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.

 

Demonization of the Truther's Movement by the Lapdog News Media

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Unfortunately, your not the consumer either. The consumer is the American public. They were never even introduced to the product, because the corporate retailer (i.e. the government and the MSM) never wanted to sell the product because if they did it would show they have been swindling their customers (i.e. the American public) for many years.




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake
reply to post by jthomas
 



Pay attention. 9/11 Truth IS ridiculous. You get what you earned. Moon-landing deniers, round-earth deniers, Creationists, and Holocaust Deniers are ALL ridiculed for the same reason as 9/11 Deniers.


This statement is ridiculous..
Typical ad hom logical fallacy BS, as one pertinent poster to this thread put it. Again, where is your evidence, or is this all that you have? Trying to lump all truthers in with Holocaust deniers, etc... You should be ashamed of your Nazi tactics. Your tactics debunk yourself, for usually it is the name callers that have no case and have to resort to such cheap and lame tactics.


Truthers always get angry when they have to face the fact that denial is denial is denial, no matter what the subject matter is. You all get upset when other forms of denial are mentioned - like Holocaust denial - and immediately protest that "you are getting lumped with Holocaust Deniers" and "we don't deny the Holocaust, you Nazis!!"

Which only means you can't grasp the subject matter is "denial" and not the Holocaust.

This isn't rocket science. There is virtually NO difference in the tactics, methodology, denial of inconvenient evidence, and repetition of debunked claims between YOUR 9/11 Denial and any other form of denial. The characteristics are all the same - and predictable. WE know what you are going to say about a particular new piece of information concerning the 9/11 attacks before you say it - when it contradicts your perceived beliefs. And all new information DOES contradict your beliefs and claims.

Rather than accept the evidence and proof, however, you will chalk it up to a "deliberate attempt to shore up the conspiracy", thus assuring you will never escape your own self-delusions, but giving you "new reason for hope that you have been right all along!" And as long as you don't get a "new" investigation, you can keep your "hope" and beliefs alive.

We can be sure that a true 9/11 Truther will never admit he or she is wrong no matter what the evidence to the contrary is.

We have your rants as the example, HothSnake.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake
reply to post by jthomas
 


And yet still you are unable to show where I am wrong.


I am quite capable. But why should I waste my time when it is already on record that you have been firmly debunked and you refuse to acknowledge it? Or when you indicate you are clueless about the subject matter?

How can you still claim that anyone EVER claimed that "two relatively small Jet fuel fires" caused the collapses of the towers?

Or that the towers were "concrete reinforced structures?"

You can't because there is no source for that which is not true.

Dream on, HothSnake, dream on.




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
"3. Government and media employ the ridicule tactic."

By reading some of these posts, they're not the only ones. When someone attacks you because you're not a good little consumer and buy the crap they're selling, more often than not the attacker has an agenda.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Actually with the CNN poll pointing to 84% of the American public in agreement with Charlie Sheen that there is a government cover up of the 9/11 events, that would in essence make the debunkers the actual tin foil hat wearing, denial based minority, and not the other way around.

If you would like me to add the link of the poll to drive the nail into the coffin for you just ask me and i will, but I'm trying to spare the tin foil hat wearing debunkers a little bit.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by prepare4it777]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by prepare4it777


Unfortunately, your not the consumer either. The consumer is the American public. They were never even introduced to the product, because the corporate retailer (i.e. the government and the MSM) never wanted to sell the product because if they did it would show they have been swindling their customers (i.e. the American public) for many years.


Well just what the heck have you all been doing the last EIGHT years then?

Are you conceeding total failure and begging for a Government/ Media Bail-out?

Look, it takes a certain kind of person to fall for these theories.

I get it-- you folks need more customers to keep the cottage industry afloat.. but sometimes a product never gets accepted by the public.

Not many want to live in 2001.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Your failure to respond to the reasoning why the majority of the public is your complete failure in that post. Thanks for doing our work for us.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 





I am quite capable. But why should I waste my time when it is already on record that you have been firmly debunked and you refuse to acknowledge it? Or when you indicate you are clueless about the subject matter?


Did you even make it past the first page? I knew that you would read the first page of ten and then claim that the debunkers won, but seeing that you are illiterate, then we are all just waisting our time here. They debunked nothing.. They did what you are doing here and called names, while providing nothing but pseudo science delivered up by the government. Clearly, you nor your counterpart are capable of anything but ad hom logical fallacy.

Oh yeah, that was what the NIST report and the MIT report both claimed. Damage from two Aluminum aircraft at very limited capacity would have barely poked a hole in the screen steel mesh that made up the outside of the Twin Towers, not to mention the giant steel cores. Not to mention that both buildings were built to withstand multiple airplane strikes. That's from the architect's mouth. As for concrete reinforced steel structures, are you kidding me? My God, you people are dense!
It's a flippin skyscraper with steel and concrete? What's so hard to understand here?

