"Truther" and "Anti-Truther"

Since "truther" is an acceptable demonism here to broadly paint someone who questions the events of 9/11, I propose that instead of calling the government loyalists here "debunker", we start calling these people "Anti-Truthers".

Since most are not here to actually discuss anything but to demonize "truthers", then they are the exact definition of "Anti-Truther" and not "debunker".

I think the opposite of truther would be liar. I am just saying you know. Who ever would have thought that seeking truth would be something bad?

I must say though that the hologram theory and the mini nuclear bomb theory are just disinformation government style to make truthers look ridiculous.

Originally posted by Nutter
Since "truther" is an acceptable demonism here to broadly paint someone who questions the events of 9/11, I propose that instead of calling the government loyalists here "debunker", we start calling these people "Anti-Truthers".

Since most are not here to actually discuss anything but to demonize "truthers", then they are the exact definition of "Anti-Truther" and not "debunker".

The term, "Truther" is one that you conspiracy theorists have coined to describe yourselves to get away from the more accurate term, "conspiracy theorist". You have not shown any actions that show you to be particularly interested in learning the truth of anything. Rather, you seem more interested in why everything that contradicts what you want to believe is really a lie I.E. is itself part of the conspiracy.

Thus, the REAL terms that should be used are "researchers", which include people on both sides of the debate who genuinely try to do research on the events of 9/11, and "conspiracy theorists", who have an agenda to push out their conspiracies regardless of whether there really are any conspiracies or not. The difference is that I, being a researcher, am posting information that shows these conspiracy theories are rubbish, while conspiracy researchers and conspiracy theorists are all but get into fistfights amongst themselves over what this "secret conspiracy behind 9/11" actually is.

I'm not holding my breath you're ever going to go that route, though.

Someone just said it best on another thread, the difference is as follows, "
The difference between a cat and a dog: if you throw a rock at a dog,
it looks at the rock, if you throw it at a cat, the cat looks at you. "

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I'm not holding my breath you're ever going to go that route, though.

As soon as I start seeing you do the same in kind, I will gladly return the favor.

But, as I constantly observe YOU GoodOlDave using the term "truther" instead of "researcher", I really have to just come out and say it.

Hypocrite.

Originally posted by Nutter

As soon as I start seeing you do the same in kind, I will gladly return the favor.

But, as I constantly observe YOU GoodOlDave using the term "truther" instead of "researcher", I really have to just come out and say it.

Hypocrite.

How am I a hypocrite? I fully admit I use the term "truther" becuase your side recognizes it as a label that refers to you. If I referred to you as "rubber baby buggy bumpers" you'd be scratching your heads wondering, "what the heck...?" That doesn't mean I recognize your side as people who are knowledgable about the truth.

From my posts, you should also know I do NOT recognize your side as outright liars either, but rather, people who don't realize the rubbish they're getting off those damned fool web sites is rubbish. Some people have some inner emotional need to wallow in abject paranoia, while others simply haven't been given the full story. It's the latter who I'd refer to as, "researchers" who really are interested in learning the facts of the 9/11 attack, and are the people I'm trying to reach out to. Mainly, becuase once they start to review these conspiracy stories with the same stringent level of critical analysis as they do the official account, they won't be conspiracy theorists for very long.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Come on, you think people are going to listen to you, when all you do is ridicule and insult the Truth and people who are trying to present the real facts. You must be looking for mindless ignorant, sheep to fool them that the OS is true. Good luck, trying to persuade any new comers yet.

I agree with the OP that people who troll in these 911 forums to just incite and disrupted intelligent discussions and to steer posters away should be called “Anti-Truther.”

I have yet in eight years seen one of you debunkers prove the OS true, not one.

Most posters that believe the OS is “all true ” and have been on ATS for a long time have proven themselves to be against the truth, and posters who present hard-core facts.
Most of them spend their time attacking the Truther and not the topic. However, when the topic is proven true their responses are mostly to insult the messenger? This is a fact, and I will defend it with proof,

We see it in here every day, don’t we.

Since we are in an information war and there are those who will stop at nothing to see the truth suppressed. To me, that is an “Anti-Truther.”




[edit on 9-12-2009 by impressme]

you are one of those .....who will wake up one morning......listen to the news....and say to yourself....oh # what do I now......

Hey Nutter,

I don't know where I fit in then, I believe some of the OS but there are many parts I find hard to comprehend. I find it enjoyable chatting with folks here in an intelligent and mature manner but those who act as sandpaper when their perception is questioned just really annoys me to the point that I'll drop out of a thread when that is going on. I propose this to you:

* Those who believe the OS - Officials

* Those who question/don't believe the OS - Professionals

These two names do not demean anyone because I think its important not to demonize anyone on either side of this issue. Just my opinion for whats its worth.

Originally posted by impressme

I have yet in eight years seen one of you debunkers prove the OS true, not one.

and exactlythe same as the "truthers" have not been able to debunk the os.

Actually, the term "truthers" can be considered sarcasm, as the truth is the last thing that most of them are interested in!

reply to post by impressme



Impressme,

In the big scheme of things, don't it just boil down to what one is willing to believe based on what is presented to them along with how one is raised to accept or question the "official story" regardless of what the official story is about?

My poor spelling

[edit on 10-12-2009 by mikelee]

reply to post by huntergatherer

you are one of those .....who will wake up one morning......listen to the news....and say to yourself....oh # what do I now......

LOL the problem you have with your quote to me is, I don’t watch the News it is nothing more than entertainment and is a equivalent as the National Enquire.

reply to post by dereks

I have yet in eight years seen one of you debunkers prove the OS true, not one.

and exactlythe same as the "truthers" have not been able to debunk the os.

You cannot debunk a lie.

Actually, the term "truthers" can be considered sarcasm, as the truth is the last thing that most of them are interested in!

If a person is not interested in searching for the truth and defending the truth, then that person is not a Truther don’t you agree.

(The term "truthers" can be considered sarcasm,) only by people who are anti –Truthers that is a fact.
Why would a real Truthers ridicule one’s self?

reply to post by mikelee

In the big scheme of things, don't it just boil down to what one is willing to believe based on what is presented to them along with how one is raised to accept or question the "official story" regardless of what the official story is about?

Mostly true, sometimes one must be able to step outside the boundaries to discover the truth. If people do not keep an open mind on everything, then one is subject to becoming ignorant.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The term, "Truther" is one that you conspiracy theorists have coined to describe yourselves to get away from the more accurate term, "conspiracy theorist".

Then why are we the ones complaining about it?

I personally started my own thread telling you all I do NOT consider myself a "truther" and the only people using the term are people using it to -- yes -- lump us all together so they can trash talk 1000s of different people with 1000s of different ideas all at once.

I've said it before and will keep saying it -- it's the intellectual equivalent of racism. Because it is. You are taking literally 1000s of people with many different ideas, often totally contradictory from one another, and saying they're all the same and all "truthers" and that's what we all are here and we're all the same and say the same exact things.

We are all here to express our personal opinions. There are things each of us would agree on and things each of us could totally disagree on individually, no exceptions, and lumping us all together is asinine. No matter who started it, even using the term is asinine. Especially when you're directing it at people who DIDN'T come up with it, and don't care for it.