Penn and Teller Confronted Over 9/11 Hit Piece, 9/11 Truth In General
greenback Thu, 02/10/2011 - 5:52pm
Penn & Teller Active Participants in the coverup of mass murder finally get called out on their Bullshit!
Penn and Teller Confronted Over 9/11 Hit Piece, 9/11 Truth In General
- greenback's blog
- Login to post comments
The Questioner Does a Masterful Job
prefacing his question to the shills.
Someone in that audience may pull their head out of their a__ and look at Bldg 7.
http://www.theylie.com/
Completely disagree
First he immediately swears at them and says they are bullshit (fail number one, lose the whole audience)
Then he starts going off about facts, even brings up that he is a philosophy major (double fail)
then, he decides to focus his main question on whether or not penn has seen building 7 collapse? (fail fail fail)
It's great that this guy is willing to ask a question. To bad he didn't ask one that would lead to anything except 9/11 truth looking just like penn and teller wanted them to. crazy, immature, lying (most in the room assumed this when you flung the insult at them) confrontation. Stay away from physics if you are gonna shout out your philosophy major. How about pointing out a fact instead of looking like you are a logical error in appealing to an unqualified authority. AND NEVER SWEAR. It's immature and insulting and you lose right away.
Come on Kdub,
These guys started it by their hit piece? Who told them to stick their nose into it without checking the facts, or they are just part of the cover-up. Which is it? He quoted A&E several times. One can always do better, but I give the guy credit for confronting them on their turf.
So cause they started it we should try and play their game
This is how we lose every time. This guy failed and not only that, made us look like ignorant philosophy majors in the process.
"Who told them to stick their nose into it without checking the facts, or they are just part of the cover-up. Which is it?"
Are you trying to act like I'm defending P and T? They cherry picked facts. If this 'confronter' would have stuck with just asking facts and keeping them on it, something may have come from this. Instead he just dropped rhetoric fueled by ego excitement, was removed, and weakened our cause in the process. He made Penn and Teller look smart. If you are suggesting we go into meetings and yell BS at people if they have said this about us, you are extra wrong. Someone as 'peaceful' as yourself should know that yelling names back cause 'he started it' is always a way to lose and re-solidify biases everyone already has. He didn't quote A and E several times. He just said who they are. Perhaps if he said, 'YOU (p and t) claimed there is no credible research, but then we have this group A and E etc.' But he didn't, so it just sounded like part of a rhetorical rant without frames of reference for the audience to see or, for P&T to even get and be put on the spot because of it. There no debate here. This 'confronter' helped solidify what P&T attempted to smear 9/11 Truth with. The way Jimmy Walters acts in their episode is not far from this juvenile rhetorical approach.
Noose?
Who came up with the noose image? This could be seen either as a threat to these clowns, or was it just another demonstration of the potential force of gravity?
Stock Penn & Teller Photo
.
I like this guy! He showed bravery and
committment. He gave the real info etc. Anyless agressive and he would have been laughed under by the crowd. The term bullshit is right from their own script. The bad news is the crowd doesn't really care. At the end of the day many Americans just want to move on, so we're invading countries and stealing resources killing children and reporters from reuters they really don't give a damn, they got mortgages to pay, they want entertainment and numbness. Ugly truth many like this ignorant state of being. Gotta go I got a mortgage to pay too and it's the 15th!
Sorry but no
He didn't give real info cause he didn't back up his rhetoric. He was laughed under and thrown out by the crowd. Sad and un-peaceful that you defending his use of swearing. But then you go on to say that the audience doesn't really care and they are all gonna move on so what's your point? You are contradicting yourself. It's like in the pentagon threads, how you first go off about how it's possible there were no planes, then you say something like 'really we should forget it and move on.' You can't have it both ways.
Let me try to be more clear here:
I have considered your comment and I must say that I now see it as being more constructive and less critical, but still both. As I said one can always do better and to have been calmer and just quoted the findings of A&E who disputes Pand T would have been much better etc. However, the crowd does not want to hear it and the guy was brave for confronting these jerks so I do like him. With regard to the pentagon, I think the issue is hurting the movement by trying to sanction people who are still not sure what hit the pentagon and just want a new investigation. Such as myself. Yes a 757 may have hit the pentagon as I have said, however, you know how I feel about mass movements. Show me the way to real justice without a mass movement and I am keeping an open mind. Building a mass movement is taking too long IMO and time is hurting the movement more and more. Please articulate your strategy so that I can try to review and comprehend it. Thanks.
More appealing to consequences
Re-read this
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-05/dr-frank-legge-visibility-9-11-mou...
It's still a theory at this point sorry.
Go ahead and keep voting down people who have reservations about the pentagon, want a mass movement and think the movement is in big trouble after almost ten years. If it makes you feel better, don't say I didn't warn you.