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

reply to post by bsbray11


So your contention, Socratean in its depth, is that you don't know what the General wants. That you have no idea if he agrees with you or not.

In that case it's pretty much safe to say, given the supplementary evidence, that he does not. You can factually argue that you don't know this for certain, but that's a pretty worthless position, akin to saying that you don't know for certain that anybody disagrees with you. They may just of course be lying or scared when asked.

Regarding the relevance of this to the OP, the General manifestly does not "Talk Like a Truther". And nothing you've written suggests that he does. Your conclusion is that he doesn't, but he might possibly think like one. You don't know.

As to your misquoting, here is what you wrote:

"he's stating as fact that Washington had plenty of warning but chose not to act on any of those warnings"

He does not in fact state that anywhere. You are lying.

Read into it what you will. The General DOES state the following, verbatim:

"We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the Administration actually misused the intelligence information it had , the evidence seems pretty clear to me, I've seen that for a long time..."

General Clark would NOT have joined Military Officers for 9/11 Truth and potentially risk his career if he didn't feel strongly about the need for the Truth to be told to the American People.

Especially as we are currently involved in yet another middle east conquest for oil in Libya.

Only to satisfy the Rothschilds and the NWO lust for control of more middle east oil resources as well as Libya's Central Bank, one of 5 remaining that aren't controlled by Rothy and the Banksters.

The others being the Central Banks of :

Cuba,Iran,Sudan and Venezuela's.





www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org...

Is it just me, or does it seem that 9/11 debunkers are having an extremely difficult time discrediting truthers who are extremely credible? Hey, at least they're being made to earn their money.

So, who do you now believe in regards to 9/11: General Wesley Clark or Penn and Teller? Gee, that's a tough one...

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Is it just me, or does it seem that 9/11 debunkers are having an extremely difficult time discrediting truthers who are extremely credible? Hey, at least they're being made to earn their money.

So, who do you now believe in regards to 9/11: General Wesley Clark or Penn and Teller? Gee, that's a tough one...

edit on 30-3-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)

I believe General Clark.

But here's a clue: he's not a Truther.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So your contention, Socratean in its depth

The Socratic method is asking rhetorical questions in order to prove a point. I'm not trying to prove what Clark wants. There is not enough information to prove that, Socrates or no Socrates. The only problem here is that you are confused because you never seem capable of taking my few words at face value without reading a million more into them that were never, and never will be there.

He said he wants another investigation into why all these warnings were neglected. Not a quote, but what any reasonable English-speaking person could ascertain from watching that video. And I agree with him on that, there definitely does need to be another investigation into why all those warnings were neglected.

That's a simple agreement, nothing to debunk about it, yet you want to start bringing up holograms and space beams because you're a troll, yes?

Originally posted by bsbray11

The Socratic method is asking rhetorical questions in order to prove a point. I'm not trying to prove what Clark wants. There is not enough information to prove that, Socrates or no Socrates.

Well done for knowing that, gold star. It wasn't what I meant though.

He said he wants another investigation into why all these warnings were neglected. Not a quote, but what any reasonable English-speaking person could ascertain from watching that video. And I agree with him on that, there definitely does need to be another investigation into why all those warnings were neglected.

So do I. You also think that there should be a study of why the WTC was imploded, a search for explosives and so on. That's where you, and me and Gen Clark, part company. So to put him forward as being somehow "in your camp" is disingenuous.

Besides, the information is extant. You may not have seen it, but it's here in this thread. The General is asked to comment on, amongst other things, your subjects for investigation, and he goes very green indeed.

That's a simple agreement, nothing to debunk about it, yet you want to start bringing up holograms and space beams because you're a troll, yes?

Do you see that when you make stuff like this up you are not only comitting a logical fallacy, but that you are doing the exact same thing that you accuse others of?

I haven't mentioned space beams at all, and it's not just those wilder 9/11 tropes that Clark is evidently uncomfortable with. He likely thinks you're roughly in the same bracket as the noplaners and DEWers. As indeed does most of the rest of the sane world. When they bother to think about you at all.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

And I agree with him on that, there definitely does need to be another investigation into why all those warnings were neglected.

