Journalist Bob Tuskin arrested for "The Building 7 Challenge"

originally posted by: ObjectZero
Ok what I don't get is why he would go someplace else to do this if he's been in trouble there before.

So he can make a youtube video of himself getting "arrested"! then get publicity.

Ok what I don't get is why he would go someplace else other than a Florida Gators football game.

your just asking for trouble for interfering with quality Tebow Time, 15 yard penalty and kicked to the curb..

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Chadwickus

Agreed, as I have been saying (something which mr. Truther seems to be struggling with) this is only a 100 second snap shot (edited) of what actually happened, to start ranting about how the police are trying to shut down 9/11 truth based on this alone is ridiculous.

Yet their confirmation bias is so strong they will not even accept that its possible that there might be a bit more to this story than what is shown in the video.

For example the officers say that they have been called because these guys were harassing other people to which the guy being arrested says he has also been harassed so based on this one fact alone we can deduce there is more to this video than we are shown.

Mr. Truther?

So let's break down the things that matter to you in this thread:

1. you're happy he got arrested for "potentially threatening the police with 'murder or something,' or a bomb."

2. you're upset that your posts are not getting starred.

3. your frustration about nobody agreeing with you here only makes you think that you must be right, while everyone must be wrong.

4. you find any reason in the longer version of the video to support your moot point. you think him yelling "wake up" is enough of a reason for him to be arrested.

it's very clear to me that the bias you're stating so many people have in this thread is shared by you as well.

it's also clear to me that your willingness to call someone a "truther" fuels your favoritism of the cops vs. the individual speaking his mind.

he was following the order he was given. your sentiments on him getting arrested despite this only reveal your true motivations.

nobody with common American sense here agrees with you. if you believe in the official story, you're a conspiracy theorist yourself. stop calling people names like we're in grade school and start being responsible for the positions you're positing.

a reply to: facedye

1. you're happy he got arrested for "potentially threatening the police with 'murder or something,' or a bomb."

Never actually said I was happy about it and its probably worth our while reading over the last few posts on the previous page as it looks as though he may not have even been arrested so nothing for you to get all upset over.

2. you're upset that your posts are not getting starred.

Last time i looked i had just shy of 20,000 stars, trust me once you get past a few thousand you dont even bother looking at how may stars a post is or is not getting.

3. your frustration about nobody agreeing with you here only makes you think that you must be right, while everyone must be wrong.

Well I am not saying i am right about anything or that anyone is wrong actually all i was saying was that its possible that there might have been more to this than meets the eye. Its turns out this may actually be true based on what we saw in the previous page.

4. you find any reason in the longer version of the video to support your moot point. you think him yelling "wake up" is enough of a reason for him to be arrested.

No I was just saying it shows him harassing people, how would you feel if i walked up to you and started shouting at you publicly to "wake up!". Its not very nice. It would be akin to me walking up to you in a bar and shouting at you to publicly shut up in my view.

it's also clear to me that your willingness to call someone a "truther" fuels your favoritism of the cops vs. the individual speaking his mind.

I also regard myself as a truther. If you chose to take offence at the word then that is your problem not mine.

nobody with common American sense here agrees with you

Which on ATS usually means your onto something......

Also please do tell us, how does common American sense differ from just good old regular common sense does it come with a side of fires or something I am confused

dp

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

No I was just saying it shows him harassing people, how would you feel if i walked up to you and started shouting at you publicly to "wake up!". Its not very nice. It would be akin to me walking up to you in a bar and shouting at you to publicly shut up in my view.

You completely failed to see the whole event with one thing leading to another.

How would you feel if someone doesn't even bother to look at the footage and mumbles 'terrorism' while moving towards you with a clearly aggressive body language? Of course that douche has to wake the eff up, probably the special snowflake who called the cops due to cognitive dissonance.

Here in Germany we have a special offensive title for such a person: Blockwart. It's condensed history actually, learn your lessions!

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Point proven. You cannot understand the values of freedom that Americans wish to preserve.

My "big bad guns" are strictly for defending myself and anyone else around me. Do you just wait for a bobby to come and help you if something goes wrong? Might take a while since they are enforcing misogyny laws lol.

Love my country, dislike my government.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

please refer to the last two gentlemens' responses to your reply to me.

you seem a bit clueless, and are now backing away from your own point of view as you sense a legitimacy in the sustained comments of disagreement with you.

it's okay to be wrong and presumptive sometimes. it's not okay to not own up to it.

still waiting on you to present *any* tangible information to save your drowning position. if you have no tangible information to present, it's usually best to have sound reasoning. I can keep picking apart your faulty reasoning ad infinitum. it's precisely why damn near everyone here would rather you present something of substance to back up your claims.

originally posted by: Tuomptonite
a reply to: samkent


Not sure if you're trolling, schilling or just plain ignorant.

