The 9/11 Propaganda Archive

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by maxella1
 





What videos?

Truthers are taking the same old Youtube videos and making new claims of proof of the grand conspiracy.


Funny, I didn't see any YouTube video in this thread. I think you got lost.. ATS is a big place.




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1
 


Thats what I did prove. The statement was that the pamphlet was in grocery stores all over the country. I was in grocery stores in the country and never saw it for sale. They said that it was and therefore knew it was not true, ergo, a lie.


YOU was in ALL grocery stores in the COUNTRY and never saw it for sale? I find it hard to believe that one person could do that. you proved nothing superman !



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1
 


Thats what I did prove. The statement was that the pamphlet was in grocery stores all over the country. I was in grocery stores in the country and never saw it for sale. They said that it was and therefore knew it was not true, ergo, a lie.


YOU was in ALL grocery stores in the COUNTRY and never saw it for sale? I find it hard to believe that one person could do that. you proved nothing superman !


You need to read a little more carefully before you jump out of the gate. I did not say I was in ALL grocery stores. I said that I was in grocery stores in the country. They said it was in grocery stores ALL over the country. I never saw it and so far we don't have anyone who did see it for sale in a grocery store, let alone grocery stores all over the country. But since this notion supports your bias then you probably won't even believe the evidence of your own eyes. So, tell the truth - do you remember seeing this piece of "propoganda" for sale in grocery stores?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 




tell the truth - do you remember seeing this piece of "propoganda" for sale in grocery stores?


I also don't remember if Time magazine was sold in the grocery stores, or any one of dozens of tabloids were sold in the grocery stores. Does that prove that they were not sold in grocery stores?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 




But since this notion supports your bias then you probably won't even believe the evidence of your own eyes.


You are mistaking again... I do believe my own eyes.



But you don't.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Part Two, featured below, gives us a look at a Newsweek titled 'Biological & Chemical Terror: How Scared Should You Be?' The featured photo is a man wearing a gasmask, and the entire issue focuses on bio terrorism. Throughout the magazine, that question is addressed repeatedly–all answered the same: be absolutely terrified.


The 9/11 Propaganda Archive: How Scared Should You Be?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by sealing
 


I just hope that people start realizing how much of what they told us about 9/11 is not true, then maybe we'll have a chance of getting back to what America was meant to be. What happened on that day changed a lot and not in a good way, everyone is paying for it.


I don't understand your point here. The media has always hyper-sensationalized every grand event that came along. During world war II they were conjuring up scenarios of the west coast being invaded by the Japanese along with jokes about Hitler putting in an order for tanks ("No need to deliver them, he'll pick them up on his way through Detroit"), and during world war I they were claiming the Kaiser was claiming the whole of the Atlantic for himself. Plus, I'm sure you remember the huge blitz about the Y2K bug, where computers would stop working, planes would fall out of the sky, and the oceans would boil away. That's not even counting the absurd media blitz surrounding the OJ Simpson trial- in my local paper they even ran an article about the type of socks Robert Shapiro was wearing on the front page.

So please correct me if I'm wrong- are you suggesting the 9/11 must have been staged because the media was hyper-sensationalizing the 9/11 attack as well?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
YOU was in ALL grocery stores in the COUNTRY and never saw it for sale? I find it hard to believe that one person could do that. you proved nothing superman !


Do you have any mor einformation on this "how to survive terrorism" pamphlet? I seriously would like to get one, since it would be a legitimate historical document, the same way Coca-Cola once distributed playing cards with German and Japanese aircraft sillouettes during WWII (I inherited an original set from my father).
edit on 29-5-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





So please correct me if I'm wrong- are you suggesting the 9/11 must have been staged because the media was hyper-sensationalizing the 9/11 attack as well?


GoodolDave you are wrong. I'm not suggesting that..

I'm suggesting that the Government and the media lied and continue to lie about 9/11. And that scaring the crap out of American people is used in order to pass unconstitutional laws and start unconstitutional wars.

Unfortunately a lot of people still don't get it. That's all that I am suggesting.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
YOU was in ALL grocery stores in the COUNTRY and never saw it for sale? I find it hard to believe that one person could do that. you proved nothing superman !


Do you have any mor einformation on this "how to survive terrorism" pamphlet? I seriously would like to get one, since it would be a legitimate historical document, the same way Coca-Cola once distributed playing cards with German and Japanese aircraft sillouettes during WWII (I inherited an original set from my father).
edit on 29-5-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



I would like to have one for myself as well. I'll try to find out more and will let you know.

The part two is a Newsweek magazine issue



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
 

GoodolDave you are wrong. I'm not suggesting that..

I'm suggesting that the Government and the media lied and continue to lie about 9/11. And that scaring the crap out of American people is used in order to pass unconstitutional laws and start unconstitutional wars.

Unfortunately a lot of people still don't get it. That's all that I am suggesting.


All right then, what do you determine to be the difference between "intentional lying" and "they're scrambbling for copy so they wind up printing exaggerations out of ignorance of the true situation"? Immediately after the 9/11 attack newspapers were reporting of "upwards of 10,000 causalties", not becuase they wanted to "lie about 9/11", but because nobody had a complete accounting yet of how many people were killed at that time.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
There's no doubt that certain sections of the media loudly endorsed Bush and Blair's crusade, but equally many did not. If one understands anything about the complexity of the news media it's nonsense to believe that it is centrally controlled - for one thing it's way too big and complicated. And for another, it regularly publishes stories antagonistic to the wishes of TPTB.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
 

GoodolDave you are wrong. I'm not suggesting that..

