Can a 4 star General Talk Like a Truther? Try to Debunk Brigadier General Wesley Clark! Ummmm WOW!

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Sorry, I'm aware that your position requires you to have it both ways, but on this one you can't.

Being agnostic on a position is not "having it both ways," it's "having" it neither way because I haven't formed a position.

You must try to keep up with this, or not participate. I didn't mean you were having it both ways in the sense of wanting Clark to have said both things. Rather I mean that you can't say that Clark may or may not mean something, and then say that it is untrue that he may mean it.

It's illogical to jump to any conclusion or argue as if you already know what he thinks.

That is what I'm telling you. Of course it doesn't matter, because like I said, wherever information is lacking, that's just a breeding ground for your kind of ignorance, and the only reason your kind of "debunker" even posts on the 9/11 forum anymore. You thrive on missing information, so you can just make stuff up and pretend not to know better. Look at how much time and effort you are putting into this thread, trying to push an argument that has no evidence for it (that Clark doesn't really agree with any of us). It's sad.

I know you must be dying but you can't force me to take a position on what Clark believes about the WTC. You'll just have to keep crying about it I guess.

I'm not worried about it in the slightest. I know you don't know, you keep repeating it.

I however have some inkling, and so do the people at WAC even though their standpoint is otherwise broadly analogous to your own. In the absence of other evidence you need to have well developed blinkers to try to recruit Clark as an ambassador for 9/11 Truth.

Since I'm trying to do no such thing, this is just more pathetic reaching on your part.

And it would also follow that the contrary could be true as well. If either could be true, why do you feel so ignorant that you have to just pick one and pretend that you're right until the very end? My answer is because you never knew what real logic was in the first place.

I'd call it having a nuanced approach to evidence and being unbiased. Because the two possibilities do not hold the same likelihood.

You wouldn't know anything about being unbiased. Don't even pretend. If I tried to use this kind of "reasoning" somewhere ('I don't have proof but I'm still right because I have a "nuanced approach" and I'm unbiased' ) you wouldn't hear of it. That's bias. And I could use that argument plenty, like on the subject of all the explosions at the WTC. But I don't tell you that I really know they were all explosives/bombs because I'm unbiased and have a "nuanced approach" to the fact that there were so many, in so many locations, damaged structure, injured people, never investigated, immediately swept under the rug by the media, etc. I could, but you already know that argument wouldn't fly for you, because you'd suddenly get dense and play dumb to all the evidence and demand all forms of hard proof. So why do you expect me to let you get away with the same thing? You don't have proof. End of story. Cry about it. You already are, so what would be new?

I have no position on whether or not Clark believes the WTC were demolished. What Clark believes about the WTC is not the topic of this thread either, or why he "talks like a truther."

The subject of this thread is whether he "talks like a truther".

Based on the fact that he wants re-investigation, not based on the fact that he believes the WTC demolished, which is an unanswered question. Read the OP again if you are having that much trouble here. I don't see what difference it really makes to you since there are already a number of high-ranking military veterans who are calling for re-investigation for all number of reasons. Maybe the real problem is that you've brainwashed yourself into thinking all "truthers" are automatically retards, when in reality you're just projecting your own mentality onto others. God forbid there be any competent professionals who disagree with your world view.

But in essence the question is one of definition. You are seeking to imply that anyone who would like to see another investigation is a "Truther". This is not the case. A Truther is someone who, like you, believes in a series of conspiracy theories regarding demolitions and missiles and so on.

So now you're an authority on the definition of the word "truther"? Nope, sorry. You're not even a "truther" yourself. You'd be the last person to get to make up the definition of the word. I think it's stupid that you have to come up with a stereotyping label to throw at all of us anyway. But if that's what it takes for you to be able to handle all the people who disagree with you, so be it.

Show me a "debunker" that goes around speaking in public about how we need another investigation.

I'm beginning to see the essence of your problems with this.

Are you sure you haven't just been breathing in your own "essence" from your computer chair?

You don't seem to realise that the world is not split into "Truthers" and "Debunkers". This dichotomy exists only on the tiny part of the internet where you base yourself. There are plenty of people who do not entertain Truth Movement theories of bombs and missiles and planted engine parts who would really like a new investigation into the intel failures and the subsequent abuse of 9/11's legacy to go to war. They - as Clark appears to be in the supplementary video - are likely appalled to be associated with Truthers' ideas.

I agree that "truthers" and "debunkers" are stupid, stereotypical words, but since you still think it's logical somehow to use the word "truther" anyway, I'll keep using the word "debunker." You must really not think it's so stupid after all to have to keep perpetuating the fallacy. I use the word "debunker" to try to make you think of this in the first place but it always fails, and I don't really expect that to change now.

