It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

O'Reilly Equates 9/11 Truthers With Terrorists

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   
jofomu style of typing reminds me of chicom agents.




posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by factfinder38
Wow, just let it out man if it makes you feel better. Even if you do not feel that their have been a lot of lies told us by our government you must admit that they are their own worst enemy. A lot of things have gone on before and since 9-11 that just do not fit the story.
Pick a subject that has to do with 9-11 and tell us why you think the Government story is true.


I did not need the Gov' to tell me what to think on 9/11. I do not now.

I also do not make the mistake of equating anything the Gov' may, or may not, have done in the past. Or may, or may not, have proposed, in the past, with actual events.

That is wooly thinking, that is just there to bolster your cognitive structure.

You've decided already. YOU, are not searching for truth.

WHAT IF ARABS REALLY DID IT?

Try it. It might be real.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Would you at least consider then that we have been witness to some of the worst Complacency in our countries defence every seen?
Here is a subject for you. Building 7 why did it fall perfectly with no major damage and no major fire?



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by trIckz_R_fO_kIdz
jofomu style of typing reminds me of chicom agents.


Why an I not surprised you posted that?

Gosh! A real person that can think for himself, thinks you're all sheep. Must be paid!

Where's the HUGE ROFL smiley Simon?



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by factfinder38
Would you at least consider then that we have been witness to some of the worst Complacency in our countries defence every seen?
Here is a subject for you. Building 7 why did it fall perfectly with no major damage and no major fire?


Your research game is poor.

" why did it fall perfectly with no major damage and no major fire?"

It did not!

Do not expect me to lead you by the nose, like a sheep to slaughter, so NO linky. FIND OUT if that is true or false for yourself.

CLUE:

Don't rely on sites that ONLY propose BushCo did it. There are folks out there that do not like him, but still wonder why you guys ain't in some kind of straight jacket.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
J
Nobody commented on that because we're talking about O'Reilly and Fetzer; the Jones/Kristol thing doesn't have anything to do with this.



Yes, it does have something to do with this. This thread is about treatment O'Reilly gave to Fetzer. His tactics were the same ones used by the Jones gang on Kristol. So tell me, Astygia, do you condemn the tactics used by both O'Reilly and the Jones gang?



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Yeah, I condemn all tactics which resort to harassment. And while we're at it, I also condemn gang violence, illegal drugs, black market organ sales, and Barney.

Happy?

Jofumu, here's a novel idea: instead of attempting a mass-debunking here on the O'Reilly thread, you could actually address the topics in their relevant threads. You might learn something.

[edit on 14-10-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Sorry for the Hi-Jack Tooblue.

Didn't see, can't comment.

A good point well made though, fairness is important.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Discuss the topic, and not your fellow members.

The topic is a bloated gas-bag with a television program, who has likened conspiracy theorists to terrorists.

Personally I can't stand the man, I couldn't watch his show for money. That he's a raging hypocrite, a pervert, and a moron, only add to my disdain. Why do people even care what he thinks? And why would anyone choose to subject themselves to his tongue-lashings?

The guy has no respect, even for people who are clearly more experienced and erudite than himself. He shook his finger at, and talked down to, a four-star general (Clark) for cryin' out loud, while presuming to lecture the man about history and military matters - what would lead anyone to think he'd change his stripes for the benefit of a conspiracy theorist? He has no sense of decency, no restraint. He knows that shock value is the only thing that keeps his freak show in business, so he lays it on thick, hoping for a Stern-like appeal.

He falls far short of even that meager goal.

Let the nutter scream in the wind, and hope he runs out of breath sooner rather than later.

What else is there to say about this pathetic wretch, this poster-boy for prophylactics?

Better luck next time God, this one's a dud...



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Thanks for your tongue-in-cheek response, Astygia.
Not to worry, you were on topic all along.
What I meant in my original post was for people to respond on Tazadars' post not necessarily this one. Pardon the ambiguity.

If O'Reilly had played fair, I would've defended his stance (being a CT skeptic I would do that). But he didn't and I don't.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jofomu
Can we start again?

That statement is NOT a statemen of FACT. SO WHY, (as others do) repeat it ad infinitum?



Sure its fact that a missle was used... the engine part number says that...

And the main key factor is the size of the fireball after impact... it was too RED, too SMALL and too SHORT LIVED to have been jet fuel from a big passenger liner carrying that much fuel... and it certainly DID NOT burn long enough to vaporize all that aluminum in the plane... Just look at the fireball in the security video and compare it to the one at the WTC... you don't need to be an expert to realize that a short burst cannot turn to ashes several tons of metal.

Elementary my dear government agent...

So just out of curiousity, just how much id the Bush Government paying you for spreading disinformation?

:shk: :bash:



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Jofomu
I am a Republican and proud of it and I think anyone on this board will vouch for that.
The problem that I have is that their is not one News agency in the American media that does not promote its party of choice. Just who is telling the truth, I feel none. I do not think that I have ever said Bush did it but I do think their is more to the story than meets the eye. What I have been able to decide from my poor research though is that no one party holds complete blame and by that I am saying Terrorist,Republican or Democrat.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The topic is a bloated gas-bag with a television program, who has likened conspiracy theorists to terrorists.

