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.

 

The Media And The 9/11 Truth Movement

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I just watched this video, and it just keeps pointing out the barrage of attacks from the media toward people who question the government's official story of 9/11.

Here it is:





posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
its kind of odd, we are supposed to question everything, yet when people ask questions regarding 9/11 they get stone walled, callled a nutbar, and basically get insulted for not seeing eye to eye with the OS.

we even have it here, on these forums, where one person can question an aspect of the 9/11 OS, and completely get ridiculed with no real evidence, or none at all. constant character attacks, as well as belittling comments.

What do you think? am i wrong for seeing it this way, or is it because i don't believe in the official fairy tale?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
What do you think? am i wrong for seeing it this way, or is it because i don't believe in the official fairy tale?


I'd have thought it would be obvious- the movement attracts all sorts of whackos to it like moths to a flame, and becuase of that, I don't think you culd ever get two conspiracy theorists together who'd subscribe to the exact same scenario. This person things it's controlled demolitions, that person thinks it's lasers from outer space, the guy standing next to him thinks there were nukes in the basement, and the guy way back in the corner believes the planes were all holograms. You can't even agree amongst yourselves who was behind it- was it the Bush? Was it the military indistrial complex? Was it the Jewish World Order? Was it the Masons? Not even yesterday someone posted here that Enron was behind the attack and it was a plot to destroy their SEC filings in WTC7. How the heck do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you're all but getting into fistfights amongst yourselves over what the "Secret conspiracy" actually is?

You know me and you know I don't subscribe to your conspiracy stories, but jeez, even I am starting to feel bad about how your truther movement is deteriorating into a three ring circus. You need to a) get yourselves organized b) flesh out ONE scenario and stick with it c) weed out the crazies. That conspiracy show with Jesse Ventura was an interesting start, though that guy ain't the best selection for an official spokesman. What happened to Charlie Sheen?

Oh, and I was looking at Youtube as I was writing this. Some guy named HubsNetwork is posting videos supposedly showing UFOs flying near the WTC. Can I presume that's NOT what you meant what you said, "question everything"?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


this is a prime example of belittling comments, with no sources, just a vendetta against a group of people who don't see things as you see.

Dave, there are no words for your overzealous comparisons. so im guessing if there is one coo-coo in the room, all of them are?

what a great way of using deductive reasoning, give this guy a medal!

Dave, not once, ever in this forum, have you ever considered that you might be wrong?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


this is a prime example of belittling comments, with no sources, just a vendetta against a group of people who don't see things as you see.


Huh??? You really want me to post a source proving that there are crazies in your ranks? Be careful of what you ask for, friend. Here's the link to the guy posting videos claiming UFOs were flying by the WTC-

UFOS during 9/11

You can't even accuse him of being some secret disinfo agent becuase he's a member of the Veterans for 9/11 truth. Good grief, it's as if you don't care that your movement is being turned into a laughing stock by characters like this.


Dave, there are no words for your overzealous comparisons. so im guessing if there is one coo-coo in the room, all of them are?


Until everyone else in the room takes a stand to distance themselves from the coo-coos, then yes, they will be perceived by others as coo-coos by association. Ignore this at your own cost.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Dave, not once, ever in this forum, have you ever considered that you might be wrong?


To tell you the truth Ugie... he is typically spot on. You make this thread crying about the media. Why should they take you seriously? You and your buddies hang out in Jersey spouting off ridiculous garbage on street corners. THEN your buddy accuses the Secret Service of calling his cell phone.

Really? Put up some serious evidence...perhaps someone will they pay attention. The thing is; it's been 8 years and none of you got anything.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
To tell you the truth Ugie... he is typically spot on. You make this thread crying about the media. Why should they take you seriously? You and your buddies hang out in Jersey spouting off ridiculous garbage on street corners. THEN your buddy accuses the Secret Service of calling his cell phone.


LOL yep. This Ugie guy asks why his side is having so much difficulty getting their message out, and when I specifically tell him it's becuase there are too many crazies within their ranks making everyone else look bad, instead of accepting it as constructive criticism he whines "why are you insulting me"? Good grief, you might as well be talkign to a woman asking you, "does this dress make me look fat?'

Let's face it, these 9/11 truther movement is conducting probably the worst grass roots campaign I've ever seen. Instead of trying to mobilize themselves and present themselves as a serious organization they go out of their way to sabotage themselves. They embrace every goofball that comes down the street yelling LASERS FROM OUTER SPACE and whenever someone comes along and questions them, instead of responding in a professional manner they scream GOV'T SHILL or YOU'RE ALL SHEEP. They're so flipping disorganized they don't even have an actual leader, and I think Richard Gage is the only one among them who actually wears a tie.

Thus, the REAL reason why the truther movement isn't getting anywhere. They have a hell of a lot of growing up to do.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Speaking of media, and the "Truth Movement"...seems that none of these other braying sites, like 'XXXXforTruth.org" (just fill in the Xs with party of your choice) ever get much attention either, no matter how hard they stomp and pout.