Again, you don't get to make the definition of the word "truther." According to me, a "truther" is anyone who wants the truth, ie a real investigation, and not a bunch of speculation and missing information. Who are you to disagree? No one. You can keep your own definitions of the word. The reality is, the fact that you "debunkers" had to make up the word in the first place, let alone use it perpetually as if it's some degrading insult, already reflects stupidity right off the bat. Of course by me saying this though, since I must always be wrong, I must have just actually proven to you that stereotypes are perfectly logical and in your response you'll defend using stereotypes now because you're so brilliant.

It's sad how important others' opinions are to you in all of this. What others think seems to be the only reason you believe what you do. When the majority opinion changes, you're really going to be having an "intellectual" crisis.

"When"? When will that be?

Hold on, give me a few. I'm polishing my crystal ball so that I can get a clear vision into the future.

It doesn't look like coming any time soon, mainly because your evidence is so flimsy that you're reduced to trying to pretend that people like Gen Clark agree with you.

If your mentality had any legitimacy, the "truth movement" wouldn't have massively grown in the last 10 years. And don't even try to deny this growth, because polls, organization memberships, media presence and other indications have all been that since 2001, the number of "conspiracy theorists" concerned about 9/11 has only grown. You still have your denial though, and that's enough to ignore all of this. You can ignore it, and downplay it, and act like nothing will ever result from it, but it won't be going away either.

Thank you. And yet you act like you have a factual position when you say he doesn't believe the WTC were demolished. You can't just say, "I don't know," or "he never says." You have to kick and scream about how he can't believe the WTC were demolished until you're specifically contradicted. Ie you're right until proven wrong, and this is your "proof," another textbook logical fallacy called argument from ignorance.

It's not conclusive. But it's all but. Only someone who really wanted to believe that Clark might agree with them would continue to ignore the evidence of that film. Even the Truthers who made it disagree with you!

Yeah, boo hoo, whatever. Your claims that he doesn't agree with us are baseless. All but conclusive my ass. Your rhetoric is no substitute for proof. Textual substitute for fertilizer maybe but that's all.

There is circumstantial evidence from WAC that suggests he probably doesn't.

That's your personal interpretation of second-hand speculation.

Well, actually it's also the interpretation of the people who made the video.

No kidding, I just told you as much myself. You're on the ball today.

So you believe the people who made the video are an authority, and you should take everything they believe seriously? Really?

Originally posted by bsbray11

I however have some inkling, and so do the people at WAC even though their standpoint is otherwise broadly analogous to your own. In the absence of other evidence you need to have well developed blinkers to try to recruit Clark as an ambassador for 9/11 Truth.

Since I'm trying to do no such thing, this is just more pathetic reaching on your part.

You are in a thread about Clark talking like a Truther, attempting to defend the notion that he talks like a Truther. If that isn't attempting to deploy him as an ambassador for your cause I don't know what is.

Unless of course you are genuinely agnostic about his opinion. In which case it seems odd that you're doing this at all. Perhaps you should start a thread about Ringo Starr being a Truther. Or Davis Love III. There is similarly no evidence that they agree with you either.

And since there is some evidence that Clark actually doesn't agree with you they would seem to be even better ambassadors.

You wouldn't know anything about being unbiased. Don't even pretend. If I tried to use this kind of "reasoning" somewhere ('I don't have proof but I'm still right because I have a "nuanced approach" and I'm unbiased'

) you wouldn't hear of it.

You are ignoring evidence from filmmakers who share your view that suggests Clark is far from sympathetic to 9/11 Truth. That's biased.

That's bias. And I could use that argument plenty, like on the subject of all the explosions at the WTC. But I don't tell you that I really know they were all explosives/bombs because I'm unbiased and have a "nuanced approach" to the fact that there were so many

So you have no proof of explosives. This is irrelevant, but telling.

in so many locations, damaged structure, injured people,

There were damaged structure and injured people at the WTC?

So now you're an authority on the definition of the word "truther"? Nope, sorry. You're not even a "truther" yourself. You'd be the last person to get to make up the definition of the word. I think it's stupid that you have to come up with a stereotyping label to throw at all of us anyway. But if that's what it takes for you to be able to handle all the people who disagree with you, so be it.

Obviously it's uncomfortable for you to be labelled. But things need names. Truther is the generally accepted term for someone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and I use it specifically to differentiate between people like you and people like Clark.

And at the heart of this is the fact that you're seeking to eradicate that difference between you and individuals like the General, who in actual fact want something very different to you and who, in his particular case, doesn't by any reasonable reading of the evidence seem to share your paranoid fantasy narrative.

I agree that "truthers" and "debunkers" are stupid, stereotypical words, but since you still think it's logical somehow to use the word "truther" anyway, I'll keep using the word "debunker." You must really not think it's so stupid after all to have to keep perpetuating the fallacy. I use the word "debunker" to try to make you think of this in the first place but it always fails, and I don't really expect that to change now.

