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.
Originally posted by Or_Die_Trying
have you ever considered that the very arguments you use against the 9-11truth movement can be applied and mutiplied 10 fold regarding the war on terror??
talk about isolation....if you speak out against the regime your branded a traitor and a terrorist
...talk about threats and the monopolization of perceptioon...try turning on any news cast and not hear the words "al qaeda" "terrorism" "muslim extremists" "war on terror" literally like 4 times a minute.
Originally posted by something smells
Originally posted by ReadilyUnavailable
I think this is a very good post. While I do not believe the official story of 9/11. I also see a lot of cultish behavior in the 9/11 movement. Jim Fetzer, Alex Jones, and Dillon Avery seem to be the core.
I hate to say that any of them have bad intentions. It's just that they do fit the classic mold of a cult. I mentioned it in another thread, but I did go to an alex jones live event (terrorstorm premier) and I must say the whole thing really struck me as cultish. In line a guy said to me "how did you find out about alex jones" and he said it in a really weird worship kinda way. I was thinking, aren't we here about 9/11, not AJ.
I noticed that the core of the audience was people who are "perpetual losers". The type who always feel someone or something is KEEPING THEM DOWN, and if it wasn't 9/11 truth, it would be some other fight against THE MAN.
Otherwise it was some college kids. I really felt out of place. But the place served alcohol, so I got drunk...then it didn't seem so scary...lol
That was a very inspirational post
I have for some time been trying to put into words what I feel about the 911 CT (s). In the back of my mind I knew but what was it? Now I know what it was. Thanks All the hallmarks of a Cult. The comment of perpetual losers was excellent. I have often thought that there was deep paranoia with the "911 Cult".
In the UK we don't have a lot of experience of the cult phenomena so it was hard for me to figure it out without the correct exposure. Thanks
Originally posted by GwionX
That is why I posted the YouTube video...and as the world famous monster says: "it is kind of like a magic trick, once you know how it is done; you are able to understand it better"
spl.haxial.net...
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
en.wikipedia.org...
spl.haxial.net...
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
Originally posted by Griff
This seams to work both ways. Where is the evidence that it could have happened the way they say? NIST's own computer analysis says it's impossible. So, who's drinking the kool aid?
Originally posted by LeftBehind
So while you may disagree with NIST's exact scenario for collapse, you have to admit that all the elements were present.
With many of the conspiracy theories there is exactly zero evidence for the components necesary, such as explosives.
A world of difference there.
Originally posted by Griff
So, reading the paper or watching the news (spoonfeeding) is healthy but taking the time to think about things and using your own brain isn't? Who's the brainwashed person here again?
Originally posted by GwionX
This is polarizing and is doing exactly what it was intended to do..divide US..