And, it's no wonder when they seem shady to begin with.

Why, just the other day I thought of (gasp!) opening an account at "PilotsforTruth" because I'd lurked occasionally, and after seeing all the brouhaha here, what with certain ATS members who also post there dropping in occasionally, I was just finally so fed up I thought I had to say something over there...I have a LOT to say...

Anyway, seems because I have an e-mail account using Google Mail ('gmail') it is deemed...how did their site put it??? Can't remember, but something about not accepting from that e-mail provider.



Well, no great loss. Better not to have another thing for them to crow about, IE "Membership increasing through the roof!!" or some such....

Like one more is that magic straw.

I would venture a guess that, when any reputable media organization stumbles upon many of these Forum sites (other than ATS, of course), they can see as well as the rest of us what a joke they are.

(And, I am STILL peeved that someone on the Pilots' site is using MY nickname!!!)



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Hi All, as you can see I am new here at ATS....but don't get that confused with new at the CT game. I have been an researching CT's for over 25+ years.
I understand all sides to 911, heard most of them, though the UFO one is news to me. The only thing I can't accept is the OS/Report. Too many disturbing topics/facts/witnesses left out or basically ignored. Not to mention the fact that several commissioners have come forward and spoke out.
Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming any right or wrong stance here, only preaching from the I Don't Know Pulpit. The wacky, as you put it, claims the so called truthers (why make labels for people, thought we grew out of that burnout, jock or nerd thing after High School) make, at least they are asking questions. But, as you have demonstrated, your all about what the OS is and never question it at all.
When I see something that doesn't fit, I am inclined to hunt for an answer. And there are so many pieces to the OS puzzle that just plain don't fit. Why can't we all team up and really do some real science....both sides draw on eachother and see what can be accomplished.
It sure would make more sense and be more productive then the ranting and child-like name calling that I have witnessed to date.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
And, it's no wonder when they seem shady to begin with.

Why, just the other day I thought of (gasp!) opening an account at "PilotsforTruth" because I'd lurked occasionally, and after seeing all the brouhaha here, what with certain ATS members who also post there dropping in occasionally, I was just finally so fed up I thought I had to say something over there...I have a LOT to say...


If you DO open an account there, can you do me a favor? They're the ones who started saying flight 77 flew a "complex 270 degree maneuver that even seasoned pilots find it hard to do", which every damned fool conspiracy web site is repeating like a broken record to drop their conspiracy innuendo. I looked into this, and it turns out this is just a fancy way of saying, "they flew in an almost complete circle".

I'm not a pilot so I can't say, but I'd have thought that "flying in an almost complete circle" would be the second thing that student pilots were taught, right after "flying in a straight line". Please ask them why flying in an almost complete circle is so complex that "even seasoned pilots find hard to do". I will wager you won't even get *one* response. I know I've never gotten a response here.

"These conspiracy theorists appearing shady to begin with " is damned right.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Excuse me, but I am new here and just can't for the life of me figure out why someone so angry and against all who thinks outside of the box as you, would even bother being associated with a forum like ATS?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 



There is some interesting reading below about the US Government and the Corporate media from Richard Dolan's (excellent) book 'UFOs and the National Security State'.

The context is the UFO subject yet I think its relevant to your thread:



In addition ,the history of the U.S. media shows unsettling developments,not least of which is penetration by the intelligence community.
By the early 1950s,the CIA had cosy relationships with most major media executives in America.
The most significant of these were with the New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, New York Herald Tribune, Saturday Evening Post, Miami Herald, Time-Life, CBS News, Scripps-Howard Newspapers, Hearst Newspapers, The Associated Press, United Press International, The Mutual Broadcasting System and Reuters.
In addition ,the CIA had major ownership over many proprietary publications throughtout Europe,Asia and the Americas.
By the early 1970s the agency admitted to having working relationships with over four hundred American journalists.
Consider the possiblities with four hundred strategically placed people throughout the mainstream media.
There is evidence that this relationship continues.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Cheers.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by hellfrozeover
 


Just place him on ignore. He wont listen to you anyway. he reacts emotionally, his arguments only support the OS, and anything against it, he will just ridicule you, Mame you, and outright insult you. he enjoys this, why? I do not know, and quite frankly, i dont care anymore. (just letting you know since your new.)

My OP explains why. its brainwashing by the MSM, stating whats true and what isnt, (AND THE PUBLIC BUYS IT!) but as for the official story goes, its a half arsed lie. too many witnesses' stories that conflict the OS. anyone with half a brain could see through these web of lies.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellfrozeover
When I see something that doesn't fit, I am inclined to hunt for an answer. And there are so many pieces to the OS puzzle that just plain don't fit. Why can't we all team up and really do some real science....both sides draw on eachother and see what can be accomplished.
It sure would make more sense and be more productive then the ranting and child-like name calling that I have witnessed to date.


