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.

 

Fox host: 9/11 truthers are 'mentally ill'

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by kettlebellysmith
 





Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
But I don't undersand why people take anything on "Redeye" seriously. It's the most obnoxious show on the tube and gutfield is rediculous.


You hit the nail on the head. This is not really a news program, it is entertainment. It is just some people sitting around a table making joke about things that have happened in the news. And most of the time it is about events that don't get mentioned in mainstream news. I caught part of it last night and they were discussing Bill Gates releasing a jar full of mosquitos on a crowd while he was giving a speech.

Fox's Red Eye is about as much real news as The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Anyone who has watched as little as 5 minutes of that should realize that.




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
yes because the host of a late night "comedy" fox news program has the same beliefs as the company as a whole.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by J-in-TX
reply to post by kettlebellysmith
 





Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
But I don't undersand why people take anything on "Redeye" seriously. It's the most obnoxious show on the tube and gutfield is rediculous.


You hit the nail on the head. This is not really a news program, it is entertainment. It is just some people sitting around a table making joke about things that have happened in the news. And most of the time it is about events that don't get mentioned in mainstream news. I caught part of it last night and they were discussing Bill Gates releasing a jar full of mosquitos on a crowd while he was giving a speech.

Fox's Red Eye is about as much real news as The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Anyone who has watched as little as 5 minutes of that should realize that.


i was going to say this. red eye is the fox equivalent to the liberal daily show. same thing different opinions. nothing to see here people move on.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Come to think of it we are all sheep,

Some sheep follow truthers.

Some sheep follow debunkers of truthers.

Some sheep align themselves with Obama, McCain, Republican, democrat, baaaa

Sheep call others sheep, because they cannot stomach the possibility they might be wrong, or sheep.

THEY/we believe what they/we WANT TO BELIEVE, so building a case around those beliefs,


By merging the harsh reality of science with the obvious fantasy that is the subject matter of most conspiracies, people have a semi-plausible framework within which to construct their theories and establish consistency for defending their position. It is a phenomenon that is quite similar to religion; the misuse and misinterpretation of “evidence” to satisfy the desire of humanity to regain control over the unexplainable and support a corrupted hidden agenda (distrust of authority).


Cult following sheep,

It is a sheep thingy,and we are all guilty.


[edit on 012828p://bFriday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I'd like a clarification, firstly --- what is a 'truther'?

I see that term bandied about. Is a so-called 'truther' defined as one who believes that 9/11 was somehow 'staged', or 'faked'?

Because that's the gist of what I think I'm reading here.

Now, as to the OP....this is a totally NEW approach, one that I've yet to see until now. A 'conservative' voice that is actually speaking out against the 'truthers', as they're called. It's fascinating.

I'm having trouble understanding where loyalties currently lie.

Is the Fox 'news' commentator defending the Bush Regime? Is it more double-speak, to try to keep the fear level elevated? I'm a little confused.

Could this have anything to do with the interview that Darth Vader....I mean, 'Dick' Cheney, gave to Politico recently? Still beating that dead horse, that the Bush Regime somehow 'saved' us from another major attack, even though the first one happened on their watch????

And, lastly to consider: Let's say, just for argument's sake, that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Government. Stay with me here --- with all of the drum-beating and fear-mongering dontcha think the Bushies would have staged ANOTHER 'false flag' OP just to cement their case, if they could???

Yeah, they would have lost their holier-than-though edge, but if the intent is to strike terror and seize more control, it would have been a good tactical move.

Just a few thoughts......



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
My opinion of the "self proclaimed" 9/11 Truthers and their followers: The people that believe them are bigger idiots than the idiots that lead thier group. To Quote Obi Wan Kenobi Who is more foolish? The Fool or the Fool that Follows him?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr


Sorry physics is on the side of a plane did it its consistent with what was observed by thousands of people. And if you don't think a plane fully loaded with jet fuel could weaken building supports causing steal to warp. And in a building that large even slightly weakening the support beams doesn't allow the building to sway and this alone would bring down the building. A building that size had to be abled to withstand considerable forces but I know the engineers couldn't have conceived the damage caused by having a blast furnace between floors. Even when you go Back and watch the video you see molten metal hitting the street.


You see, you just made the points for the truthers. First, the fires were NOT hot enough to make the metal MELT. So, by your own admission, you saw MOLTEN METAL hitting the streets.

