• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

9/11 Truther Article

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Angel of Ioren said:
Making fun of truthers though - now that is funny.
Click to expand...

I don't see how making fun of people who are genuinely trying to get at the truth of any subject is all that funny. Certainly, the subject of 911 doesn't have an amusing element in it. It is a tragic and horrible day in history that many people still struggle mightily to cope with. Like all controversial subjects it has attracted questionable personalities and generated a great deal of nonsense in all respects. However, it doesn't make it funny nor does somehow make ridiculous the people who grapple with trying to understand the events of that day.

Are things really that slow that you have to try bait people like this? If you have a valid argument about some aspect of "911 Truth" then make it otherwise it looks like you are just trying to pick a fight just to pick a fight.

Here you go Angelo. Fill in the blank. I should accept the "official story" of 911 due the fact that _____________.
 
I should accept the "official story" of 911 due the fact that the truther movement is a far fetched conspiracy theory. It has been debunked many times.

There is no reason not to accept the official story.

Also, the Onion is funny.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
I should accept the "official story" of 911 due the fact that the truther movement is a far fetched conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

So there are two "stories" and a person must choose to believe, the "official story" and a "truther movement ...far fetched conspiracy theory"? What is this "truther movement ...far fetched conspiracy theory" that you reference?

Do you accept the Warren Commission report?
 
trainedobserver said:
So there are two "stories" and a person must choose to believe, the "official story" and a "truther movement ...far fetched conspiracy theory"? What is this "truther movement ...far fetched conspiracy theory" that you reference?

Do you accept the Warren Commission report?
Click to expand...

When I'm talking about the "Truthers" I'm talking about those people that think that the whole attack was orchestrated by the American government, that explosives were used to bring down the towers, that a missle hit the Pentagon, that there was no one on the airplanes - all those theories have been debunked, yet people still think that's what actually happened.

This has nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination.
 
I am now convinced Angel is a troll. He knows the term "truther" pushes peoples buttons yet he continues to use the term any chance he can. People seeking the truth about the events on 9/11 should be treated with far more respect. Moderators should treat members here with respect instead of poking fun at them for differing opinions.

I suggest Angel be removed from his moderator status for this reason.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
This has nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination.
Click to expand...

We are talking about the reasoning behind your apparent belief that one must either accept the 911 Commission's Report as trustworthy or alternately some nebulous "truther movement ...far fetched conspiracy theory." So it does have to do with official governmental commissions assigned to investigate controversial subjects. It is particularly pertinent if your argument is that a person should accept the official story as the truth and not look any further into the events of 911 based on the government's 911 Commission Report.

Do you accept the Warren Commission report? Possible answers are yes, no, or I haven't formed an opinion. If yes, you are ignoring the mountain of evidence and subsequent governmental assassination reports that point to a conspiracy rather than a lone gunman proving these things are fallible. If no, then you are perhaps familiar with the questionable practices of the Warren Commission in preparing their report. I would challenge you to examine the 911 Commission in the same light. If you have had no prior interest in the Kennedy assassination or the investigation of it I guess I can understand that too since you are Canadian and it may not concern you.

Angel of Ioren said:
When I'm talking about the "Truthers" I'm talking about those people that think that the whole attack was orchestrated by the American government, that explosives were used to bring down the towers, that a missle hit the Pentagon, that there was no one on the airplanes - all those theories have been debunked, yet people still think that's what actually happened.
Click to expand...

You've lumped a bunch of things together that don't necessarily get lumped together in the minds of everyone who doesn't believe the official story. I think I understand why you've done this but for the sake of clarity and an intelligent argument I don't think you can reasonably do such a thing.

Personally I just have questions. I don't pretend to have any answers. I can't help it and don't really care for that matter, if the questions that naturally arise make people uncomfortable or if they consider it ridiculous to question the "official story"; the questions remain insufficiently answered in my mind and the minds of many other people.
 
trainedobserver said:
You've lumped a bunch of things together that don't necessarily get lumped together in the minds of everyone who doesn't believe the official story. I think I understand why you've done this but for the sake of clarity and an intelligent argument I don't think you can reasonably do such a thing.
Click to expand...

That's the thing though - those are the people the Onion article is making fun of - those people are ridiculous. You can have questions about that day, just like one can have questions about the Kennedy assassination - I have no problem with that at all.
I do have a problem with people that think that there were explosives used and that the American government killed thousands of their own people. Did that same government use that tragedy as a reason to go to war with Iraq? Well that I can say makes a lot of sense and is very possible. Did they create the tragedy? I'd say that there is no evidence to point in that direction.

I hope that makes my position clearer.

As to pixel's obnoxious comment, I'm starting to regret that we let him back into this forum. I think Paul had the right idea.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
... and that the American government killed thousands of their own people.
Click to expand...

So you don't think that has ever happened, if not on some other scale?

Angel of Ioren said:
Did they create the tragedy?
Click to expand...