So do I. You also think

That's where you screw up and go off-topic.

Do you want to talk about what I think about the WTC?

It's a separate issue than my agreement with General Clark about the need for investigating why all the forewarnings were neglected. It's also something General Clark himself does not address, so you have no grounds for saying he disagrees with me. A lack of information is a lack of information -- I keep repeating this but knowing how selective your memory is I suspect I'll have to keep repeating myself won't I? Maybe if I mention Socrates again your brain will turn back on and please read the sentence preceding this one?

That's a simple agreement, nothing to debunk about it, yet you want to start bringing up holograms and space beams because you're a troll, yes?

Do you see that when you make stuff like this up you are not only comitting a logical fallacy, but that you are doing the exact same thing that you accuse others of?

Oh, so now you want to finally talk about logical fallacies. Of course! Tomorrow you won't know what the term means again.

I used the holograms and space beams to get you to recognize that this is a fallacy. So is substituting controlled demolition when that's not what we were talking about. If you want to talk about that, let's do it. If you want to tell me General Clark disagrees with me there, then I thought we had already established he doesn't say anything about the WTC.

You still want to go on your speculative tirade and vitriolic rant about how he "actually" disagrees with me, don't you? It must still be bubbling under the surface from the start of this thread. Too bad it hardly matters and has absolutely nothing to do with real logic or reasoning.

Originally posted by bsbray11

It's a separate issue than my agreement with General Clark about the need for investigating why all the forewarnings were neglected.

You've subtly changed your argument. Earlier you said that both you and Clark wanted the same thing - a reinvestigation of 9/11. When I pointed out that your investigation - into bombs, explosives etc - was not the same as Clark's you ignored the notion.

The reason I brought this up is because it is the subject of this thread. This is an attempt by Truthers to say that Clark wants the same thing as them. All I've done is point out that there's no evidence that he does, and that he does not, in fact, talk like a Truther.

If your point is that CLark wants a new investigation, but that there's no evidence that he wants a Truth Movement "Bombs in the towers"-type examination, then - duh. Obviously. But then why are you here? To refute the OP?

It's also something General Clark himself does not address, so you have no grounds for saying he disagrees with me. A lack of information is a lack of information -- I keep repeating this but knowing how selective your memory is I suspect I'll have to keep repeating myself won't I? Maybe if I mention Socrates again your brain will turn back on and please read the sentence preceding this one?

Why does Clark deal with the questions fom the "Truthers" above with such obvious evasiveness? The circumstantial evidence suggests that he has no time for their theories. Indeed it's the conclusion that they themselves reach.

So your position is that there's no evidence he supports your case. I've seen evidence that suggests he doesn't. So you're in a situation where you're claiming that Clark "wants the same thing as you" when, within the context of this thread, he doesn't seem to at all.

I used the holograms and space beams to get you to recognize that this is a fallacy.

I see. So you're allowed to commit a logical fallacy to show me what a logical fallacy is? You really privilege yourself in these disussions don't you?

So is substituting controlled demolition when that's not what we were talking about. If you want to talk about that, let's do it. If you want to tell me General Clark disagrees with me there, then I thought we had already established he doesn't say anything about the WTC.

The subject of the thread is whether Clark "talks like a Truther". He does not. And since you apparently agree with this, I'd have thought that the "talk" was over.

You still want to go on your speculative tirade and vitriolic rant about how he "actually" disagrees with me, don't you? It must still be bubbling under the surface from the start of this thread. Too bad it hardly matters and has absolutely nothing to do with real logic or reasoning.

edit on 30-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

Once again, this is not speculation.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


And what about you? Do you agree with the General and want to find the Truth with the Truthers. Or do you think it was just a well executed plan by a couple terrorist performing moves that only a seasoned pilot could perform with a plane of such size and speed? I am willing to bet that your the guy who thinks 9/11 is an open and shut case and nothing suspicious happened that day. Of course aside from the attacks. I think the General touched a lot of important issues, he says that right now ... In AMERICA the Executive Branch is abusing powers. I don't think it gets a whole lot bigger then that. And I get the feeling he doesn't mean just getting away with a couple parking tickets. The General just wants what millions of Americans want, a proper investigation. I'm sure your aware of the faulty investigation that took place. And I don't just mean the commission report, I mean the actual investigation of the pieces of buildings, and planes, and black boxes. In my humbled opinion of course. I'm just asking yours, I'm new to this site not trying to make enemies sorry if I unloaded or rambled

reply to post by DasGhost27


I agree with him to the extent that I also think that the Bush administration used 9/11 as an excuse to mount a series of commercial and foreign policy agendas, and that in doing this they abused the intelligence they had.

