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.

 

911 Truth: Competing Theories = Disinfo

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant

Originally posted by pteridine
No disinfo is needed. The folks who like conspiracy theories will remain a group of individuals that disagree on details.


Yea unlike the official 'story' which has changed numerous times over the years. Hell, it seems even Bush & Condoleezza Rice couldn't agree on the story right from the beginning...


"Right from the beginning" was before the various reporting bodies completed their work. The truther versions are much more broadly defocused as they include such theories as nukes, Pentagon flyovers, death rays from space, hologram planes, and other entertaining variations. As every camp has its pet theory, they will remain stubbornly divided and diffuse and forever cancel each other out. No disinfo needed.




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
The easiest way to discredit someone is to make them seem crazy. It's the oldest trick in the book, and it's why conspiracy theories are seen as a joke. It's why the believers are portrayed as whacko's and nut jobs.

And yet, this is the very tactic people use on here to debunk 911 conspiracy theories. The actual arguement is usually ignored and the strawman fallacy is pulled out.

"You guys are crazy, you think lasers from space took down the towers, LOLZ!"
"You're wrong because you truthers think no planes hit the towers, ROFL!"
"You stupid truthers think they dropped a nuke on 911, LOLOL!"

Stop using this tactic, and instead focus on the arguement at hand. Not everyone who disagrees with the official story, believes the exact same scenario.

The sad part is that YOU KNOW THIS ALREADY. You know that lasers and no planes are disinfo, yet you continue to use them in your arguement because you don't have an arguement?



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
The easiest way to discredit someone is to make them seem crazy. It's the oldest trick in the book, and it's why conspiracy theories are seen as a joke. It's why the believers are portrayed as whacko's and nut jobs.

And yet, this is the very tactic people use on here to debunk 911 conspiracy theories. The actual arguement is usually ignored and the strawman fallacy is pulled out.

"You guys are crazy, you think lasers from space took down the towers, LOLZ!"
"You're wrong because you truthers think no planes hit the towers, ROFL!"
"You stupid truthers think they dropped a nuke on 911, LOLOL!"

Stop using this tactic, and instead focus on the arguement at hand. Not everyone who disagrees with the official story, believes the exact same scenario.

The sad part is that YOU KNOW THIS ALREADY. You know that lasers and no planes are disinfo, yet you continue to use them in your arguement because you don't have an arguement?


In case you missed it, my point is that "Not everyone who disagrees with the official story, believes the exact same scenario." The argument that I make is that the various groups have such diverse theories and are so stubbornly invested in them that they will never be able to get enough people with a single theory so that they can do anything about it. To claim that all contrary theories are driven by disinfo agents is mere speculation. You may suspect this but you don't know it. If it is disinfo, it needs the true believers to support it or it is not effective. As it is, I don't see much support for any of the theories. Do you have a favorite?
edit on 12/18/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 





You know that lasers and no planes are disinfo, yet you continue to use them in your arguement because you don't have an arguement?


How is no planes disinfo? In your own post you say the oldest trick in the book is to accuse someone of being nuts, and then you lump all no planes into the "disinfo" bunch. How is this any different than the oldest trick in the book?

The evidence led me to the no planes conclusion, does that make me a sucker for disinformation? If so, by whose standards? How do you identify "disinfo"?

Can lightweight, hollow aluminum wings slice through structural steel columns like a hot knife through butter in the real world? Perhaps stating wings can do the impossible is the real disinformation.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



How is no planes disinfo?

Not disinfo - delusional. Both start with a d so I can see where you would be confused.

In your own post you say the oldest trick in the book is to accuse someone of being nuts, and then you lump all no planes into the "disinfo" bunch. How is this any different than the oldest trick in the book?

Just please note that there are people that are nuts.

The evidence led me to the no planes conclusion, does that make me a sucker for disinformation?

No, that makes you a sucker for living in your own custom-made reality.

If so, by whose standards?

Humans.

How do you identify "disinfo"?

There is no such thing.

Can lightweight, hollow aluminum wings slice through structural steel columns like a hot knife through butter in the real world?

No - however, unfortunately for you, that sentence has nothing to do with 9/11/

Perhaps stating wings can do the impossible is the real disinformation.

Or maybe, "possible" may not be limited to what is real in your world.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Thanks for illustrating the point. The oldest trick in the book is to accuse one of being nuts...it's in the manual under "Self-Evident Technique":


Name Calling or Substitutions of Names or Moral Labels. This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable.

Types of name calling:

Direct name calling is used when the audience is sympathetic or neutral. It is a simple, straightforward attack on an opponent or opposing idea.
Indirect name calling is used when direct name calling would antagonize the audience. It is a label for the degree of attack between direct name calling and insinuation. Sarcasm and ridicule are employed with this technique.
Cartoons, illustrations, and photographs are used in name calling, often with deadly effect.

Dangers inherent in name calling: In its extreme form, name calling may indicate that the propagandist has lost his sense of proportion or is unable to conduct a positive campaign. Before using this technique, the propagandist must weigh the benefits against the possible harmful results. lt is best to avoid use of this device.The obstacles are formidable, based primarily on the human tendency to close ranks against a stranger. For example, a group may despise, dislike, or even hate one of its leaders, even openly criticize him, but may (and probably will) resent any nongroup member who criticizes and makes disparaging remarks against that leader.



Stereotyping is a form of simplification used to fit persons, groups, nations, or events into readymade categories that tend to produce a desired image of good or bad. Stereotyping puts the subject (people, nations, etc.) or event into a simplistic pattern without any distinguishing individual characteristics.


www.constitution.org...




top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join