Second, sure, the structure could have been weakened. AT THE POINT OF IMPACT. I agree 100%. Then please exlpain this to me. Why would the TOP of a building begin to fall sideways, TILTING, to one direction and then all of the sudden the floors below (NOT DAMAGED) give way and literally sucks the tilting building straight down to straighten it out and fall within, roughly, its own footprint?

Yup, we're mentally ill for trying to actually THINK THINGS THROUGH.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


The first Tower that fell was tilting toward where the second plane crashed into a corner of the building. Physics proves that building would fall before the first Tower. The Molten Metal could have come from the melting Aluminnum from the plane.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by PGTWEED
My opinion of the "self proclaimed" 9/11 Truthers and their followers: The people that believe them are bigger idiots than the idiots that lead thier group. To Quote Obi Wan Kenobi Who is more foolish? The Fool or the Fool that Follows him?


9/11 truthers are independent researchers. Take a look at the 9/11 forum and you will see varying threads on 9/11 issues not limited to planes or buildings. We do not have a TV Channel or Radio Station so the concentration on the internet and town centers in America makes it look like we are leading people when in reality we are coming together because of a unique flaw we found doing an analysis before ,on ,or after 9/11. We are the ones to discuss this subject when no one else will. I have my own concerns with Fox News and their deceased reporter...
I believe the media has failed our country and is in no position to question our conspiracy FACTS.


[edit on 6-2-2009 by Aubryish]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Swatman
 


Actually, they pretty much have to.

FOX is one of the harshest on their own employees regarding what they can and can't say.

Instead of some companies punishing their employees for making outrageous or offensive statements, FOX likes to give pats on the back if any of their hosts can get a nice anti-truther or anti-Democrat one liner into a discussion.

Ex-FOX employees have said that they are even given a daily 'agenda' to follow regarding how the news is portrayed.

Eg. When Iraq was on, they were to say Sharpshooters, not Snipers, because it would make them sound nicer to the public etc etc.

Check out the documentary Outfoxed if you haven't seen it. It is pretty scary stuff for a news source that claims to be 'Fair and Balanced'.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Needless to say, only idiots watch fox. I'm not exactly concerned with the beliefs of morons.


The problem is that the pitch-fork wielding ignorant masses also have the same right to vote as the rest of us. See Prop. 8 for an example.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I love how the anti-truthers hop on a thread in groups & star each others posts. They are so damn sure they are right about everything and yet they never talk about the many many inconsistancies in the reports leading up to 9/11 and in the report into 9/11. All they talk about is what MSM and corporate sponsored "scientists" , "engineers" have spoonfed into their feeble minds. They fail to realise that if the investigation into 9/11 was conducted in an appropriate, transparent as possible, non stinking of lies and deceit kinda way, that they wouldnt have to listen to all the "insane" people and the"crazy" theories because the truth would be there for all to see.

To all you anti-truthers out there and here on ATS - Take into account the actions of your government over the last 8 years (and even throughout its history) and ask yourselves this! If everything was as black and white as they say about 9/11, then why do I and many millions of others Worldwide (anti-truthers I believe, are in the minority) smell one big whopper of a rat with the offical report and conclusions put forward by an obviously corrupt government.

At the end of the day all I want is the truth to be told, simple as that. Unfortunately this is is not likely to happen due to the reasons stated above. So anti-truthers you can relax! your perceptions on reality are safe and sound.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


darious....it has NEVER been claimed that the heat of the burning jet fuel could melt the steel I-Beams that comprised the main structure of the Towers.

I believe anyone who understands metallurgy will comprehend that one doesn't have to 'melt' the steel....it will lose strength simply form very high heat.

Steel is an alloy. It is forged, and merged under great heat. Heat that will, even if not melt it, will weaken it.

As to the 'molten' metal seen....well, besides the obvious, the fuselage....let's examine just how many different metals are currently in a typical office building.

THINK about it!!! Does your desk have metal legs? Do you have metal knick-knacks to decorate your shelves?

I could go on, but I don't have to, since the point is made. (I've likely missed a few, or about twenty dozen examples, but why belabor the point?)

To summarize: Jet Fuel plus ignition source (hot engine cores) equals fire.

Flammable. combustible furnishings within the building, equals sustained fire.

Combined with kerosene (Jet-A) equals very hot fire.