Again, can you answer the question above? None of have, nor can. Can you do anything other than name call? Seriously, it is getting really pathetic on your end..
Please tell me that after all these years the debunkers movement has more than this?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by HothSnake
 


Maybe you should take your experience in physics to the 9/11 forum on randi.org and report your findings.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Answer a simple question Tom... If you can't then you simply need to shut up and move, cause we simply don't have time for child's games.. Here we go for the hundredth time:

How did two giant skyscrapers made of construction-grade steel and concrete, designed with a steel mesh tubelike structure and giant steel cores, experience complete catostrophic failure througout the entire structure, nearly simultaneously, free falling at nearly the speed of gravity, through the path of most resistence, due to some relatively small kerosine fires on the same day, in the same place, for the first time in the history of the world? You can say that the planes caused some localized damage and maybe some localized failure at the points of impact, and on the floors that were impacted, but you cannot blame the complete catastrophic failure of both structures, nearly simultaneously on the planes and the subsequent kerosine fires. It just doesn't add up. So answer the damn question: don't present ad homs, strawmen, or circular arguments. Just answer the question. Can you do it without quoting some ridiculously contrived government source, or for that matter government funded source?

[edit on 29-7-2009 by HothSnake]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I never took past highschool physics, but I have cut down a tree, and I can say that the top falls to the *side* when chopped, and doesnt pulverize its way directly through the trunk and explode into a million woodchips.


And a falling branch from said tree *definitely* never caused a nearby tree (one I hadnt even hit with my axe) to also be symetrically obliterated!

*shrug*

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Neo_Serf]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
I never took past highschool physics, but I have cut down a tree, and I can say that the top falls to the *side* when chopped, and doesnt pulverize its way directly through the trunk and explode into a million woodchips.


Exactly, it doesn't take a physics professor.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
I never took past highschool physics, but I have cut down a tree, and I can say that the top falls to the *side* when chopped, and doesnt pulverize its way directly through the trunk and explode into a million woodchips.


And a falling branch from said tree *definitely* never caused a nearby tree (one I hadnt even hit with my axe) to also be symetrically obliterated!

*shrug*


It's pretty self-evident that you didn't take high school physics because then you'd understand the difference between an office building and a tree. Do you really not understand why your analogy isn't even close to being sensible?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by HothSnake
 


Hothsnake,

You really need to take your show over to randi.org to try your argument out. The logic is astounding.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


Well fellow truthers I'm sorry I have to break it to everyone but it seems we have all been wrong all along. I just read a report stating that Kerosine furnaces all over the earth just learned the fire can melt steel, and at lower temperatures then they are sustaining at this point in time. So as a means of boycott furnaces all over the earth have started to melt and say "it only makes sense cuz the fires hot". Looks like we all stand debunked.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by prepare4it777
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


Well fellow truthers I'm sorry I have to break it to everyone but it seems we have all been wrong all along. I just read a report stating that Kerosine furnaces all over the earth just learned the fire can melt steel, and at lower temperatures then they are sustaining at this point in time. So as a means of boycott furnaces all over the earth have started to melt and say "it only makes sense cuz the fires hot". Looks like we all stand debunked.


I take it you have never seen a kitchen fire.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Not that liquified steel no.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


Now my memory is hazy but i seem to remember a lecture on `path of least resistance.` And the trunk of a tree, just as the core of a skyscraper, is *not* it.

That combined with the hundreds of other inconsistancies in relation to the OS, combined with the history of flag flag attacks, which are as old as empire, forms in my simple mind into one giant WTF. I`ll go with the 1000 architects and engineers that have a little common sense and a lot of courage on this one. You go ahead and take the path of least resistance.

I`m confident that you `debunkers` are on the wrong side of history, and humanity, and that wont be an envious position to be in when the truth comes out. If youre not on the pentagon payroll you should sign up, might aswell get paid for selling your soul.

Get bent.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by prepare4it777
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Not that liquified steel no.



What about bent, and destroyed steel. Rendered it a total loss.

And to think folks were cooking with fire all day and it never seemed to bother it. Do you think it might have something to do with the size of the fire? Perhaps the lack of control of where the fire goes?



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Ohhhh ok I understand. You mean out of control fires like the Windsor Tower that burned a heck of a heck of a heck of a lot longer (18 to 20 times longer then the wtc and at proven hotter temperatures and left the entire steal structure still standing?

www.youtube.com...

Right. Next please:lol


[edit on 30-7-2009 by prepare4it777]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join