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: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I am not surprised that 9/11 Denier, HothSnake, slithered away when I called his bluff.

He should have been able to point to the statements that "two relatively small Jet fuel fires" caused the collapses of the towers and the towers were "concrete reinforced structures."

But HothSnake cannot do so because no one claimed that.

Such is the nature of the 9/11 Denial Movement.




posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by samhouston1886

Even if you ignore everything that has to do with the alleged CD this still stinks to high heaven, I know you have been here for a long time telling these kids they are crazy.


I am not calling the kids crazy. By "kids" I mean lurkers, fence sitters, and those still open to scrutinizing the framers of this conspiracy.

I mean why do the 9/11-truth framers get a free pass? If information is altered, cherry-picked, old, or just plain left out to fit an agenda, I will mention the parts that they didn't.

Everyone gets in a huff about it, but why? Aren't we better off knowing more? Learning more? Seeing that perhaps the foundation of what they have accepted wasn't the complete picture. But an intentionally skewed one.


I can tell you that they know in their hearts for many different reasons that something is fishy when it comes to 9/11


That very well may be. But to believe an "alternative story" without scrutiny would be just as lazy as believing an "official story" without scrutiny.

Yet it seems that many on here are willing to do just that. They will believe the first bit of 'edgie' propaganda that falls in their lap, and run with it "as truth" without ever scrutinizing the source.


when you tell them that they are wrong, crazy of any of the other cute names you debunkers like to use, they don’t get angry, they get sad because they know that the average American who no longer likes to read and has an attention span of less than 15 minutes will swallow what you say as fact.


I say: provide as many facts as possible, don't pull punches or leave ANYTHING out. Show them critical thinking skills, teach them about rhetorical fallacies, and devices.

And let the "kids" make up their own minds.


You should respect the rights of those who are not satisfied with the lies we have been given but you don’t.


I don't respect lies, being replaced with more lies.

If the information is sound. I have no problem with it. If it is biased, erronious, or framed propaganda... I point it out.



Even if there is only one person left affected by this tragedy they should get the truth regardless of how you feel about it.


I couldn't agree more..the WHOLE TRUTH. Then move on, because there are pressing issues TODAY. We need for everyone to catch-up and get out of 2001.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
We're still waiting for your evidence.


Isn't that usually what we say to shut you up? Why yes, yes it is.

I've said it before and I guess we will just continue to say it: the amount and kinds of evidence you ask for are NOT practical for any of us to provide. That means we don't have access to the physical evidence, structural documentation, money, staff, or much of any other resources, so you are barking up the wrong tree as to figuring out what happened on 9/11.

You have the Kean Commission, and the FEMA and the related NIST reports. It can be demonstrated that those reports doesn't answer all the questions as far as what we DO know happened that day, from eyewitness testimonies and video and photos and all sorts of raw scientific data as to compounds that ate through columns that were never explained, those sorts of things. But nobody is paying us to make a case on it. We only have to show you the one you believe, and that we DID pay for, sucks and doesn't answer a lot of potentially very important questions.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Just to prove that asking for evidence makes YOU shut up, show me where NIST ever proved their hypothesis in their report.

Yes, they produced a hypothesis, but just show me where they ever reproduced the mechanism (trusses and perimeters shearing from the trusses sagging) and proved its possibility. They had already set up trusses, and put big heat generators on them to make them reach a uniform 700 C, why not just make the necessary loading modifications and produce their hypothesis? Where is the proof?

Hoping for page numbers rather than a smart ass run-around explaining why no one has to prove anything.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 



Thank you for your response, it clarified a lot.

I too do not like the lies that have been told by the truth movement but keep in mind that it is not organized and subject to anyone walking in and posting.

I am not pointing the finger yet because I do agree that we need a closer look.

Until then I am on the fence about many things, its expected that delusional people will say things that are not true but when my government does it, I get worried.

The people responsible for this attack ruined my life, health and career; I will never ever let this go.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake
I find it highly unlikely that our government is quite that stupid or imcompitent, especially when you find that the supposed comspirators were meeting with government officials days before the attacks, and were recieving money and other resources from them.


I would appreciate it if you could back up the claim that Atta, Hanjour, etc were meeting with gov't officials "days before the attack, and were receiving money and other resources from them". This is literally the first I've heard this mentioned on either side of the discussion.



I think that it is more of a ruse than anything else, much like a conn game, such as the Nigerian 419 advance fee scam. They pretend to be innocent bumbling idiots, while robbing you blind.


