This is how the media obfuscate the 9/11 debate.

Anthony Lawson exposes in his latest video the cheap tricks employed by by the media when discussing the topic of 9/11. If you don't agree with the government explanation you can expect a barrage of personal insults, playground name calling and a refusal to even discuss the issues raised from a scientific perspective.

Originally posted by Namaste1001
Anthony Lawson exposes in his latest video the cheap tricks employed by by the media when discussing the topic of 9/11. If you don't agree with the government explanation you can expect a barrage of personal insults, playground name calling and a refusal to even discuss the issues raised from a scientific perspective.

That describes the truthers just as accurately. Whenever anyone posts something that shows why these conspiracy claims are improbable, not only do the truthers invent excuses that it's gov't disinformation so they don't have to believe it, they're accusing everyone from a taxi driver out by the Pentagon to Silverstein to the New York Fire Dept to even the Red cross of being complicit in a conspiracy and coverup of the murder of 3000 people. Heck, a good 25% of you think *I* am a secret agent sent to spy on you...and those are the mature responses. One guy even had the gall of saying I was a murderer(!)

You'll excuse me if I say this plea isn't going to elicit any sympathy for you. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Namaste1001
Anthony Lawson exposes in his latest video the cheap tricks employed by by the media when discussing the topic of 9/11. If you don't agree with the government explanation you can expect a barrage of personal insults, playground name calling and a refusal to even discuss the issues raised from a scientific perspective.

That describes the truthers just as accurately. Whenever anyone posts something that shows why these conspiracy claims are improbable, not only do the truthers invent excuses that it's gov't disinformation so they don't have to believe it, they're accusing everyone from a taxi driver out by the Pentagon to Silverstein to the New York Fire Dept to even the Red cross of being complicit in a conspiracy and coverup of the murder of 3000 people. Heck, a good 25% of you think *I* am a secret agent sent to spy on you...and those are the mature responses. One guy even had the gall of saying I was a murderer(!)

You'll excuse me if I say this plea isn't going to elicit any sympathy for you. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

And you have done exactly what I described in my original post. Resorted to personal attacks while avoiding addressing the issue at hand.

Thanks for proving my point.

reply to post by Namaste1001


The name of the topic is "This is how the media obfuscate the 9/11 debate" and linked a video listing how the media supposedly does this, GoodOlDave pointed out that's the same thing truthers do, and you say he's personally attacking you?

Can you not accept criticism?

Nice, clearly Faine bit off more than he could chew in that little discourse..

He was also obviously quite wounded after the interview to feel the need to run off to the Trades hall Secretary like the little weasel he is. Maybe he will give it a bit of thought next time he decides to take on a big gun like Bracken...err, that is once ABC management stops kicking the little twerps ass..

reply to post by Whyhi


I was referring to the fact that he attacked the character of "truthers" in general. Which is what my original post was about.

Now would yo like to discuss the video or continue to pick at semantics?

I also just lodged a formal complaint with the ABC:

It read: "Recently you aired a radio show in which Kevin Bracken phoned in to the John Faine show to put forward his views on 9/11. I found John Faine to be rude and abrupt with Mr Bracken, and proceeded to speak to him in a condescending manner. I find this totally unacceptable for a taxpayer funded radio show. I understand it is in the ABC charter NOT to show bias and to allow free speech and debate, and this certainly was NOT the case during the course of this interview. I am totally disgusted with the way John Faine handled this caller and believe he deserves a PUBLIC APOLOGY!!"

Aww...Mr Faine..feel the pain..

reply to post by Namaste1001

I was referring to the fact that he attacked the character of "truthers" in general.

See , it's crap like THIS right here that causes me to find the majority of "truthers" to be so thoroughly despicable .

You have just exemplified why most of you guys make me want to SPIT .

Everything GoodOlDave said above is TRUE . I have been called a disinfo agent , an idiot , a moron , braindead , and the list goes on and on . And , this name-calling comes from the same group who used to star and flag me back when I was a "truther" , from the same bunch who used to feel all giddy inside every time I posted my "truther" thoughts and opinions .

I have even been attacked for my signature and user name , simply because the loser , sorry , meant to say truther , could not win the debate and had to resort to personal attacks .