A wonderful suggestion...but what you don't realize is that many 9/11 conspiracy theorists are NOT interested in research or real science. They're out to fulfill a pre-existing agenda that there has to be a gov't conspiracy first, and then perform scientific research to "prove" their pet conspiracy claims whatever they are, and they are always determined to find it regardless of how much they have to stretch science to do it.

Here's a sterling example- Dr. Judy Wood has conducted extensive researtch to "prove" the towers were destroyed by lasers from outer space. Note that she is NOT some raving lunatic living beneath a bridge. She has a doctorate in physics.

Star Wars energy beam destroyed the WTC

I have always maintained that one should hold an equal degree of critical analysis on both sides of the debate, as it's falsehoods, not the truth, that ever needs to fear critique. I don't think I have to explain how researchers like Dr. Wood fails miserably in that regard, regardless of how scientific her research is.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Greaaaat, UFO's in a 9/11 thread, but i get your point though. tactically placed journalists to help with your agenda.

I wouldn't doubt it that its true today.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


I just want to chime in with a message of support for you. I don't have much to add that wouldn't fuel the illogical emotionally charged social gang bang that occurs on these forums when someone states their opinion. If a person is "debunking" then they are not interested in the truth. People that are interested in the truth believe they could be right, assume they are, and go about proving how they might be right until they reach a conclusion for themselves of whether they are right or wrong. This is how science works. Theories are developed, and the researcher has to believe it could be possible to begin analyzing. When you look at 9/11 debunkers in particular they attack a person theory with another theory. It generally results in dead ends with each side blaming the other for flawed logic. The only flawed logic is in fact that one of the two sides had already made up their mind prior to the argument beginning.

It is going to take some time for people to realize the extent in which humanity has been turned against one another. And why is this, maybe to keep us from finding out the truth.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellfrozeover
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Excuse me, but I am new here and just can't for the life of me figure out why someone so angry and against all who thinks outside of the box as you, would even bother being associated with a forum like ATS?


Oh, no, I'm not angry in the least, and I have said many times my goal isn't to come here and insult anyone. I am merely using the exact same high level of critical analysis in examining these claims of conspiracy, as the conspiracy proponents are using to examine the OS. After all, the conspiracy theorists are making accusations of deliberate murder of 3000 Americans, and it is not a topic to be discussed with frivolous disdain. That is something we both agree on, don't you think?

Tell me, why is it that the conspiracy theorists will argue over and demand to know what happened almost literally to every nut, bolt, and door hinge within the OS and yet they're equally willing to allow such gaping holes and admission in their OWN claims, to the point where they can't even agree amongst themselves as to what the conspiracy is and who was really behind it to begin with? It seems to me with there being so many myriad explanations and scenarios that it isn't due to any overwhelming evidence of any conspiracy, but rather the lack if it, for there to be so much room for so many conflicting accusations.

If you genuinely think that my wanting to understand this situation the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are presenting is a sign of anger, so be it, but you must know that going around saying "well, he's just angry" is the very unwillingness to listen to others that you're attributing to others. I invite you to prove me wrong- have YOU actually read the 9/11 commission report, yourself? Why or why not?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto

If a person is "debunking" then they are not interested in the truth.


You are wrong there, debunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:

which is what debunkers are doing to the 911 truthers, exposing their bunk



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by hellfrozeover
 


Just place him on ignore. He wont listen to you anyway. he reacts emotionally, his arguments only support the OS, and anything against it, he will just ridicule you, Mame you, and outright insult you. he enjoys this, why? I do not know, and quite frankly, i dont care anymore. (just letting you know since your new.)


Now that's an interesting statement, coming from you. Not too long ago, I recall you were getting into an argument with someone over their insisting the planes were all holograms, despite the fact that YOU YOURSELF saw the planes and despite the fact you even posted photos of where you were even standing when you saw them. You will note that I took *your* side in that debate. So where is any brainwashing in any of this, exactly?

Now that I think of it, why are YOU above all people here arguing over whether the crackpots within the 9/11 conspiracy movement are holding the rest of you back? You above all others here are acutely aware that they are.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
You are wrong there, debunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:

which is what debunkers are doing to the 911 truthers, exposing their bunk


DING DING DING! We have a winner!

I invite anyone to go back through my posts and show ehen I have EVER insulted anyone here. Have I ever said, "hey Ugie, you're a blithering idiot" or "HEy Bonez, have you jumped from the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down?" NO! In fact I have said many times that most of the people here are intelligent and articulate, as my beef isn't with them. I concentrate on analyzing the absurdity of these conspiracy claims, and reserve my insults for the operators behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites causing all these arguments over nothing in the first place.

I have noticed, however, time after time after time, that the 9/11 conspiracy people tend to have such a high emotional connection to these conspiracy claims that any attack on their claims is perceived as a personal attack on them, and they respond in kind. This is literally the exact opposite of my stance, where I don't care whether people insult me or call me names. All I care about is is anyone can show why anything I'm posting here is incorrect.

So who really IS the actual truther, here?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join