All right, then, please explain "Prohibition" to me. The gov't willingly gave up billions in tax revenue and handed it all over to criminals like Al Capone, and spend millions of dollars it didn't have on enforcing a law which nobody ever obeyed, all to satisfy a handful of religious jerks who thought ax murderers would spontaneously become boy scouts once liquor was taken away. PLUS, becuase by law we can't erase constitutional amendments we had to pass ANOTHER constitutional amendment to repeal it. You might as well have spray painted graffiti on the constitution, for all the good it did.

The reason I'm mentioning this should be obvious- not only can the gov't wind up slipping on banana peels pulling off an actual gov't conspiracy (I.E. Watergate), it can wind up just slipping on banana peels trying to do something good (I.E. Prohibition). The gov't's track record on carrying out complex plots by committee ain't too good.



I hear this argument all of the time, and frankly I find it silly. "Our government is just too incompitent to pull something like this off. They can't even handle Social Security." It's much more likely that you are just an easy mark.


OR, it's really the case that you're naturally an anti-establishment type who'll believe more or less any secret conspiracy, as long as it slanders the gov't somehow. I say this becuase I've yet to meet any "9/11 inside job" conspiracy proponent who didn't subscribe to one or more OTHER anti-gov't conspiracies (I.E. The CIA assassinated JFK, FDR had foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, AIDS was invented by the US to kill off all the back people in Africa, or what have you). Am I mistaken in your case?

If not, then it seems to me that the question why the media "demonizes the truther movement" has already been answered.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just to prove that asking for evidence makes YOU shut up, show me where NIST ever proved their hypothesis in their report.

Yes, they produced a hypothesis, but just show me where they ever reproduced the mechanism (trusses and perimeters shearing from the trusses sagging) and proved its possibility. They had already set up trusses, and put big heat generators on them to make them reach a uniform 700 C, why not just make the necessary loading modifications and produce their hypothesis? Where is the proof?


This is a rather unreasonable statement. Where is the proof that anyone can actually sneak into an occupied building and plant hidden controlled demolitions without being discovered? It's obvious that NIST can't replicate destroying a full sized skyscraper, but you should be able to replicate sneaking into an occupied building and tryign to plant markers on all the support girders.

It seems to be you're willfully abandoning a plausible explanation in order to support an implausible one, which smacks of an ulterior agenda being at work, here.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

bsbray, your post asking for proof proves that it's proof you are not familiar with NIST's proof proving the proof that proven inward bowing of columns led to the proof of global collapse. You've proven to me, through the proof of your post, that you are provably not aware of NIST's proof proving global collapse inevitable through the proof of the provable method of provable trial and provable error based on the proof of provable photos. I will prove my point by posting provable facts based on the proof thru which NIST's proof of trial and error proves the proof that global collapse was provably inevitable, and I will provide proof in the form of provable page numbers which any member here can provably verify by proof of the pagination in quoted document.

Forthwith with the proof:

NCSTAR 1-6D pg 101/480

"The magnitude and location of pull-in forces were selected by trial and error to produce a computed bowing of the exterior walls that matched that observed in the photographic and video evidence, as discussed in Chapter 3."

NCSTAR 1-6D Pg 104/480
"The magnitude of the pull-in force was determined, by trial and error, by matching the observed bowing magnitude as discussed in Section 3.2.1."

NCSTAR 1-6D Pg 161/480
"To model the effect of pull-in forces on inward bowing of the columns, trial values of pull-in forces were applied to the exterior columns of the south wall over five floors from Floor 95 to Floor 99 where bowing was observed."

NCSTAR 1-6D Pg 161/480
"The magnitudes of the pull-in forces were determined by trial and error, matching the observed inward bowing of exterior walls for Case B temperature condition."

Now this proof did prove one thing, that the proof thru the provable method of trial and error proved that more proof would be needed:

NCSTAR 1-6D Pg 161/480
"The maximum bowing of 31.3 in. was smaller than the observed maximum bowing of 55 in. The wall remained stable at 100 min."

So what proof would we need to prove the proof that global collapse was provably inevitable? Why we'll throw in the proof of creep upon the proof of the provable method of trial and error to thus prove the provably inevitable collapse of both towers. Now I am still working on the proof of creep along with the philosophical proof of the provable trial and error proof, but I think it can be proven that its provably safe to say that the aforementioned proof of trial and error along with the proof of creep undoubtedly proves beyond a doubt that the proof is in the pudding that the, as you wanted proof of, the "trusses and perimeters shearing from the trusses sagging" did provably happen and that this proves beyond proof that global collapse provably ensued.