It seems to me that what Clark wants is an investigation partly into why warnings were ignored, but mostly into the misuse of intel after the fact. I know this because it's what he says. And as soon as anyone askes him a "truther"-type question, he refuses even really to engage with them.

What I take issue with here is the claim that Clark is somehow siding with - and in agreement with - the people who think that the twin towers were CD'd and that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon and so on. He isn't. and his reinvestigation would look nothing like theirs.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's a separate issue than my agreement with General Clark about the need for investigating why all the forewarnings were neglected.

You've subtly changed your argument. Earlier you said that both you and Clark wanted the same thing - a reinvestigation of 9/11. When I pointed out that your investigation - into bombs, explosives etc - was not the same as Clark's you ignored the notion.

I ignored it because, like I keep saying, Clark didn't mention a damned thing about explosives or the WTC, and you're the one trying to put words in his mouth by saying we disagree there. You have no evidence of that. I wasn't talking about it, and Clark wasn't talking about it. It was not part of the topic. UNTIL -- you brought it up, and you are still trying to bring it up.

I haven't changed my argument, you just keep trying to force something to be here, that's not here. You were confused from the start and have a very "peculiar" way of "reasoning."

I asked you -- do you want to talk about the WTC now or not?

I wasn't the one to bring it up in this thread, and neither was General Clark. It was --- YOU. That is not disputable. You even just admitted to being the one to bring it up, which you obviously enough were anyway. So why you can't accept that, is beyond me. You just have to FORCE words into Clark's mouth I guess, just to satisfy your emotional needs.


And you were never, and never will be one to chastise others for fallacies. You are continuing to perpetrate one right now by bringing up something that was not mentioned at all and pretending that it's relevant to the OP. And you keep stubbornly arguing that it's somehow relevant, just because YOU want to talk about it. Stop being so sad. If you want to talk about the WTC we can, but General Clark did not, and neither did I until you brought it up. That's way over your head, I know, I know. Just like everything else apparently. Sorry for even trying to point out the facts of the discussion to you. I should have known better. Hell would freeze over before you backed away from even your worst "argument," and that's just the way it is.

reply to post by bsbray11


So you wouldn't mind if the reinvestigation didn't explore the idea of there being bombs in the WTC? As you rightly say, Clark doesn't go near the idea that his investigation would include such a thing.

And you keep pointlessly repeating this notion that because Clark doesn't talk about it he may still believe it. But this is refuted elsewhere. So he does not, in fact, "talk like a Truther", or apparently think like one.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So you wouldn't mind if the reinvestigation didn't explore the idea of there being bombs in the WTC?

This is a separate subject from the OP, but as long as you acknowledge that, you already know whether or not I want the WTC "collapses" re-investigated, and you already know that you have no clue what was causing all of the explosions, etc.

And you keep pointlessly repeating this notion that because Clark doesn't talk about it he may still believe it.

That's not what I say. Again you are demonstrating your complete inability to think clearly, and take my words at face value. You just can't do it. I did not say "he may still believe it." I said there is no information for you to make a conclusion either way. Of course this doesn't stop you from coming to whatever conclusion you please, as usual, and the concept of agnosticism is completely alien to your brain. Your whole problem is you like to pretend you're automatically right when information is missing. When there are no facts available, that's a field day for you and your ilk. And you also pretend that is a logical approach? Of course you do, you are showing it in post after post.

But this is refuted elsewhere.

Where is anything refuted about his opinions on the WTC "collapses"?

So he does not, in fact, "talk like a Truther", or apparently think like one.

So it must be the "debunkers" calling for re-investigation then. Gotcha.