If you're in the business of swaying online public opinion, might I suggest using a bit more tact and subtlety?

I assume this must be a side job, as most of your work seems rather amateur. Maybe you'll make it to the big leagues someday.

Good luck with that.


----------------------------------


I assure you, Samkent is no amateur. Probably didn't get enough coffee this morning.

a reply to: facedye

Lets just back it up for a second because you seem to have this rather annoying habit of claiming i have made some statements that i have actually not made. So to be clear, this is my original post which you have been debating.

The problem however with these kind of videos is that they are always only giving one side of the story due to the way the videos are being edited. For all we know there has been some clever edited to skip out the part where this guy tells the officers he wants to kill them or whatever. I am not saying that is what happened only that there are two sides to this story and we are only being told one side, probably something worth remembering. The guy who edits the video gets to pick what we see and as such pick what we get to know.

Just look at that bit in bold, keep it in mind as i respond your post....

you seem a bit clueless

About what?

and are now backing away from your own point

Show me exactly where i am doing this I have said all along its possible that there could be more to this video (the one in the OP) than meets the eye but I have also been very clear that I am NOT saying that this is the case in this video. I am really very clear in that all I am doing is pointing out that there MAY be a lot more to this video than we are being shown.

it's okay to be wrong and presumptive sometimes. it's not okay to not own up to it.

I love it when i see this on ATS, you accuse me of doing what you have been doing all along, you are being presumptive regarding my beliefs and you have not yet owned up to it.

still waiting on you to present *any* tangible information to save your drowning position.

What do you want proof of if you actually specifically say to me show me proof of x y and z then I will try (or i might not actually) to provide you with that proof/information or whatever.

Just constantly saying you have not shown any information to support your position when my position is not based on fact (i am quite open to this) is really quite funny. Its like you standing yelling at me to prove my opinion. I don't think you get the difference here. If i said "these guys punched a baby in the face 20 seconds before recording started" then you could say "show me the proof". IF on the other hand I say "there MAY be more to this" its totally different. I am expressing a opinion that in my view I think that based on 100 seconds worth of footage it is impossible to pretend to know exactly what has gone on leading up to and after the events of the video.

I can keep picking apart your faulty reasoning ad infinitum

Answer me this:

Where is the faulty reasoning in saying that one needs more than 100 seconds worth of footage to form a informed opinion on something that happened?

Thats almost like me reading the first 10 words of a book before saying its utter crap.

damn near everyone here would rather you present something of substance to back up your claims.

Ok fine I give up I am wrong you are right based on these 100 seconds of footage these cops are animals regardless of what may or may not have happened before this and regardless of how heavily edited and bias the video is. **Sarcasm**

originally posted by: samkent
He wasn't arrested for the challenge.
He was being stupid.
Now he has a record.
Good luck on that new job offer.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out
— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out
— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me
—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Good luck with that 'freedom' of yours.

Glad I don't live where you do.

What a sad shadow of itself US has become.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Of course that douche has to wake the eff up...

Confirming the point. Once again, if you go onto a college campus with that attitude and act like a pr***k to the cops you're going to get kicked out. It doesn't have anything to do with the content of his message. The police didn't even pay any attention to that.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

you seem a bit fussy now too

you're correct! nothing you've said is based in fact.

and you're a truther, huh?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: bobbypurify

To be clear I do not believe that 9/11 was aloud to happen or made to happen by any western state actors.

Your Thread Where You Claimed The Above

Here's where you made an entire thread about Richard Gage running 9/11 truth purely for profit:

Doubt AE911 Truth's Motives

you were called out in this thread too for the way in which you frame your positions.

show me ANYTHING that substantiates anything you're saying.

you can't, right? because you yourself said nothing you're positing is based in fact, just your opinion. your UNFOUNDED opinion. I can have an opinion that states you're the current king of france. should i be allowed to hold this opinion without concern for being wrong?

so why should I not give you s&#t for it when you're clearly driving this thread away from its meaning?

a reply to: facedye

quite a new level of pettiness you have descended to.

You do realise that you have not yet bothered to address any of the issues i brought up in my previous post directed at yourself.

If you want to discuss any of those threads the feel free to comment on them, just don't derail this thread.

Furthermore while your looking through my previous threads take a look at the one about the Saudi connection to 9/11, I was discussing that before it went mainstream.

if you want a fact filled thread check out this puppy Link its over 10,000 words with dozens of links, pics n videos stuffed with facts you will love it (sorry some vids no longer work)

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: facedye

quite a new level of pettiness you have descended to.

You do realise that you have not yet bothered to address any of the issues i brought up in my previous post directed at yourself.

If you want to discuss any of those threads the feel free to comment on them, just don't derail this thread.