Now the fact of the proof of trial and error may be unpalatable to some, but please remember that I provided 60 "proof"s (including variations) in this post... make that 61 "proof"s...wait that makes 62...

Anyway, just how many "proof"s do you want???? (that makes 63)



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I'll be bok, don't you worry.. I just don't have time for it right now, but in the mean time you can make it past page three of the thread that I mentioned earlier and then educate yourselves. The professional engineer on there may teach you a few things.

But still yet, no answer to my question earlier. Can you do it without quoting a government source?



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


So on which page do they describe the lab test where they actually recreate the loading and deflection conditions and get the truss to physically break away from the perimeter? That's what I was asking for, reread my post if you don't understand that.

They did not prove their hypothesis. They made up a lot of data, played with a lot of different variables until they got computer simulations and etc. that made it LOOK like what they were saying was plausible. But then they didn't demonstrate the phenomena they hypothesized. If you think you can't whitewash a report, especially a technical report, after doing so many weasel things under the excuse that your theory won't work otherwise, you are extremely naive.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

bsbray, I agree with you completely, but I think you missed the point of my ridiculous, tongue-in-cheek post which went along the lines of "If NIST says it's so, it must be so." My sarcasm was meant to point out that I don't even think that their own models show that the exterior columns would have been pulled in as much as they supposedly did, let alone shearing anything. That term "trial and error" really eats at me when I read it over and over again.

I think my post shows exactly where, as you put it, "they made up a lot of data." Their full floor analysis did not "accurately simulate" the "locations and magnitudes of pull-in forces". Their isolated wall models "did not capture the actual bowing." So it seems to me they just punched in numbers into their global model to get the results they wanted. So the question is: why do lab tests if even their own models could not show the "locations and magnitudes of pull-in forces"? I think every honest person knows the answer.

But anyway, sorry for the misleading post. I was in a cocky mood trying to avoid work this afternoon. But now the work day's over and I"m just tired and need not avoid a stiff drink.

edited: spelling, grammar, etc.


[edit on 31-7-2009 by NIcon]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

So the question is: why do lab tests if even their own models could not show the "locations and magnitudes of pull-in forces"? I think every honest person knows the answer.



Hilarious that he didn't get your joke......

Anyways, the lab test was done to see if the fire proofing, as it was applied to the trusses, would perform as they expected.

It wasn't done to measure pull in forces. The pull in forces were measured from the photos.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


I don't think anyone can do any better than that, which is why I didn't catch your sarcasm... Oops. I guess you just have to remember some of the people I am used to responding to... Not all but some.




Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This is a rather unreasonable statement. Where is the proof that anyone can actually sneak into an occupied building and plant hidden controlled demolitions without being discovered?


Not every space in the building was occupied at every point in time. "Sneaking" implies that you have determined that whoever put whatever wherever, did it behind the PA security's back. I haven't determined as much. I'm not saying everyone knew everything, I'm just saying there are reasonable scenarios for doing things under the guise of doing something else. None of this is proven but all of it is still on the table, as long as there are as many unresolved issues related to all number of things as there are.


It's obvious that NIST can't replicate destroying a full sized skyscraper


And no one said they had to.

Just one truss connection, to the perimeter. They already had a physical replica built and used it for other tests. Never demonstrated it.


but you should be able to replicate sneaking into an occupied building and tryign to plant markers on all the support girders.


So you're saying you would break the law and make yourself a domestic terrorist to try to validate this theory yourself? Or maybe you can just get a team of people up for that in no time?

[edit on 1-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
I need to distance myself from these people:



(click to open player in new window)


Sorry, I've been very busy with a new born and all, so I haven't been able to respond to much of the stupidity within the so-called debunkers movement, which would better be labeled "disinfo 101".

I already answered your qutestion Tomboy... The buildings were made of steel and concrete. What more do you need to know?

Again, can any of you debunkers answer my question? How did some relatively small kerosine fires cause global failure throughout three steel structures, in the same place, on the same day, for the first time in the history of architecture?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   


The above interview is a perfect example of the disnifo agents that run our news media on behalf of the government.

I think that the most hilarious example of the pathetic debunkers movement is the interview on PBS of Larry Silverstein, clearly stating that he told them to "pull it", and then in the very next phrase, "we watched the building collapse." After this startling admission, they later tried to cover it up with the stupidity that he was referring to firefighters.


