The Lie Movement?

Again, you miss the point. The official stories have inherent credibility built in because of the institutions that publish the stories, and the checks and balances within the institutions, overseen by a competitive 2-party adversarial system. I.e., there is reason to believe that people with vested interests inside the system would be in a position to expose lies within the official investigation.

in that case you should check out my 'Modus Operandi' thread, which lays out the MO used for entering an unpopular war. It has yet to be debunked and offers both motive and method laid down by the institution you cite.

also, the same credibility itself is crippled from within by having contradictory results in the end works. I'm pretty sure i mentioned that but it certainly is worth repeating.

Originally posted by jprophet420

also, the same credibility itself is crippled from within by having contradictory results in the end works. I'm pretty sure i mentioned that but it certainly is worth repeating.

Now you have touched on the essence of the problem with your incorrect conclusion.

The credibility itself was NEVER crippled from within due to the contradictory results and end works. This is a false conclusion. It may have been crippled in your own mind, but not in the minds of the collective public, the media, or in the minds of the politicians in a position to further the investigation. Even if YOU believe that the results are contradictory, you are in a very tiny minority.

Arguing from that minority position requires absolute rock solid proof and zero room to misrepresent facts.

reply to post by robert z

Again, you miss the point. The official stories have inherent credibility built in because of the institutions that publish the stories, and the checks and balances within the institutions, overseen by a competitive 2-party adversarial system. I.e., there is reason to believe that people with vested interests inside the system would be in a position to expose lies within the official investigation.

This guy was appointed by Bush.

Kean

Interesting

President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former President Bill Clinton, and former Vice President Al Gore all gave private testimony without oaths. President Bush and Vice President Cheney insisted on testifying together, while Clinton and Gore met with the panel separately. As the National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice was not required to testify under oath because the position of NSA is an advisory role, independent of authority over a bureaucracy and does not require confirmation by the Senate.

I'd think even the hardest diehard believers of the "official story" would find this dodgy at the very least.

I think "truthers" get a hard time because they can't and won't accept what the government/commission claims are facts.Waiting over a year to start a commission AND give it a dismal budget just adds more strength to the "truthers".
Blindly following one side or the other shows lack of caring and a want for knowledge in my opinion.
You say truthers have way out there theories yet you don't mention any of the commission's way out theories.
If the truth movement is a lie then skeptics should show how the official story is the truth.
Peace

Originally posted by citizen truth
If the truth movement is a lie then skeptics should show how the official story is the truth.
Peace

I have been asking the people who believe the official story for a long time to show any facts or evidence to prove what actually happened that day and they only state that they do not have to show facts and evidence because they know the truth.

The credibility itself was NEVER crippled from within due to the contradictory results and end works. This is a false conclusion. It may have been crippled in your own mind, but not in the minds of the collective public, the media, or in the minds of the politicians in a position to further the investigation. Even if YOU believe that the results are contradictory, you are in a very tiny minority.

your ancestors and mine both thought the world was flat at one point in time along with most of the population, so they were right.

I dont care about beliefs, what i do care about is this: there is contradictory evidence proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that some of it is corrupt.

Originally posted by robert z
U2U me your home address and I will be happy to visit you.

MODERATORS: Is calling another member a nazi and threatening physical violence allowed per TOS?

Just to clarify. I ment the neocons. Not you personally. Sorry it came out that way.

So this is what you see when you hold a mirror up to the truth movement. Not a very flattering sight, imo.

Not really. But, I still suspect that was your motivation all along. Cheers.

Originally posted by robert z
See, if you are going to claim that you are interested in the TRUTH, then you must no perpetuate falsehoods or even half-truths or it will make you look insincere and foolish, thereby discrediting the TRUTH movement.

Make sense?

Totally. And I apologize for going off on you. Peace?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by robert z
See, if you are going to claim that you are interested in the TRUTH, then you must no perpetuate falsehoods or even half-truths or it will make you look insincere and foolish, thereby discrediting the TRUTH movement.

Make sense?

Totally. And I apologize for going off on you. Peace?

Peace. No hard feelings. I apologize if I offended you in any way.

My motivation is to knock some proverbial sense into the truthers so that the neocons that you refer to do not have such easy targets to discredit. I know that you are not part of the problem, but others here are.

Thanks for your gracious response.

Originally posted by robert z

Thanks for your gracious response.

Thank you. Hope we can get past our first initial response of each other.

Originally posted by robert z
My motivation is to knock some proverbial sense into the truthers so that the neocons that you refer to do not have such easy targets to discredit.

I believe your goipng after the wrong people. Why would you want to knock sense into the people that have the most sense and are intelligent enogh to be actually doing some research and not just going by what they are told.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by robert z
My motivation is to knock some proverbial sense into the truthers so that the neocons that you refer to do not have such easy targets to discredit.

I believe your goipng after the wrong people. Why would you want to knock sense into the people that have the most sense and are intelligent enogh to be actually doing some research and not just going by what they are told.

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

Why?

Because in order influence anybody who is an official story believer, not only does the evidence have to be beyond reproach, but so do the people delivering the evidence.

In other words, nobody is going to give a damn about the lack of the NIST investigations if somebody like Rosie O. yaps her mouth about it. They will discredit her as a typical left-wing kook out to discredit Bush even if her argument is valid.

Worse, if truthers continue blabbering on about holograms and whatever other bizarre theories they think of, the mainstream NWO media will seize the opportunity to discredit EVERYBODY who tries to shine the light of day on the truth behind 9/11.

This is basic sales 101. You cannot sell something to somebody by telling them they are wrong, and then giving them even the smallest reason to doubt your credibility. Brute force is never going to win this battle.

Gentlemen, CLEARLY this is the SELECTIVE disinformation site.
Do your homework and dig or just shut up. America is losing the battle for preserving it's Sovereignity and you are fanning the flames. Some of this info/line of questioning and omissions of hard fact are so skewed and outright stupid, it makes my teeth hurt.
Are you related in anyway to Sean Hannity?

Originally posted by robert z

In other words, nobody is going to give a damn about the lack of the NIST investigations if somebody like Rosie O. yaps her mouth about it. They will discredit her as a typical left-wing kook out to discredit Bush even if her argument is valid.

But how can the people believe something like the official story when they cannot come up with any evidence to support it and there is so many questions about the official story.

You would think if people do believe in something they would want to make sure that it is true and not just it is because its what they were told on TV.