Originally posted by bsbray11

That's not what I say. Again you are demonstrating your complete inability to think clearly, and take my words at face value. You just can't do it. I did not say "he may still believe it." I said there is no information for you to make a conclusion either way.

You can't be this dense, surely? You realise that that means the same thing, right?

When there are no facts available, that's a field day for you and your ilk. And you also pretend that is a logical approach? Of course you do, you are showing it in post after post.

Where is anything refuted about his opinions on the WTC "collapses"?

Look at the video of Clark being called out by we are change. Even they themselves acknowledge that he probably doesn't agree with them. in the absence of any compelling evidence that he does, and with circumstantial evidence to suggest that he doesn't, I think it's pretty safe to conclude what he believes.

What is absolutely certain, is that the supposition of this thread, which I can only assume you joined to support, is that Clark somehow adds bolster to Truthers' ideas. As you say yourself, there is plainly no evidence that he does.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bsbray11

That's not what I say. Again you are demonstrating your complete inability to think clearly, and take my words at face value. You just can't do it. I did not say "he may still believe it." I said there is no information for you to make a conclusion either way.

You can't be this dense, surely? You realise that that means the same thing, right?

There you have it. Proof that "trick" does not understand the concept of agnosticism.

Changing my words to "he may still believe it" is spinning it as if I'm already differentiating one possibility from another and putting emphasis on one of them -- ie bias. I am not doing this. Saying there is no information does not acknowledge either possibility as if I believe them, because I don't. I have no information, and no opinion. That is agnosticism. That is what you don't understand. You always want to try to weasel me into making a positive argument when I am not.

Look at the video of Clark being called out by we are change. Even they themselves acknowledge that he probably doesn't agree with them.

That's proof? Second-hand speculation? Do you know what this man's rank is? I'm sure General Clark chooses his words very carefully, and when that came to the Twin Towers instead all they got was silence. They could have equally taken it as an implicit agreement, why not? There was no information. They were just disappointed because they were expecting some answer, but were then blatantly ignored and got silence instead. They didn't have any more information than I have watching the exact same encounter in their own video.

in the absence of any compelling evidence that he does...I think it's pretty safe to conclude what he believes.

"You can't prove me wrong, therefore I must be right!"

There is no information either way, and you are having a field day leaping to conclusions just like I said you love doing. What a shock. This is classic ignorance of real logic. Can I get a witness in here?

I told you that you wouldn't remember what a logical fallacy was too. That makes like what, three times now in this thread I've predicted exactly what you were going to post, before you posted it?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Good points. But let me ask you this. You say you think the Bush Admin. used 9'11 as an excuse to mount a series of Commercial and foreign policy agenda's. In the original General video posted by the thread maker the General says that they made the decision to go to war 10 days after 9'll. Do you not also believe that they used 911 as an excuse to go to war. The General said even the other General told him he didn't even know why they were going to war. He asked him if they found a link between Sadam and the Tali ban, and he said nah it was nothing like that. So you don't think they used 911 as an excuse to go to war. And I would like to ask you when do you think the "War on Terror will end? I don't think any time soon. In my humble opinion.

Originally posted by bsbray11

There you have it. Proof that "trick" does not understand the concept of agnosticism.

Sorry, I'm aware that your position requires you to have it both ways, but on this one you can't. If you think there's no information on what he believes (which you're incorrect about anyway) then it follows logically that he may still believe it.

Changing my words to "he may still believe it" is spinning it as if I'm already differentiating one possibility from another and putting emphasis on one of them -- ie bias. I am not doing this.

You are actually. Because you're pretending there's no other information on what he believes - which there is - and then marshalling Clark as though he somehow underwrites your side of the argument. He does not. More specifically, with regard to the OP, he does not "Talk Like a Truther".

This seems to be a notion with which you concur. In which case I can't see what you're attempting to do here. Spin and obfuscate so that people are led to believe that Clark is a Truther? I can see why you might want to do that, but it is not intellectually honest.

That's proof? Second-hand speculation? Do you know what this man's rank is? I'm sure General Clark chooses his words very carefully, and when that came to the Twin Towers instead all they got was silence. They could have equally taken it as an implicit agreement, why not? There was no information. They were just disappointed because they were expecting some answer, but were then blatantly ignored and got silence instead. They didn't have any more information than I have watching the exact same encounter in their own video.

