation about what the official version is?
Maybe it's me!
I hope it is. I need an accomplishment on my NCOER
o successfully infiltrated 9-11 blog devoted to debunking 9-11 conspiracy theories
You know there seems to be an awful lot of resentment for these "johnny-come-lately" types among the Twoofies.....
It seems like, for a movement who's members claim only to desire truth and justice, that there's an awful lot of eye rolling at anyone who gets attention even if they are "shedding light on the cause" and "aiding in bringing the perpetrators closer to justice"
Cause, to an observer itt sure seems like Ms. Chapman is far more concerned that nobody's paying to attention to her and her theory than she is about the mass murder she claims she wants to solve.
In the same mode as General Custer at the battle of Little Bighorn, I don’t take prisoners
Ronnie, darlin', I don't know what to say. Technically, you are correct that General Custer took no prisoners at the Battle of Little Bighorn.
Th Custer line makes no sense. Does that mean she and her cronies will be destroyed?
I also love the "use common sense" part. Those who do that don't believe these Truther nuts.
"Well everyone knows Custer died at Little Big Horn. But what this book presupposes is.....maybe he didn't?"
Post a Comment
<< Home