You must try to slow down a bit and actually digest what I say. You miss the reasoning often, and it's not because I lack clarity. What I'm getting at above is not that there are no such things as Truthers and Debunkers - there manifestly are - but that there is a huge number of people who do not fall into either category.

And lots of those are disgusted by the failures and subsequent intelligence mishandling after 9/11. They want that redressed. But they are not "Truthers" by any generally accepted sense of the word. And to recruit them to your cause, with your exploding buildings and missiles at the Pentagon, is a disingenuous tactic.

Again, you don't get to make the definition of the word "truther." According to me, a "truther" is anyone who wants the truth, ie a real investigation, and not a bunch of speculation and missing information. Who are you to disagree? No one.

So for you, a "real investigation" could ignore the potential use of explosives at the WTC? Because as I say I'm aware of lots of people who would like to reexamine aspects of 9/11 but aren't interested remotely in bombs or thermite. Are they also Truthers? Even if they find your notions extraordinary and pointless?

You can keep your own definitions of the word. The reality is, the fact that you "debunkers" had to make up the word in the first place, let alone use it perpetually as if it's some degrading insult, already reflects stupidity right off the bat. Of course by me saying this though, since I must always be wrong, I must have just actually proven to you that stereotypes are perfectly logical and in your response you'll defend using stereotypes now because you're so brilliant.

I'm not convinced you understand linguistics all that well. It's acceptable - although odd - that you dislike the word Truther. But what would you suggest replaced it? Without a doubt some term is needed to describe people who ascribe to inside job and conspiracy theories with regard to 9/11. Truther is just the most common currency.

I suspect that the reason you don't like it is because - ironically, given your later comments - you're desperate to validate your ideas, and that requires there to be as little distance as possible between you and anyone with a vaguely dissenting view.

But look at some Socialist or Marxist forums, or even just SWC or a resistance group like that. Theirs are stances scathingly critical of authority and often demanding of more than just a simple reinvestigation. But they are notably dismissive of Truth Movement ideas.

It's they who represent the genuine alternative narrative on power and 9/11, and it's important that one can differentiate between their sober views and the fantasy nonsense retailed by Truthers.

If your mentality had any legitimacy, the "truth movement" wouldn't have massively grown in the last 10 years. And don't even try to deny this growth, because polls, organization memberships, media presence and other indications have all been that since 2001, the number of "conspiracy theorists" concerned about 9/11 has only grown. You still have your denial though, and that's enough to ignore all of this. You can ignore it, and downplay it, and act like nothing will ever result from it, but it won't be going away either.

Or achieveing anything of any note. You may have a few fiddled polls that suggest some kind of growth, but in reality what has happened? Nothing at all. You are at the same point you were three years ago. WINNING in your own minds on a small corner of the internet.

No kidding, I just told you as much myself. You're on the ball today.

You have a thwarted and juvenile tone. I'm not surprised because you probably are thwarted and juvenile. But your case would come across stronger if you were less childish in delivery.

So you believe the people who made the video are an authority, and you should take everything they believe seriously? Really?

edit on 7-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

No. But the fact that they reached the conclusion they did is evidence of what Clark believes. You choose not to see it because it suits your agenda, but it's there nonetheless.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You are in a thread about Clark talking like a Truther, attempting to defend the notion that he talks like a Truther. If that isn't attempting to deploy him as an ambassador for your cause I don't know what is.

He is a truther, because he wants another investigation.

You're trying to warp "truther" into being exclusively about the Twin Towers, which is wrong. The Pentagon was related to 9/11 but I've hardly ever mentioned the Pentagon, so someone else could come along and say I'm not a truther either. Your definitions are completely arbitrary and you are no authority.

This whole discussion is asinine and it's no surprise that you're digging in your heels like you actually have a chance to prove something by shifting definitions around, that you never had authority to make up in the first place. All you are really doing is trolling.

You wouldn't know anything about being unbiased. Don't even pretend. If I tried to use this kind of "reasoning" somewhere ('I don't have proof but I'm still right because I have a "nuanced approach" and I'm unbiased'

) you wouldn't hear of it.

You are ignoring evidence from filmmakers who share your view that suggests Clark is far from sympathetic to 9/11 Truth. That's biased.

Speculation is only evidence to someone like you. Enough said.

That's bias. And I could use that argument plenty, like on the subject of all the explosions at the WTC. But I don't tell you that I really know they were all explosives/bombs because I'm unbiased and have a "nuanced approach" to the fact that there were so many

So you have no proof of explosives. This is irrelevant, but telling.

