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 hooper
reply to post by thegameisup
Without sitting through an hour and a half of what is probably regurgitated trutherisms - can you please present one new fact that would evidence a theory other than what you refer to as the "OS"?
Originally posted by ClintK
And it only merits $14 million. A politically motivated investigation of Clinton? Somewhere between 40 and 70 million. What is wrong with us? Seriously, there is something really messed about that. If we can spend more than a trillion on these wars, wasn't a thorough investigation worth at least a few hundred million?
I still disgusts me. I'm not a truther, but the measly amount spent makes me very suspicious.
Originally posted by thegameisup
Most people that passionately defend the official reports, seem to just want to force their views on others, and not allow other people to ask questions or have an opinion.
I think this negative behaviour is pointless because they will never convince anyone of anything by forcing their opinions on them, and by belittling anyone for having an alternative view.
Originally posted by thegameisup
It's a very balanced presentation, investigating the history of 9/11, it presents all the known accurate facts, and it is put across in an interesting way. It's not just another 'truther' video, it is never biased to one side or the other
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by thegameisup
It's a very balanced presentation, investigating the history of 9/11, it presents all the known accurate facts, and it is put across in an interesting way. It's not just another 'truther' video, it is never biased to one side or the other
This is complete lies. It is an incredibly biased video presenting only the truther side. I haven't fully finished my review of it, but it is not remotely balanced at all.
The NIST report is covered literally in seconds, and then contrasted with minutes of discussing DRG and claiming he is an 'excellent scholar'.
Biased rubbish.
And the real eye-opener was when they asked Bush himself to testify, the Administration agreed only if Cheney could be there with him!!
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by thegameisup
It's a very balanced presentation, investigating the history of 9/11, it presents all the known accurate facts, and it is put across in an interesting way. It's not just another 'truther' video, it is never biased to one side or the other
This is complete lies. It is an incredibly biased video presenting only the truther side. I haven't fully finished my review of it, but it is not remotely balanced at all.
The NIST report is covered literally in seconds, and then contrasted with minutes of discussing DRG and claiming he is an 'excellent scholar'.
Biased rubbish.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by thegameisup
Most people that passionately defend the official reports, seem to just want to force their views on others, and not allow other people to ask questions or have an opinion.
I think this negative behaviour is pointless because they will never convince anyone of anything by forcing their opinions on them, and by belittling anyone for having an alternative view.
Can you give me an example of this, please? When for example, someone quotes some conspiracy porn they've been reading and they make claims like "no interceptors were scrambled", and someone else comes along and points out this is incorrect and interceptors were actually scrambled from Massachussetts and Virginia, is this "forcing their views onto others" and "belittling anyone for having an alternative view", or, is it simply correcting someone else's mistake and wanting to set the record straight?
Originally posted by samkent
Just what would you expect GWB to say under oath?
Originally posted by thegameisup
I doubt you have even watched it, and you should watch it all before commenting because you have not got to his conclusion yet, which does not take one side or the other.
The presenter is very credible, and just presents facts, truths, and if you don't think truthful facts are not balanced then that is a problem with your thinking.
It's not a review of NIST, if you have watched it you would know this, you obviously do not understand the concept of this historical presentation.
Can you point out anything in it that is not truthful? NO!
What was that you said about not wanting to bicker about 9/11?! You seem hellbent on bickering at every opportunity.
There is nothing wrong with this video, all facts in it are truthful, and cannot be argued.
Originally posted by thegameisup
Originally posted by samkent
Just what would you expect GWB to say under oath?
Why was Bush and Cheney not asked questions in public? Why behind closed doors?
This is the big problem, their lack of transparency.
Originally posted by exponent
He does not present truthful facts. He lies directly, by omission and by misrepresentation. I don't know if it's intentional or not but it is incredibly unbiased.