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.
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by thisisnotaname
Sorry, bro, but that's too long of a video to ask people to discuss intelligently on this forum: by the time people have time to watch this whole thing, the thread will be buried, most likely.
Originally posted by psyop911
reply to post by thisisnotaname
jonathan kay? i remember that douchebag. debunker, right?
Originally posted by psyop911
reply to post by thisisnotaname
jonathan kay? i remember that douchebag. debunker, right?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by psyop911
reply to post by thisisnotaname
jonathan kay? i remember that douchebag. debunker, right?
I have not heard or read him debunk anything. He just assumes the OS is true and then plays psychological games ridiculing all conspiracists as though not thinking what proper authority says is some kind of mental problem.
psik
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon (Washington Post) We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
Originally posted by homervb
You know how it goes around here bro, anything that anyone has said pertaining to the search for truth is a douche bag nutjob who spouts nothing but lies. That's how the OS troops see it.
This is what they defend
Despite the lies that are contained within:
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon (Washington Post) We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
Originally posted by YetSharkproof
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Quite at the beginning, there was talk about editors pushing to the Pulitzer Price, and about the hope and future of investigative journalism. Is the incentive there or is it not? Also there was critique about linking blogs after each other, causing the original investigation as the source of information to go missing. These are valid points, and I like the other side to be tough, that´s the way to go! I might look the whole debate again soon.
Originally posted by YetSharkproof
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Sure. Mr. Kay has studied the truth movement, and I welcome any good findings. There should be healthy self-criticism about the methods in use. As the debate itself, it was surprisingly reasonable.
have a problem with that. But don't call it a debate about 9/11.
It is a debate about 9/11 psychology or the 9/11 decade. It is not about what happened on 9/11.
And I think it is mostly to just further muddy the waters.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Then your idea of valid points is not about what happened on 9/11 but about what people have done since 9/11. What is this "DEBATE" really about then? The psychology created by 9/11?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Then your idea of valid points is not about what happened on 9/11 but about what people have done since 9/11. What is this "DEBATE" really about then? The psychology created by 9/11?
Look at what's going on here- there are people who simply can not wrap their heads around the idea that something so dramatic and global reaching as the 9/11 attack could have been pulled of by something so simple as a bunch of imaginative islamic fundamentalists, so they insist it was REALLY conducted by some dramatic and global reaching culprit working toward a plot equally as dramatic and global reaching as the 9/11 attack itself (the gov't, Mossad, secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists, S.P.E.C.T.R.E., or whatever).