Fire needs oxygen to propagate....hmmmm....a large jet crashing through the windows would invite a lot of fresh O2.....

Now....a hot fire, raging and largely uncontrollable...causing steel to, not 'MELT', but be substantially weakened....so that the multible floors of the structure above, which has a certain amount of 'weight', due to this annoying thing we call 'gravity', decides to give way....and, thusly, the 'cascade effect'!!!

It is gravity, not some cock-eyed imagination of 'planned' explosives!

Gravity.

For references, please look up Galileo, AND Newton.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
It was Greg Gutfirld's opinion. Other than being on Fox News, Greg's opinion doesn't have anything to do with Fox. And Ann Coulter is not employed by Fox.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
There is very little objectivity in a topic such as this.

All any of us know is that on 11 sep 2001 their was an attack on US soil from some source. The debate is, obviously, on defining and identifying that source.

Structural engineers cant agree nor can building demolitions experts agree on what exactly occured in New York on that date to cause the damage to the trade center area. That is where it stands currently and without arguement:every explanation from either side has a counterpoint.

Also, it needs mentioning that receiving ones information from one source is not objectively different from receiving it from an opposing source. "MSM' is as much Myspace, 'Family guy', Youtube,rap or rock videos or World of Warcraft barrens chat as it is network or cable news outlets.

Also, many(on either side) will say all they want is the truth---when in reality all they want is their own opinions confirmed. Anything else they may very likely reject (and dangerously) EVEN IF OTHER CAUSES OR ACTIONS ARE THE OBJECTIVE REALITY and truth. And such a dogmatic resistance to any opposing viewpoint may in fact be indicative of a mental disorder.


Both sides exhibit this unstable behavior.

Therfore we are left farther from the actual truth than we would have been if a simple panel of experts representing both viewpoints were to study categorically every possible source of data. If ANYTHING should be pushed for, that objective investigation would be my personal choice.

Even though, of course, one side would be proven in error.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by Clark Savage Jr.]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Originally posted by jhill76



"I've heard professionals say that nowhere ever in history did a steel building come down with fire alone," said the Chaplain in an interview with Newsday.


What does that statement have to do with 9/11?

Just curious????

[edit on 6-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


Well let's be honest, some of them do sound nutty and they're also the loudest so people assume everyone thinks this way.

As example:
Alien weapons used to destroy the WTC's.
Holographic planes hit the towers.
etc...

Whether you believe there is a conspiracy or not, you must admit these people are on the fringe and they tend to have the loudest voice so unfortunately, I can understand why FOX might assume everyone is nuts. It doesn't make their conclusion right, I'm just saying I understand where it comes from.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Clark Savage Jr.
 


Clark Savage, good post.

Let's try to extract ourselves for a moment from the angst that surrounds the 9/11 events.

Let's examine Oklahoma City, and the bombing there at the Murrow Building.

April, 1992 (or was it 1993?)

Regardless. Initial attention focused on a possible Islamic Terrorist connection....seems we NOW know that that wasn't the case.

Of course, besides the obvious threats from abroad, we STILL may be under the threat of 'domestic terrorists'....I guess the 'Patriot Act' and the NSA spying program were intended to 'snoop' on this possiblility. BUT, this is NOT what we were sold by the previous Adminstration, that being the 'Bush' Administration.

OK...I riffed....but, here is me, back on point: Are 'truthers' mentally ill??? Of course not!!!!

THAT is not going to provide inclusion in these discussions.

At the risk of repeating myself, IF the brand-new Bush Administration was smart enough to mount a 'false-flag' event such as 9/11, after only about eight months in power, then they must have been the smartest bunch of SOB's ever to rule a government.

Too bad the rest of the seven-plus years didn't prove to be so smart!!!

So....EITHER you think that the Bushies were smart enough to pull off the greatest ploy in Human History, and get away with it....even though they showed NO COMMON SENSE for another seven years.....or you have to realize that there is no conspiracy.

They were NOT THAT SMART!!! They weren't then, they aren't now!!!!



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You left out the earlier bombing attempt at the World Trade Center 1993 or 1994 by Egyptian Islamic Fundamentalists. If they could have planned the earlier bombing of the World Trade Center. It is logical that Islamic Fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia could plan the 9/11 attack on the USA. The earlier bombing could have played a part on the events of 9/11.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by PGTWEED]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Aubryish
 


What was the "unique flaw"?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join