The Truthaction LIHOP Mafia in a Nutshell

gretavo's picture

Awesome.  We're really getting to the nub here--a clear sign of desperation:


Is constructive critique valid?

I think it comes down to whether the
criticism/critique is constructive or destructive. Destructive is it
to say or imply that person A is an "agent"/up to to no good etc.
Constructive is to challenge someone on the facts alone and suggest they
may be in error. The latter is usually healthy and helps us to refine
our arguments and keep people honest, the former creates an atmosphere
of hostility and suspicion. There is no shame in admitting one has
been wrong about some point -- in fact to do so shows a willingness to
grow and to say, in essence, I am wiser today than I was yesterday.

Not all critique is created equal, obviously, even when presented in a
seemingly earnest manner -- I recall Fetzer's absurd critiques of
Steven Jones' work -- but so long as we stick to the facts (ma'am) and
refrain from ad hom we should be able to avoid the pitfalls of
COINTEPRO-ish divide-and-conquer techniques and disinformation. The
trouble with 911 is that there are so many potentially divisive
topics/theories. Again, I would suggest that the best thing to do is
to try and avoid most theories altogether. I say "most" because it is
difficult not to come to the conclusion that 911 was an inside job,
which is indeed a theory, but a damn good one.


Maybe some of the calls are fake and some are
real, wouldnt that be a doozy, and they are just laughing at everybody
infighting which is exactly what they want. Lets say they did decide to
fake a few calls, that wouldn't prevent real people from calling on
9/11.............ok its just speculation, but if you concede the calls
are real, you are admitting to suicide hijackers being on the planes,
its very unlikely intelligence agents would sign up for a suicide
mission, so you are pretty much conceding a group of suicide hijackers
were on those planes, which is basically the OCT.


Does proving that the hijackers were indeed on board the planes prove that they were in control of them?

I dont think so, what do you think?

You know what's amazing...

You could say that hijackers were on the
planes, that buildings fell because planes slammed into them, that a
plane hit the Pentagon, and that a plane crashed into a field in PA, and
STILL have a ridiculous amount of incriminating information that is NOT "basically the OCT." I laugh when people act as though you are trying to support the "official story."

you make it sound like we

you make it sound like we must pick and choose
between competing conspiracy theories - and your question seems imply
that YOU know the truth

neither is true

we do not pick and choose our evidence to support our pet theories.
this is a truth movement - and if the evidence being presented by DRG
that phonecalls were faked on 9/11 is flawed - we are duty bound to
point it out.

there are those among uus - like yourself - who seem to want to
perpetually force a crisis of faith among activists - seemingly forcing
us to pick and choose between competing warring theories - LIHOP - MIHOP

i - for one - refuse

DRG's cellphone fakery research fails - on multiple levels. that is
the bottom line here. if you disagree with the FACTS is Erik's essay -
demonstrate how he is wrong

but you will impress no one by injecting theories into the
discussion. and those who seek to imply that anyone who believes that
actual hijackings took place is supporting the OCT is in fact betraying
our cause.

you betray our cause by accusing activists of supporting the OCT
simply for not supporting YCT. (Your Conspiracy Theory) and YCT is
not proven - not by a long shot

so - what is the agenda? finding the truth? or choosing up sides in competing warring conspiracy theories?

i choose the truth - and let the chips fall where they may

now - show us where Erik is wrong - based on the facts presented. and spare us the peer pressure to accept YCT

Bunch of nonsense

Let's be honest. The reason DRG and others want
desperately to believe that the calls were "fake" is because they don't
want to believe there were really hijackers. Well, to bad.

Let's take a look at some original FBI reports....

[copypasta -see original if ur interested.  -gReT]

BTW most of the calls were from air phones. Air phones usually work
on air planes, and if it was being hijacked someone might want to use
one of those air phones. And that is what happened. What a bunch of
nonsense. Missiles, holograms, CIT, and fake phone calls. DRG has
endorsed all of this nonsense except for the holograms. No. I'm not


It doesn't get more clear than that, Jim3100stein.


If there were Muslim hijackers...

It doesn't matter because "9/11 Was NOT A Muslim Crime."
A concept the "you're promoting the racist islamofascist myth and
helping to maintain the War On Terror if you talk about the hijackers"
people don't seem to understand. If you take the hijackers out of the
equation entirely, you also take away some of the most incriminating
information out there. I've always wondered why a group of people would
want to take away some of the most incriminating information out there.

David was contacted a multitude of times...

And asked not to promote the voice morphing
theory over the last several years. He ignored those people, and
continued. People were tired of seeing this movement, and everyone
associated made to look like fools with this theory, just as people were
tired of CIT's nonsense, and the multitude of other theories promoted
over the years. If someone is promoting bad information, they should
correct it. If they don't, they get called on it. It's not rocket
science. Nothing sinister about this at all, and nothing to do with
David being sick. However, your snitch jacketing is most disturbing, as
is others on this page.

More Pot - Kettle - Black

And what about your "bad information" and all the other crap that you have spewed over the years?
Or is that different because it's you?

And you are?

And can you give an example? Can you show me
where I've promoted things like a missile hitting the Pentagon, the
phone calls are fake, the planes were holograms, there were pods on the
planes, mini-nukes at Ground Zero, space beams bringing down the towers,
witnesses are actors, flight 77 flying over the pentagon, no hijackers
on the planes, 9/11 was a Zionist/Jew job, a missile was shot into the
ground in PA and not Flight 93, TV Fakery, CGI, the planes were swapped,
etc... over the years? Can you show me defending those promoting this
bat-shit crazy information or aligning myself with them? No, you can't.
And I'm the one who's "demonized" in this "movement."