ou guys with this 911 crap are soooooooooo borrrrring. thought i'd start my own that has as much credibility and you all can be here with me on the ground floor. here's how it goes;



Obama was behind this all and did it in order to stop the use of fossil fuels.

First they attacked the WTC in order to get Bush to blow up the ME oil supplies and put him into power after Bush levelled the place just so he could finalize his plans.

Once in power, he carried on with his mission by blowing up the Deep Water Horizon to stop our use of deep water oil. Then big coal with the mining disaster with those miners that are still trapped underground.

Now they have went after big natural gas, with the explosion of the pipeline.

And nobody is investigating this because they are all shills of Obama! 911 is nothing compared to this conspiracty as it has Suadis, Democrats, green people, big oil, the airlines, and of course ..............

ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's doing it for that sole purpose. In order to prove all this I have a friend who makes vids in his mother's basement. Once made we have the proof to get this off the ground. A blog referring to the vid will cement it in as 'indisputable proof' and, will then take thousands of links and facts to prove it is not fact as well as cause confusion at press conferences as government officials get asked what they are doing about this investigation and then, when they say what investigation? We've got proof there's a cover up!!!!

Add in a few Jewish names and the 'Joo Connection' is born. **** this has legs like you won't believe!!!! It'll occupy the mindless void in truthers heads for decades.

Oh, and did you know, a third plane crashed in the WTC on 911. Strange how there is no film or evidence huh? You'd think somebody (not naming names) but somebody has something to hide. After all, the state controlled media didn't report it, how come?





There you go!!! Now go forth and .....................!

It is all clear to me now! How friken naive are you huh?



http://youtu.be/iSg6XwXe6WQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdtTccXcThE&feature=related

Bill Clinton owns a truther. This is actually really funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU-nMsyXP0s

Clinton owns another truther.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eVFDY8IN1s&feature=related

The best anwser to the truthers!

To be credible with the truther nuts you need to make sure you throw in Bildeburg, the Rothchilds, the New World Order and Illuminati somewhere in there. Also throw in a couple menacing words like Cabal also.

I know I will get slammed for this post because using the word credible and truther in the same sentance is an oxymoron.

they will add those themselves!

I love how all these truther nuts are the same ones who think NASA faked the moon landing, which they didn't.

Useful Notes: Conspiracy Theories
"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."
— Terry Pratchett, Jingo

Conspiracy theories are, essentially, Wild Mass Guessing, Headscratchers, and Fanon Discontinuity (in the sense that something didn't happen according the way "official" sources said it did) applied to Real Life. Like all memes, conspiracy theories mutate and interbreed almost too fast for humans to track. Any of the theories and sub-theories mentioned below can be, and in all likelihood has been, combined with any or all of the others by at least one person. Don't be surprised if the theory raises more questions than the original incident in the first place.

It is important to distinguish a Conspiracy Theory from a regular theory about a conspiracy. A conspiracy is merely a plan by more than one person to commit a crime, and a theory about it could be made. However, it is different from a Conspiracy Theory, as a Conspiracy Theory explicitly means a fringe theory which purports that events, either in the news or in history, are not as we understand it but really the works of secret cabals of cunning conspirators acting for malicious ends, from merely getting rich to propagating an ideology up to and including world domination.

People who tend to have these can be found under "Conspiracy Theorist." The Mel Gibson film Conspiracy Theory has its own article.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/ConspiracyTheories

Is there really something wrong with asking for and wanting the truth?

Do you actually believe that politicians and the government always tell the truth?

Also, why do you feel that a person who wants the truth or who for some reason does not believe the government and the politicians are "nuts?"

why should we believe you?

I was asking lpdon these questions.

But to answer your question, you are free to believe anything you want. I don't ask you to believe me. I just want people to wake up and THINK.

... rather than just believe everything they are programmed to believe.

you're asking us to believe with every post you make,since you never provide any Scientific or any other objective Evidence!

Is that what you believe?

No, but wouldn't you consider it self defeating to use lies, misrepresentations, conjecture, allusions, inventions, specious hypotheses, slander & libel to search for the 'truth'? I have seen all these in truther literature.



Not at all, but I also wouldn't toss accusations around based on assumptions.



This rhetorical device doesn't really provide a convincing case.

It was not meant to. I was actually asking these questions to Lpdon as he is the one who used the term truther "nuts."

I don't consider a conspiracy theory to be a lie. It is a theory. Its speculation. (Investigators use them all the time.)

Self defeating? No.
Slander & Libel? -- Prove it.

The rest of your question proves to be more accusatory and suggestive than anything else.

Like:

When did you stop beating your dog?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjQwfkQj6e4

I have seen all the above (as I stated) in truther literature. You are in no position to chastise anyone for making accusatory and suggestive statements, for that is often the substance of your so-called 'evidence'. Mr. Moron's paper is a classic example of my point, and only one of many (cf. a member's misrepresentation of Farmer's quotes). Slander & Libel? Well, that can be attributed to accusations made against any individual without convincing evidence (e.g. the nonsense and lies directed at L. Silverstein).

In addition, 'theory' is a misnomer, 'hypothesis' is a more accurate description of the process.

Okay then, you are no better than me, except your accusatory and suggestive statements seem to be directed towards me rather than towards the target of a conspiracy theory like George Bush or L. Silverstein.

From this day forward, what I post can be considered "hypothesis" rather than 'theory' if that makes you feel better.

But before you accuse me of posting lies, you should learn what it means to lie. To post a lie requires intent to deceive. I am a "truther" and I am searching for the truth. If you think I have posted a lie, then please demonstrate to me why you think it is a lie. In other words, bring forth your evidence. Prove me wrong. Prove that I am intentionally lying. I would love that, because it will aid me in finding the truth.

Please read my initial paragraph again (note it is not actually an accusatory and suggestive statement as you posited):

No, but wouldn't you consider it self defeating to use lies, misrepresentations, conjecture, allusions, inventions, specious hypotheses, slander & libel to search for the 'truth'? I have seen all these in truther literature.

Now, clearly, this is not directed at you. How you arrived at that conclusion is anybody's guess.



I couldn't really care either way. I was just pointing out a common misuse of the word.



Now you're just misinterpreting my statement. I'm sure you and any other CTer firmly believe the material you post. It's just that the skills required to determine what is specious and arbitrary are somewhat lacking.




How did you arrive at this?

Are you reading this as a personal attack?

I have seen all the above (as I stated) in truther literature. You are in no position to chastise anyone for making accusatory and suggestive statements, for that is often the substance of your so-called 'evidence'. Mr. Moron's paper is a classic example of my point, and only one of many (cf. a member's misrepresentation of Farmer's quotes). Slander & Libel? Well, that can be attributed to accusations made against any individual without convincing evidence (e.g. the nonsense and lies directed at L. Silverstein).

I'm sure you believed the contents of Mr. Moron's paper and I'm sure the other member believed the contents of the book review, however, these are classic examples of the misuse of evidence I mentioned earlier.

You asked me this:



This is a question directed to me and at me, and it is full of implications. I'm not stupid.

If it is NOT directed at me and to me then whom are you referring to and why would you ask me such a question?

The "slander and libel" portion implies that I use lies.

Do you know the meaning of imply?