Are you kidding me? People actually buy this crap? And moronic disinfo agents actually try to sell it?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Prohibition was a government created racket Dave. Some powerful people on the inside made a killing off of it, just like certain individuals within out government are making a lot of money off of the drug trade. Tax revenue? Tax revenue is irrelavent within a fiat money system. The government owns the presses and can thus print as much money as it wants or needs. Taxes are merely a control measure against the people. It helps keep the classes seperated and it delays the inevitable inflation. Like FDR said, "nothing in politics happens by accident." If you think that the rich and powerful play dice with their power and influence, then you're a fool. They pretend to be bumbling idiots, just like our favorite Nigerian 419 advance fee fraudster.



OR, it's really the case that you're naturally an anti-establishment type who'll believe more or less any secret conspiracy, as long as it slanders the gov't somehow. I say this becuase I've yet to meet any "9/11 inside job" conspiracy proponent who didn't subscribe to one or more OTHER anti-gov't conspiracies (I.E. The CIA assassinated JFK, FDR had foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, AIDS was invented by the US to kill off all the back people in Africa, or what have you). Am I mistaken in your case?

If not, then it seems to me that the question why the media "demonizes the truther movement" has already been answered.


And you'd be one of those crazy German loons from the 1930's that thought that the Nazis were just a bunch of willd and crazy guys.
After the October Surprise in the 1980 election, Iran Contra, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the JFK assassination, Korea, Vietnam, the War on Drugs, the 80's S&L scandal, 9-11, etc., etc., etc., you'd have to be an idiot to believe anything that the government tells you. Hell Dave, pick up a history book for a change. Hell, do a cursory google search on anything for that matter. Drink something besides the Koolaid.
Once you expose the government what it is, a bunch of lying, murdering thieves, then its kinda hard to go back. It all seems to make some sense then. Wow! Our government isn't quite as retarded as they pretend. They're actually quite brilliant in that they are playing us all for fools like Dave.

In actuallity Dave, I started out as a debunker. I was a hardcore Republican that voted for Bush in 2004. I bought the official story and all of the government Koolaid, and even got on other forums (not this one) and called truthers crazy loons that hated Bush. What changed my mind? I started to actually look at the evidence, instead of just dismissing it out-of-hand. Once I had done some research into the matter, which consisted almostly soley apon alternative news sources, it was obvious that something didn't jive with the OS. The MSM was clearly covering something up. From there I experienced an awakening of sorts, and several other things began to fall into place for me. I no longer accepte the government propaganda on just about anything.



I would appreciate it if you could back up the claim that Atta, Hanjour, etc were meeting with gov't officials "days before the attack, and were receiving money and other resources from them". This is literally the first I've heard this mentioned on either side of the discussion.


American and British Intelligence had their grubby hands all over it.
Link to article



[edit on 5-8-2009 by HothSnake]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake

Again, can any of you debunkers answer my question? How did some relatively small kerosine fires cause global failure throughout three steel structures, in the same place, on the same day, for the first time in the history of architecture?


A week has gone by and you are still not able to answer any questions about your claims.

You should have been able to point to the statements that "two relatively small Jet fuel fires" caused the collapses of the towers and the towers were "concrete reinforced structures."

But you ran away whining instead. Just like every 9/11 Denier does.




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
But you ran away whining instead.


Having been here as long as you have, not only are you still "arguing" with us, you still have to use hyperbole as a crutch like this. Running away whining, yes, that is exactly what posting messages on the internet must be like.

I don't know whether the post that was removed by moderators was directed to me or not, but it still stands that the public doesn't have to prove anything, the government is the body that performed the investigation and is liable for whatever was or was not found during that investigation. I have been asking for proof of certain things too, if you have been reading, but you can't answer.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
JT, you're grasping for straws buddy.
Does it really matter that I paraphrase the idiot debunkers movement? What's your point exactly? Are you going to answer my question, which I asked you first, or are you going to continue your assinine childrens games? Really? Is this what the debunkers movement has come to? Calling people names, providing zero evidence to back up doing so, while pretending that you're better than everyone else because you have all of the money and the power? The debunkers movement has gone beyond pathetic.

FEMA, NIST, and MIT all contradict each other, while explaining nothing that happened on that day. Are these government funded sources all that you have? How can you claim to know what happened on that day, when your own government seems so confused on the matter, or at least has significant difficulty covering it up?




top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join