Personally I can't stand the man, I couldn't watch his show for money. That he's a raging hypocrite, a pervert, and a moron, only add to my disdain. Why do people even care what he thinks? And why would anyone choose to subject themselves to his tongue-lashings?


The problem is bloated gas-bags with a television programs can stir up a lot of trouble. No one though McCarthy could do much harm either and look where that went...

My question is WHY did the FBI listen to him and detain that first proffesor? Yes he was released, but on just the word of that bloated gas-bag he was hauled in...

And therin lies the danger



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   
O'Reilly isn't evil.

He's a self grandizing, snake oil salesman who doesn't test his own product. He's a sham, and of the most cynical variety. He brilliantly plays up to his own target audience, but nobody should take him in any way seriously.

Rubert Murdoch was simply servicing an under serviced target audience when he created FOX. Nobody, except Hannity, actually believes half the hokum they spiel on a daily basis.

It's just marketing.

Grown in a vial, tested and squeezed like political orange juice. Their target audience are upper middle class, white, midwestern males, ages 49-65, who show incredible brand loyalty.

That being said, O'Reilly IS a brilliant debater, and anybody who goes up against him is in for a fight. He can easily dominate a conversation, especially if the guest is shy, or uncomfortable with public speaking.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   
It is pointless debating with jofomu, just like my friend snoopy, while claiming to be thinking for themselves all they can argue is what NIST has told them, and at the same time accuse others of not thinking for themselves.


Just like snoopy he'll bring up such scientific wonders such liquefying wings and then when asked to explain what that means, they can't do it because they don't know.
He'll make lots of claims but provide no sources for these claims.

And just like snoopy he'll make angry confrontational posts with no substance, wait already done...And then say 'I'm not angry'...


Both working for the government, whether they know it or not...


Sry just some observations, and lessons learned.

But jofomu, prove me wrong...



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Fetzer has really let himself go.

Besides that, can't you see the points O'Reily was making? Watch the video and listen to what he's saying. Why can't the scholars get their story published anywhere outside Prisonplanet and Infowars? NO media from ANY nation is buying into it.

"If you had the evidence SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE would take the evidence"

When O'Reily challenged him to present his best evidence or his "best shot" he just couldn't do it. He knew O'Reily would shame his 'evidence' on national TV.

They've got nothing and they know it.

Loved the way they cut him off at the end.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Why can't the scholars get their story published anywhere outside Prisonplanet and Infowars? NO media from ANY nation is buying into it.

"If you had the evidence SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE would take the evidence"


Exactly, as much as I despise O'reilly, I do agree with him on this point.

It's one thing to claim that all US media is controlled by the federal gov., which imho is ludicrous, let alone claim that all the media in the world is controlled by the US gov.. If these theories have so much evidence, then why does no one but Alex Jones and Rense buy into them?



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   
well, while most know my stance on 9-11...i dont see the point of getting someone on a "News Talk Show" and evicerating him that way. that puts o'reilley in the same class as Jerry Springer, cept jerry can be funny.

i disagree with most of the (since slap nuts is against the term ct'rs ill go with "non official story believers") on many points but have always given credit for some great research and dedication. i dont care waht people think as long as they are thinking for themselves. when people question the govt it forces accountability and thats pretty important for any society.

i do disagree wtih whoever said oreilley was a great debater. no, he's a great arguer. theres a difference between an argument and a debate. i see a lot of arguements on this board but prefer to delude myself into thinking that most of my posts have been in the debate category. (cept for calling bsb a punk but that was nothing but respect...heh)

i think too often people that are successful in media forget that whole power/responsibility thing. people like oprah etc can make or break a company with a word. youre entitled to a point of view, but to ruin someones business or reputation isnt ethical.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman


No Val, God love you and all, but it is O'Reilly who has all the characteristics of his own weak arguments which are not even arguments, and it is he who is not qualified.


I think we're in violent agreement.




Dr. Fetzer in contrast is a qualified exponent of the structural engineering at the center of 911 inquiry. Being a specialized does not render you unable to tie your own shoe laces on different issues than your specialty.


I believe his degree is philosophy. If the interview (which I didn't see because I don't watch O'Reilly's hate-show) wasn't about the physical science phenomena then I agree that Dr. Fetzer is absolutely qualified to discuss the topic, but if it was about the physical sciences of the matter he has admitted himself he can't answer the questions. When some one says "Well, I can't speak to that point", who am I to argue with them?

[edit on 10-14-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   
You know, i heard him say this and i was horrified.

A total act of desperation and this will be the new bumpersticker Newspeak thingy now.

Liberals are now Anti-American terrorist radical left wing nut jobs, comparable to radical muslims.

Pardon me, is this still America with a two-party system?

My description of him contains dirty language which i am not able to post.


Ahhh...he's an A@#$%




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join