But , what's so pathetic about all this is that the "truthers" always turn around and accuse their opposition of employing the very same tactics they themselves are guilty of .

Just like you have just done .

You attacked the character of the media , in general , in your OP . But then you take offense when you feel someone has attacked "truthers" .

Can you spell HYPOCRISY ?

You can't call claims like "jet fuel melted the steel" or "no other steel skyscraper ever collapsed due to fire" scientific. Those claims are shortsighted and false straw man arguments. So it seems to me the commentator of the video also isn't sincere, and has an agenda of his own.

Originally posted by Namaste1001


And you have done exactly what I described in my original post. Resorted to personal attacks while avoiding addressing the issue at hand.

Thanks for proving my point.

Where, in any of my post, was there a personal attack? Did I accuse you of being retarded, or that you molest children and domesticated animals? Did I accuse you of being home schooled or inbred? No I did not. I simply repeated the description you posted as likewise applying to the behavior of you truthers. The difference is that I *agree* that our side is accusing you of being lunatics, traitors, and the like. You people are saying all sorts of dreadful things that we find disgusting on so many levels (I.E. all the passengers on the planes never existed, NY firefighters conspired to murder 343 of their brother firefighters, etc) so the reason you're being treated rudely shouldn't be a surprise to you. I don't agree with the statement becuase I know you're not stupid; you're simply being lied to by Dylan Avery and Alex Jones so they can sell their T-shirts and you don't know you're being conned.

If what I said was a personal attack, then it necessarily means that what *you* said was a personal attack...which ironically only proves *my* point, not yours. Thank you.

As I see it, no one can accurately prove who is responsible for the events of 911.

Not the governments: They can't stick to one story because they have agendas.
Not the courts: They need concrete evidence of a scientific nature, and reliable accounts.
Not the scientists: Destroyed evidence, roadblocks and red tape every step of the way.
Not the theorists: Unscientific, unsubstantiated claims, too many different stories.
Not the people: Unscientific, and emotional.

The point is, no one is going to believe anything.....ever......until the government flat out admits they are responsible, whether they are or not.

So until then we have to make do with what we have.
We may never know the truth and we have to come to terms with that.

Originally posted by -PLB-
You can't call claims like "jet fuel melted the steel" or "no other steel skyscraper ever collapsed due to fire" scientific.

Why not? It is a scientific FACT that jet fuel burns at a much lower temperature than the melting point of steel. It is a historical FACT that no steel skyscraper ever collapsed due to fire. Can't you deal with facts? I guess not, when they contradict what you want to believe. So you pretend they are not facts as a way of not admitting your denial of them.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Those claims are shortsighted and false straw man arguments.

They are not shortsighted. Facts are facts, whether you like them or not.

Originally posted by -PLB-
So it seems to me the commentator of the video also isn't sincere,

Nah. You are throwing around a groundless suspicion based upon your misconceived analysis.

Originally posted by -PLB-
and has an agenda of his own.

Another vacuous accusation (sigh!).

Originally posted by reticledc
As I see it, no one can accurately prove who is responsible for the events of 911.

Not the governments: They can't stick to one story because they have agendas.
Not the courts: They need concrete evidence of a scientific nature, and reliable accounts.
Not the scientists: Destroyed evidence, roadblocks and red tape every step of the way.
Not the theorists: Unscientific, unsubstantiated claims, too many different stories.
Not the people: Unscientific, and emotional.

The point is, no one is going to believe anything.....ever......until the government flat out admits they are responsible, whether they are or not.

So until then we have to make do with what we have.
We may never know the truth and we have to come to terms with that.

edit on 10/28/2010 by reticledc because: (no reason given)

You ignored another possibility: someone who assisted with the conspiracy deciding to spill the beans. Also, Professor David Ray Griffin has written authoritative works listing all the inconsistencies and contradictions in the official story that would be more than enough to justify a criminal investigation of 9/11, if only people in the Justice Department had the courage to start the ball rolling. But, of course, they don't. So perhaps the pressure has to come from the grass roots.

I am not as pessimistic as you. I still believe, if the 9/11 truth movement could get its act together, that it could start to get things moving.

