9/11 Cult Watch

[orz]

One set of efforts [...] One does not.

Rubbish false either/or thinking.

[Jeff]

isachar, let me break it to you gently: the "orthodoxy", the "gatekeeper ilk" and the "keepers of the 911 holy grail" are you and yours.

I'm just the holder of a much reviled dissenting opinion.

[isachar]

One set of efforts [...] One does not.

Rubbish false either/or thinking.

yet another brilliant one-liner empty riposte by my favorite bowl of wet soggy limp pasta.

[orz]

of wet soggy limp pasta.

What a cutting remark, if only it were in any way a) insulting or b) anything remotely to do with my username or ideas.

[isachar]

isachar, let me break it to you gently: the "orthodoxy", the "gatekeeper ilk" and the "keepers of the 911 holy grail" are you and yours.

I'm just the holder of a much reviled dissenting opinion.

Lessee, Amy, that's why you take every opportunity to attack those who pursue the NIST-related element of the crime and its coverup?

Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you don't have a dissenting opinion. What you have is a position that says this part is legit and that part isn't. And those who don't agree are foolish, misguided, or naive.

No one I am aware of is saying the Old Testament part of the doctrine you wish to restrict any investigation to doesn't warrant all due attention, investigation and research. I only hear you and others of your orthodox 'Old Testament only' gatekeeping ilk attacking those who make cogent investigations and objections to the New Testament.

And, many of these are the same individuals subject to your attacks are among those who have directed much the same level of efforts towards exposing the Old Testament.

So, go forth, investigate. Blog. Write your congressperson (oops, you lucky guy, you don't have one). But lay off your attacks on efforts directed to exposing those elements of the crime that fall under the New Testament.

Hypocrite. Coward. Gatekeeper.

[orz]

Kettle.

[AlanStrangis]

One set of efforts are sanctioned and meet with the approval of Jeff and rest of the the keepers of the 911 holy grail. One does not. What bollox. Fuck 'em. Let all the crimes be exposed and let no one attack those who make diligent, cogent and science-based investigations be subjected to attacks by those who wish to establish an official dissenting orthodoxy that says investigating financial crimes, war games, cia involvement with hijackers, etc. is 'legitimate', while exposing other elements of the attack is not.

Fuck the orthodoxy as represented and sanctimoniously enforced by Jeff and the rest of his gatekeeper ilk.

Yeah, and one set is trotted out on the mainstream news and mixed in with theories about holographic planes, and space based weapons. This set is well-known by most people, but just because it's more popular doesn't mean it's of better quality.

When I first read Jeff's angle on the 'New Coke' angle, I didn't read it as an attack so much as a lament that SO MUCH of the energy has been directed into one particular channel, to the detriment of other potentially more fruitful trails. And I couldn't agree more.

And that energy sink continues to this day, if the two very active 9/11 threads here are any example.

[isachar]

isachar, seriously, for fuck's sake:

I don't give a shit about NIST, because it's for collapse hobbyists. The crime is the attack and its cover-up, not the mechanics of how the buildings fell.

A slim chance for justice is found in pursuing the former. Decades of satisfying wanking in the latter.

Wowee zowee, seems Isachar has found the right button. However Jeff, I'm afraid that your response is wholly unsatisfying, and continues to drive Isachar's point.

Why wouldn't you "give a shit" about a phony inquiry that serves to debunk the 9/11 "movement" that you have now become so eager to distance yourself from?

"The crime is the attack and it's cover-up, not the mechanics of how it came down." This is a glaring contradiction. Here is the conditional that you have seemingly misunderstood: If the "mechanics" of the crime indicate that the buildings were demolished, then that evidence is indicative of the official narrative being utterly false, which would thus necessitate a cover-up. There is plenty of such evidence, as Hugh has posted ad nauseum, as well as plenty of testimony from NYC first-responders that indicate this is the case.

Also Jeff, how can there be "justice" if there is no fact of the matter? Instead of labelling people "hobbyists", "cultists", and "dogmatists", shouldn't you be embracing all the possible evidence, in order to integrate the "movement" into something stronger and more cohesive? YOU are the one that is driving this wedge down the middle, by sidestepping arguments, and ignoring evidence and questions posted by members of your forum.

Dead on observation King, thanks for adding your voice. Thanks also to Hammer of Los for your earlier remarks.

I would only add that if the investigation into those mechanics is a transparent fraud/hoax, then those who question its conclusions and pose other hypotheses are validated in their efforts.

I think this discussion has gone quite far in establishing Jeff's blind eye and/or level of hypocrisy in this regard.

Don't let the bastards get you down.

[Jeff]

Lessee, Amy

Amy? I'm sure whatever that means, it was meant as an insult, so I'll pretend to be insulted.

No one I am aware of is saying the Old Testament part of the doctrine you wish to restrict any investigation to doesn't warrant all due attention, investigation and research. I only hear you and others of your orthodox gatekeeping ilk attacking those who make cogent investigations and objections to the New Testament.

That's the first time I've seen dispensationalism applied to the Truth Movement. Good work, there, distinguishing it from a cult.

[orz]

I think this discussion has gone quite far in establishing Jeff's blind eye and/or level of hypocrisy in this regard.

I think this discussion has gone quite far in establishing the article quoted in the OP to be a fair and realistic picture of the 9/11 Truth Cult. (or 9/11 Truth Fandom as I would personally describe it)

[isachar]

Lessee, Amy

Amy? I'm sure whatever that means, it was meant as an insult, so I'll pretend to be insulted.

No one I am aware of is saying the Old Testament part of the doctrine you wish to restrict any investigation to doesn't warrant all due attention, investigation and research. I only hear you and others of your orthodox gatekeeping ilk attacking those who make cogent investigations and objections to the New Testament.

That's the first time I've seen dispensationalism applied to the Truth Movement. Good work, there, distinguishing it from a cult.

As in Amy Goodman. See above.

Nice way to deflect the fact that you are the one who has drawn and is defending an indefensisble line.

Jeff allows that only those elements of the crime generally related to the purview of the 911 Whitewash Commission are legit avenues to explore. He attacks those who think it is just as legit to explore those elements as well as those related to the NIST 'investigation'.

And now he gets to indulge himself in another bogus/diversionary labeling of those who wish to pursue all elements of the crime as deploying 'dispensationalism'. You're good Amy, err, I mean Jeff.

Very good.

But like much of Amy's feel-good left orthodoxy pablum, it doesn't last much beyond the length of the broadcast.

[orz]

As in Amy Goodman. See above.

Haha you moron.

[brainpanhandler]

isachar, let me break it to you gently: the "orthodoxy", the "gatekeeper ilk" and the "keepers of the 911 holy grail" are you and yours.

I'm just the holder of a much reviled dissenting opinion.

vicious

[isachar]

As in Amy Goodman. See above.

Haha you moron.

This coming from from someone who can't distinguish between a gate-keeper and someone who wishes to tear down the gates.

Orzo, king of the non-sequiter one-liners. An aspiring Yalie cheerleader and raspberry spitter.

[orz]

This coming from from someone who can't distinguish between a gate-keeper and someone who wishes to tear down the gates.

Wow you really haven't a clue have you?

None of my one-liners are non-sequiters, just that certain people here don't understand them due to limited thinking.