I'm suggesting that the Government and the media lied and continue to lie about 9/11. And that scaring the crap out of American people is used in order to pass unconstitutional laws and start unconstitutional wars.

Unfortunately a lot of people still don't get it. That's all that I am suggesting.


All right then, what do you determine to be the difference between "intentional lying" and "they're scrambbling for copy so they wind up printing exaggerations out of ignorance of the true situation"? Immediately after the 9/11 attack newspapers were reporting of "upwards of 10,000 causalties", not becuase they wanted to "lie about 9/11", but because nobody had a complete accounting yet of how many people were killed at that time.


I understand there is a Big difference between "intentional lying" and exaggerations out of ignorance.

What you call 'exaggerations' the government use as excuse to go to war and pass illegal laws.
edit on 29-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

I understand there is a Big difference between "intentional lying" and exaggerations out of ignorance.

What you call 'exaggerations' the government use as excuse to go to war and pass illegal laws.


...but that's NOT what you said. The gov't is hardly exaggerating when it said the US was attacked by terrorists, which by everyone's legal definition is enough justification to start up the war machine, so the difference between the actual 3000 casualties and the exaggerated 10,000 casualties is largely moot. Plus, I need to remind you that NATO invoked article 5 in the first time in history after the attack. This is because we gave them our evidence showing 9/11 was a terrorist attack and after comparing it to what their own intelligence servces were reporting, they found the evidence credible. You cannot declare something to be a lie simply because you yourself don't want it to be true.

If you're referring to the exaggerations and excuses to justify the invasion of Iraq I can certainly agree with you there, but that's outside the scope of your "9/11 propaganda" assertion- that was over the WMD he was supposed to have had.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




If you're referring to the exaggerations and excuses to justify the invasion of Iraq I can certainly agree with you there, but that's outside the scope of your "9/11 propaganda" assertion- that was over the WMD he was supposed to have had.


You know better than that. Bush tried to link Iraq to aL Qaida, and don't you remember the Anthrax story? Iraq invasion had a lot to do with 9/11.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
There's no doubt that certain sections of the media loudly endorsed Bush and Blair's crusade, but equally many did not. If one understands anything about the complexity of the news media it's nonsense to believe that it is centrally controlled - for one thing it's way too big and complicated. And for another, it regularly publishes stories antagonistic to the wishes of TPTB.


The media is not centrally controlled at all. lol

edit on 29-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




If you're referring to the exaggerations and excuses to justify the invasion of Iraq I can certainly agree with you there, but that's outside the scope of your "9/11 propaganda" assertion- that was over the WMD he was supposed to have had.


You know better than that. Bush tried to link Iraq to aL Qaida, and don't you remember the Anthrax story? Iraq invasion had a lot to do with 9/11.


And haven't you just demonstrated there the stupidity of thinking 9/11 was intended to provide a cause to invade Iraq. Yes, there were pathetic attempts to link Iraq with 9/11 but it didn't convince anyone.

So we have the absurd situation where the admin is supposed to have executed an incredibly complex plan with such skill that most people don't give suggestions of an "inside job" the time of day. But when it came to setting up the patsies it all went pear-shaped. Not a single Iraqi involved nor any Iraqi links.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




If you're referring to the exaggerations and excuses to justify the invasion of Iraq I can certainly agree with you there, but that's outside the scope of your "9/11 propaganda" assertion- that was over the WMD he was supposed to have had.


You know better than that. Bush tried to link Iraq to aL Qaida, and don't you remember the Anthrax story? Iraq invasion had a lot to do with 9/11.


What do you mean "I know better than that"? I'm going by the topic of your own thread that supposedly describes "9/11 exaggerations" and I'm trying to find out what your definition of a "9/11 exaggeration" even is. If you wanted to discuss "Iraq war exaggerations" then you should have created a thread for that subject.

You're not trying to pull a bait and switch on me, are you?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




If you're referring to the exaggerations and excuses to justify the invasion of Iraq I can certainly agree with you there, but that's outside the scope of your "9/11 propaganda" assertion- that was over the WMD he was supposed to have had.


You know better than that. Bush tried to link Iraq to aL Qaida, and don't you remember the Anthrax story? Iraq invasion had a lot to do with 9/11.


What do you mean "I know better than that"? I'm going by the topic of your own thread that supposedly describes "9/11 exaggerations" and I'm trying to find out what your definition of a "9/11 exaggeration" even is. If you wanted to discuss "Iraq war exaggerations" then you should have created a thread for that subject.

You're not trying to pull a bait and switch on me, are you?



Okay DoodolDave. Did Bush use 9/11 as one of the reasons to invade Iraq?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




If you're referring to the exaggerations and excuses to justify the invasion of Iraq I can certainly agree with you there, but that's outside the scope of your "9/11 propaganda" assertion- that was over the WMD he was supposed to have had.


You know better than that. Bush tried to link Iraq to aL Qaida, and don't you remember the Anthrax story? Iraq invasion had a lot to do with 9/11.


And haven't you just demonstrated there the stupidity of thinking 9/11 was intended to provide a cause to invade Iraq. Yes, there were pathetic attempts to link Iraq with 9/11 but it didn't convince anyone.

So we have the absurd situation where the admin is supposed to have executed an incredibly complex plan with such skill that most people don't give suggestions of an "inside job" the time of day. But when it came to setting up the patsies it all went pear-shaped. Not a single Iraqi involved nor any Iraqi links.


You seriously saying that it didn't convince anyone? What planet were you on when this was going down?

Without 9/11 they would have a lot more trouble to convince people that if we don't invade Iraq we all going to die.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join