Originally posted by micpsi
Why not? It is a scientific FACT that jet fuel burns at a much lower temperature than the melting point of steel. It is a historical FACT that no steel skyscraper ever collapsed due to fire. Can't you deal with facts? I guess not, when they contradict what you want to believe. So you pretend they are not facts as a way of not admitting your denial of them.

He's saying that it's a strawman argument to claim "jet fuel cannot melt steel" becuase noone is claiming the towers were brought down from jet fuel melting the steel except you truthers. All studies from FEMA, NIST, MIT Perdue, and even one from a university out in Australia reported the fires caused thermal expansion which led to warping and eventual loss of structural integrity, and the temperatures didn't need to be anywhere near the melting point of steel for this to occur. You are making a false claim and then refuting the false claim to manufacture fraudulent credibility for yourself, which by definition is a strawman argument.

Thus, you are not anyone to be lecturing others about dealing with the facts.

It's called ''lumping all individuals/posters who question the events of 9/11 into one specific category''.

It's called ''continually bringing up the most unrealistic, crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theories to use against ''Truthers'' each time something is brought up that is against the OS''.

It's called ''using Alex Jones and Dylan Avery as the examples of ''damned hoaxer fools'' each & every time a ''Truther'' talks about any given 9/11 conspiracy theory''.

I'm going to be completely honest: There are a couple posters within this forum that seem to have the exact same mindset, outlook, opinions, attitude and personality as - drum roll please - - - good ol' Bill O'Reilly.

I don't think I need to pick out the posters who remind me of this ass-clown because I think it's more than obvious who they are.

Truly pathetic.

Cheers.

Originally posted by truthbringsfreedom777
It's called ''lumping all individuals/posters who question the events of 9/11 into one specific category''.

In that case, this isn't me. Lots of people question the events of 9/11. Even I question the events of 9/11. Not all of them insist there has to be some sinister secret gov't plot to stage a false terrorist attack.

It's called ''continually bringing up the most unrealistic, crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theories to use against ''Truthers'' each time something is brought up that is against the OS''.

Which conspiracy theory being presented here *isn't* unrealistic and crackpot sounding? Secret controlled demolitions, faked crash sites, cruise missiles, lasers from outer space, no planes, hordes of secret gov't agents everywhere, they all have their proponents here. I myself believe the gov't is covering up monumental incompetence leading up to and during 9/11, and I know others believe it was legitimately a terrorist attack but the gov't allowed it to happen to fulful national policy. Very, very few conspiracy people here subscribe to these for the simple reason that they're not sinister and scary sounding enough.

Heck, one guy here even suggested the gov't murdered all the passengers, chopped up the bodies, loaded the body parts into a cruise missile, and then shot it at the Pentagon to plant the DNA at the site(!) There's no flipping way this came from any review of the facts. This came from that guy's own sick in the head imagination and there's no way you can blame this on the media for obfuscating the 9/11 debate.

It's called ''using Alex Jones and Dylan Avery as the examples of ''damned hoaxer fools'' each & every time a ''Truther'' talks about any given 9/11 conspiracy theory''.

Then you need to browse the list of threads here, where you will find someone saying we need to go listen to what David Ray Griffin is saying when it's already been discussed ad nauseum in great detail just how much that guy is every bit the con artist that Alex Jones and Dylan Avery are.

You're not proving why anything I said is incorrect.

reply to post by micpsi


With all due respect, but it requires just the smallest amount of research to point out the major flaws in those claims. I personally have a bit of a hard time taking someone serious when who hasn't even done that, yet still makes very serious accusations. I am only "active" in this whole 911 debate since recently, but I was totally surprised that so many people parrot these wrong claims. The only reason why a sane person would do that is because that person has an agenda, which is obviously disproving the OS at all costs.

this seems like a problem with people in general. once you say something that makes a person think outside of their comfort zone then they think you are a lunatic. basically because of the conditioning people receive when they watch tv. i haven' had tv in three years and let me tell you, i don't give a crap what movies the media want me to see, i don't care what car and clothes they want me to buy, i don't give a crap what my neighbor has and i have no plans of trying to keep up with him. yeah, once you turn off your tv a few years you will notice you no longer crave the material things that these people convince you that you need. life is too short to spend it chasing worthless crap, you can't take any of it with you when you go, so why not just enjoy your short time on this earth. unplug yourself and you will see what i mean, i've never been happier.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


"You're not proving why anything I said is incorrect.''