It's not conclusive. But you have to be heavily biased to think that he might agree with them. After all, this is the opposite of the conclusion they themselves reached. And they were there.

"You can't prove me wrong, therefore I must be right!"

There is no information either way, and you are having a field day leaping to conclusions just like I said you love doing. What a shock. This is classic ignorance of real logic. Can I get a witness in here?

I told you that you wouldn't remember what a logical fallacy was too. That makes like what, three times now in this thread I've predicted exactly what you were going to post, before you posted it?

There's no evidence that Clark believes what is, let's face it, a minority position unencumbered by serious advocates. There is circumstantial evidence from WAC that suggests he probably doesn't. But you reeeeeally want him to maybe agree with you. And that's enough? Sorry, it won't cut much ice.

reply to post by DasGhost27


I think they definitely used 9/11 as an excuse to go to war. But that doesn't mean that they did it themselves. They took advantage of a situation and exploited it, which is what governments and elites tend to do.

I also think that the Iraq aspect is one which actually makes it less likely that 9/11 was executed by the government or the "powers that be" or whatever you want to call them. Because if they had designed the whole thing from the start with Iraq in mind then they would have made sure that at least some of the hijackers had a more convincing link to Saddam.

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. 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.

If you think there's no information on what he believes (which you're incorrect about anyway) then it follows logically that he may still believe it.

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.

Changing my words to "he may still believe it" is spinning it as if I'm already differentiating one possibility from another and putting emphasis on one of them -- ie bias. I am not doing this.

You are actually. Because you're pretending there's no other information on what he believes - which there is - and then marshalling Clark as though he somehow underwrites your side of the argument. He does not.

I have no position on whether or not Clark believes the WTC were demolished. I would know, better than you. I don't even care what he thinks about the WTC. You just want me to because you're petty and, again, don't know what real logic is, or apparently why it's important to observe. What Clark believes about the WTC is not the topic of this thread either, or why he "talks like a truther." You can't recognize that, either, because... again... you never knew what real logic was in the first place. Every single one of your arguments here has been a textbook fallacy, but you carry them forward anyway, frankly because you're ignorant. I don't even know why I am still talking to you honestly.

More specifically, with regard to the OP, he does not "Talk Like a Truther".

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

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.

That's proof? Second-hand speculation?

It's not conclusive.

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.

"You can't prove me wrong, therefore I must be right!"

There is no information either way, and you are having a field day leaping to conclusions just like I said you love doing. What a shock. This is classic ignorance of real logic.

There's no evidence that Clark believes what is, let's face it, a minority position unencumbered by serious advocates.

That's fine. You are at least admitting this now. So why in the hell can't I take an agnostic position if there is no information? You want to FORCE me into claiming he believes the WTC demolished when I don't even believe that. Between you and pteridine, I can't decide which one of you is more ridiculous. You should get awards or something for making longer strings of fallacious reasoning throughout your posts than any other members I have ever come across on ATS.

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

That's your personal interpretation of second-hand speculation. And yet you are DYING for me to form a positive position as if I know for a fact. You must just realize how sad your own argument is, and you want me to make an equally stupid argument just to keep you company in your misery. It's not happening. You're just wrong.

But you reeeeeally want him to maybe agree with you.

No.

You want me to take a position that has no evidence, because you're trolling, and you never knew what real reasoning was.

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.

By having it both ways I mean that you are trying to hold a noncommittal position but also insisting that "he may mean x" cannot be true. Logically that's nonsense.

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.

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.

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". It's reasonable in a detailed examination to investigate why this might be. Although that's relevant only to your peculiarly narrow approach to reasoning, and its application to bolstering your own views. Essentially you like to demarcate lines of "logic" in order to privilege your personal bias.

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. A Truther's investigation would not be the same as that of Clark, or the millions of other people who don't entertain "inside job" theories. And it's ridiculous to try to co-opt their wish for a reinvestigation into your weird and paranoid fantasy narrative.

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. 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.

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? 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.

Top marks for millenarianism as well. This TM stuff really requires a religious frame of mind.

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!

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.