No hard proof in that I can't give you physical remains like you would end up demanding. Plenty of evidence in witness testimonies and other information though.

in so many locations, damaged structure, injured people,

There were damaged structure and injured people at the WTC?

Yes, and why am I not surprised that you wouldn't know this. You are biased and you ignore any information that shatters your fragile little worldview.

Watch the Naudet footage and you'll see examples of both in that single source. The lobby was damaged and people were lying outside burned. There were also explosions in the basement that damaged structure. Ten years and you still don't know this. You are ridiculous. I'm not even going to give you a source because that's how pathetic it is that you spend so much time here and still don't know this information. Use Google and your brain at the same time for once.


The rest of your post is garbage and I'm not even going to waste more time feeding you. Go find a thread that has to do with actual science, instead of the opinionated troll rhetoric you thrive on. I've repeated myself enough already, and you've made it clear you never listen anyway.

Read or watch what Leslie Williams says about all this. They TPTB are not doing this to help Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood is hardly a friend to Israel.

Its all about an old oil deal and an ancient deal to invade Israel, not support them.

Originally posted by bsbray11


He is a truther, because he wants another investigation.

Wrong. Wanting another investigation doesn't make you a truther.

You're trying to warp "truther" into being exclusively about the Twin Towers, which is wrong.

No I'm not. When I mentioned a missile I specifically meant the Pentagon.

And I notice that you apparently get to decide what a Truther is. What privileges your definition of the word?

Your definitions are completely arbitrary and you are no authority.

My definitions are generally and routinely accepted.

This whole discussion is asinine and it's no surprise that you're digging in your heels like you actually have a chance to prove something by shifting definitions around, that you never had authority to make up in the first place. All you are really doing is trolling.

No. All you're doing is trolling. By attempting to eradicate the differences between you and Clark, by pretending that the notion of a "Truther" is as fluid as you want it to be.

I notice you ignored the question about an investigation without remit for your "explosions".

Speculation is only evidence to someone like you. Enough said.

It's informed speculation.

You can honestly watch that video and come to the conclusion that it is equally likely that Clark believes in a CD at the WTC (for example) as that he does not? When even the people who made it didn't?

No hard proof in that I can't give you physical remains like you would end up demanding.

So just speculation, really.

in so many locations, damaged structure, injured people,

There were damaged structure and injured people at the WTC?

Yes, and why am I not surprised that you wouldn't know this. You are biased and you ignore any information that shatters your fragile little worldview.

Oh dear. I've long thought you were a bit slow for all this. Did you not realise I was joking? There were quite evidently damage and injured people at the WTC. The things fell down for a start.

I never seen this before. then again I was busy with other things at the time.

I met the man myself and not only one occasion. I knew him form 101st he was the commander 2nd BDE. There is allot he did not say about the ME , though I hope some day he does. He is not a truther in any respect either. he's not reading a script in this interview or memorizing one either, he is giving the viewers a very small glimpse, more than what I would give anyone mostly into the middle east. Hearing Gen Wesley talk in this interview reminds me of the command staff meetings at the 101 st. I had to do command staff meeting to move up in the ranks after war college. What Gen. Wesley getting at here is requesting an investigation into the intel side of 911 i.e. why the FBI CIA dropped the ball with the intel on the group. He thinks this has not be squared away from the 1st investigation, and needs to be redone. In a nut shell he stating they did this investigation sloppy and to fast to please the higher up's for other reasons. ( he is only concerned with the intel reporting on 911, before the 911 event and what intel came after the 911 event.

As for the Middle East, It's not over by a long shot. Not that I want this go on and on, but it not going to be over anytime soon.

I'm retired, the new commanders can figure it out.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Wanting another investigation doesn't make you a truther.

I'm going to make this easy on myself and stick to one garbage point at a time. It's a waste of life spending 20 minutes responding to a barrage of nonsense as if you actually deserve a legitimate response.

Post a source for this claim please. Then we'll move on to the next point.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Wanting another investigation doesn't make you a truther.

I'm going to make this easy on myself and stick to one garbage point at a time. It's a waste of life spending 20 minutes responding to a barrage of nonsense as if you actually deserve a legitimate response.

Post a source for this claim please. Then we'll move on to the next point.

edit on 9-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

Why would I post a source? This isn't a GCSE history paper. It's just axiomatically true. There are lots of people who would like to see a reinvestigation of intel failures running up to 9/11 and lots more who would favour an investigation based on its misuse subsequently, and who do not entertain any notion of an "inside job".

If you like I can fiddle about and find someone espousing such a view on the web. A brief search of socialist blogs would yield someone pretty quickly. But really I can't be bothered. If you honestly think that there is nobody in the entire world who thinks as I describe above then you're in need of help.

I also appreciate that you're finding it difficult to reply. Sometimes it can be tough to respond negatively to things that are self-evidently true.