Well, that would be because I'm not trying to ''prove'' anything to you. What, did you think that I wrote what I wrote because I was trying to bait you into some sort of 9/11 debate? Please...

Where at all in my last post did I even imply that I'm trying to ''prove'' that you're ''incorrect''? I'm simply addressing the issue of posters such as yourself generalizing all ''Truthers'' rather inappropriately.

I guess that just because I'm directing my post at you and a few others, that I **must** automatically also be some ''crazy, crackpot Truther who subscribes to con artists like Dylan Avery and Alex Jones'', right? Wrong.

Let me tell you something - I've been an avid reader/observer of the 9/11 forum for several years. I've also paid close attention to posters such as yourself. Time & time again, you come across as completely arrogant & condescending towards anybody who discusses something that goes into the territory of a ''9/11 conspiracy''. My question is why? You know that you're in a conspiracy-themed discussion forum, so did you expect the majority of posters to be discussing how accurate and dead-on the OS is in this forum? Come on, now...

And I know that you're intelligent enough to know that there are always going to be people in any given situation/event/happening that will come up with the craziest, most outlandish theories out there. Now, does this mean that all theories out there that don't fit into the 9/11 OS are all equally ''delusional'' and ''crazy'' in nature? By the looks of it from your perspective, the answer would be yes, IMO.

The fact of the matter is that each time you bring up the ''laser beams from outer space'' & the ''Reptilian overlord orchestrating 9/11'' theories, you are generally directing these at posters whom don't even make remote mention of these theories, let alone believe them to be true. Why is this? Is this your way of saying that nobody should investigate/question/research/discuss the OS and the events of 9/11 simply because what happened has already been documented & ''set in stone'', and there's no reason to continue to question it? Seems that way to me!

I respect the fact that you have your own opinions about 9/11 - but I don't respect the fact that you always seem to generalize all ''Truthers'' into the same category. The term ''Truther'' is ridiculous, by the way. Anybody who proudly goes by that title should realize that by questioning something, they shouldn't be appointed some ''special'' title as if this is the first time in the history of mankind that people have had a difference in opinion over an event such as 9/11. I don't know where the whole ''Truther'' title came to be, but I do know that this title given to people who question the OS makes them look that much more ''crazy'', from the general perspectives of people such as Dave here who fires off his ''damned fool'' speech every time a ''Truther'' throws his/her hat into the discussion.

The whole ''the government is plotting to murder us all'' sarcasm that you continue to portray here comes from what, exactly? Comes from who, exactly? True, there are extremely paranoid people out there that definitely have these rather ''odd'' opinions and theories, but you seem to cling on to this aspect and use it against people who aren't at all implying this rather ''scared of their own shadows'' statement. Which posters here are of this rather ''extreme'' mindset? Anybody? Let's face it - you go to ''extremes'' each time you generalize ''Truthers'', conspiracy websites and ''con artists'' such as Alex Jones or Dylan Avery.

My whole ''point'' in this is really simple: Not everybody subscribes to the craziest 9/11 theories. Not everybody goes to ''damned fool'' conspiracy websites to make up their minds as to what happened on 9/11. Not everybody is paranoid that the government is out to murder us all. You see, these are all ''extremes'' - funny how you bring these ''extremes'' up in almost every post you write against a ''Truther''.

Cheers.

I guess if you really want to get technical, even if the government's explanation of how 9/11 went down is true (and I don't believe a word of it), they inadvertently take at least partial responsibility by ignoring Bush's top security advisor when he said that they needed to focus on Al Qaeda before 9/11. Also, it was the government's responsibility to deploy fighter jets the moment there was knowledge of hijacked airplanes. So, regardless of how it all happened, the government failed to to their job... Either way you look at it, the government is at least partially responsible for what occured that day. However, the people that believe the government's story don't even acknowledge that point. There were NO steps taken that day to protect the American people that were in those buildings. To me, at least, that was a HUGE fail on our government's part.