Furthermore while your looking through my previous threads take a look at the one about the Saudi connection to 9/11, I was discussing that before it went mainstream.

what's petty about it?

what "issues" have i not bothered to address? quite frankly your opinion is so weak and unfounded (by your own admission) that it almost seems senseless to respond to.

the portion you outlined in bold is PRECISELY why your position is unfounded and can be picked apart infinitely.

I love it when i see this on ATS, you accuse me of doing what you have been doing all along, you are being presumptive regarding my beliefs and you have not yet owned up to it.

I'm not being presumptive about any part of your beliefs. I'm stating you have no reason to have them, thus no reason to hold the position you're maintaining.

Where is the faulty reasoning in saying that one needs more than 100 seconds worth of footage to form a informed opinion on something that happened?

that's not what you're saying at all. you're strictly implying that he must have done something malicious to deserve being put in handcuffs.

and you can't even admit that you just outright contradicted yourself.

let's try this again - was America involved in 9/11? did building 7 come down due to fire?

ME:

Where is the faulty reasoning in saying that one needs more than 100 seconds worth of footage to form a informed opinion on something that happened?

You:

that's not what you're saying at all. you're strictly implying that he must have done something malicious to deserve being put in handcuffs.

No that is exactly what i am saying in my opinion I do not believe anyone can build a reasonable interpretation of the events that before the police rolled up based on a edited 100 second clip. As such there could be more to this. COULD BE!!!! I AM NOT SAYING NOR HAVE I EVER SAID THAT THERE IS MORE TO THIS!!!!!!

let's try this again - was America involved in 9/11? did building 7 come down due to fire?

No and if you wish to discuss that further I have linked you to a thread that explains why if you wish to discuss my views on that further please do so on that thread (if your lucky i might respond)

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

so how did you not just outright contradict yourself by calling yourself a truther?

again, you seem confused.

we can discuss that here since this is DIRECTLY about building 7.

looks like you'd rather not talk about it.

you also completely glossed over the fact that you're explicitly implying Tuskin must have done something wrong for him to be put into handcuffs. looks like if you can't slither your way out of direct criticism you just don't respond to it at all.

EDIT: i mean really, are you just hoping I'd forget that you said he could have threatened the officers with murder or a bomb threat? LOL

a reply to: facedye

so how did you not just outright contradict yourself by calling yourself a truther?

Yes in my view a truther is a individual who seeks out the truth of what happened on 9/11 as such I would call myself a truther.

For me a truther is not a conspiracy theorist who makes up funny stories about fake planes and other such bollocks.I would go into this further but its off topic.

we can discuss that here since this is DIRECTLY about building 7.

Well I am not discussing it, to me this is a thread about a guy preaching his own version of 9/11 truth getting into a altercation with the police anything else is off-topic.

i mean really, are you just hoping I'd forget that you said he could have threatened the officers with murder or a bomb threat? LOL

Yes i did say that, is said COULD, COULD, I am not claiming as a fact that they threatened to murder the cops I was using a extreme example to articulate that for all we know these guys could have done something awful before the altercation with the police and then edited it of the video making them look innocent. For all you know they could have taken a bag of puppies and beaten orphans with them. All we have is 100 seconds that is not enough to claim these guys didn't deserve what they got.

again..... COULD.

a reply to: ugmold

Good thread, and a decent guy getting busted by rent-a-
cops for nothing. "Anything we feel like" ? I hope the
prosecutor has another performance bond lined up...
that's the first thing that's going to spontaneously burn.

I listened up till a few months ago to Tuskin's radio stream--
and I can't think a anybody on the Internet who's more
low key, easy-going and basically fact driven besides maybe
Stadtmiller. Two years straight, and I think I heard him lose it once.

Whatever the cop hauled in on should be choice...after they
can dream up whatever they think he did. Oh yeah, blasphemy.
One guy that lost his sandals in Galilee and did everything else
perfectly, and they nailed him anyway. Bad joke: so's this.--.02

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

you're totally the king of france. pretty sure i saw you outside of the 24 hour bodega here on 34th st. with your golden cap, asking if anyone wants to buy red hot chili peppers tickets at a 25% discount.

don't believe me? hey man.. COULD BE. YOU NEVER KNOW.

but hey, you're right, there's way more reason to suspect that he threatened the cops with murder than him pissing off someone whose sensitivities were hurt and reported him. because the 9/11 truth movement is typically known for death threats instead of being shut down and disproportionately criticized, right?

you know what's wrong with your position on this?

imagine if you were falsely arrested for a crime you didn't commit and all of the witnesses judging your case were under the impression that "there's more to the story" because there's "a chance that you could have really robbed that woman's purse before or after the security footage being shown."

you're simply leaving and feeding off of false impressions with no tangible information to justify them. that's all they are. expect this response from people every time you do that.