By they I assume you mean the American government by which I take it that you mean the "Bush administration." I don't know that I have seen anything that would make me think they were capable of such a thing.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
That's the thing though - those are the people the Onion article is making fun of - those people are ridiculous. You can have questions about that day, just like one can have questions about the Kennedy assassination - I have no problem with that at all.
I do have a problem with people that think that there were explosives used and that the American government killed thousands of their own people. Did that same government use that tragedy as a reason to go to war with Iraq? Well that I can say makes a lot of sense and is very possible. Did they create the tragedy? I'd say that there is no evidence to point in that direction.

I hope that makes my position clearer.

As to pixel's obnoxious comment, I'm starting to regret that we let him back into this forum. I think Paul had the right idea.
Click to expand...

Your position is very clear. You have a problem with people who do not agree with you. You then refer to them in a negative and obnoxious context via name calling. Name calling is not allowed here. As a Moderator you should be well aware of this. If nothing is done about it then I can only assume is it condoned by Gene and we as members will have to put up with it.

I hereby give you a "member issued" RED TAG. This is sort of like a citizen's arrest.


As to pixel's obnoxious comment, I'm starting to regret that we let him back into this forum. I think Paul had the right idea.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

I have not baited people or called anyone names. I have been following the rules.
 
pixelsmith said:
Your position is very clear. You have a problem with people who do not agree with you. You then refer to them in a negative and obnoxious context via name calling. Name calling is not allowed here. As a Moderator you should be well aware of this. If nothing is done about it then I can only assume is it condoned by Gene and we as members will have to put up with it.

I hereby give you a "member issued" RED TAG. This is sort of like a citizen's arrest.





I have not baited people or called anyone names. I have been following the rules.
Click to expand...


Honestly pixelsmith, if you want me to be removed as moderator, please let Gene know. If it's warranted, Gene will do the right thing. However, the "T" word that you are so offended by is used by that movement. I don't see how it can be considered name calling. It would be like me being offended by you calling me a skeptic. That's what I am.

I have no issue with people that don't agree with me, or else I would not be in this forum. I like to be challenged, which seems to be an issue with you. The theories regarding 9/11 that I object to are the ridiculous ones that have been debunked. If you still chose to believe them, I have no problem with that. Just don't expect me to agree with you.

---------- Post added at 02:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 PM ----------
trainedobserver said:
By they I assume you mean the American government by which I take it that you mean the "Bush administration." I don't know that I have seen anything that would make me think they were capable of such a thing.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you there, and that's the position that I am totally against and what I am referring to when I talk about "the truther movement."

I hope that makes things clear.
 
Angel if you are tired of hearing from people interested in the truth then you should stand by our side and call for a completely transparent, truly independent 9/11 investigation, and demand justice.

If your mind is closed and you know for a fact what happened that is great for you. But you especially as a moderator should not poke fun at those who do not accept the official story. Please stop trying to push people buttons and act like a moderator. Thank you.
 
pixelsmith said:
Angel if you are tired of hearing from people interested in the truth then you should stand by our side and call for a completely transparent, truly independent 9/11 investigation, and demand justice.

If your mind is closed and you know for a fact what happened that is great for you. But you especially as a moderator should not poke fun at those who do not accept the official story. Please stop trying to push people buttons and act like a moderator. Thank you.
Click to expand...

No problem. I still maintain that the article was funny, and the theories discussed in it are worthy of being made fun of by the Onion. You did read the article, right?
 
Angel of Ioren said:
No problem. I still maintain that the article was funny, and the theories discussed in it are worthy of being made fun of by the Onion. You did read the article, right?
Click to expand...

I was brought up differently I guess. I do not find humor in people seeking the truth about the murder of over 3000 people and the subsequent deaths of the innocent people resulting from a "mission accomplished" campaign.
 
pixelsmith said:
I was brought up differently I guess. I do not find humor in people seeking the truth about the murder of over 3000 people and the subsequent deaths of the innocent people resulting from a "mission accomplished" campaign.
Click to expand...

Alright, that's fine. Keep on looking for the truth. When you find it please let me know.

I'll close this thread now.
 
pixelsmith said:
I am now convinced Angel is a troll. He knows the term "truther" pushes peoples buttons yet he continues to use the term any chance he can. People seeking the truth about the events on 9/11 should be treated with far more respect. Moderators should treat members here with respect instead of poking fun at them for differing opinions.

I suggest Angel be removed from his moderator status for this reason.
Click to expand...

Pixel, I think you are wrong. It has been shown that this is a term used by many of the 9/11 Truth Movement folks. In fact their website (Original 9/11 Truther Cyberzine Site and 911 Truther Cyberzine) is a testament to that. Just because you do not personally like the term does not mean Angelo is a troll. If you have beef with the term take it up with the folks that created it. In the internet world the term "troll" is reserved for assholes that flood threads with non-relevant things. It is a dirty word reserved for dirty actions. It is in NO WAY applicable here. I have no problem if you want to remind Angelo that you don't like the term and suggest he and others use an alternative. BUT, in the end it is a valid term used by people that are sincerely dedicated to bringing attention to the anomolous aspects of that days horror. I don't see Angelo's usage of the term as being anything other than descriptive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top