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 Ahabstar
Good arguements but it really hinges in the belief, speculation, deduced conclusion that it was an inside job not the possibility that the government honestly dropped the ball by incompetence, disbelief or even unable to act in time with incomplete information in reguards to warnings from other governments.
Originally posted by selfless
Ahabstar,
Do you believe the official story?
PS: I'm having a hard time reading your sentences, the way they are put together.
Maybe it's because I am not English.
[edit on 3-6-2007 by selfless]
Originally posted by selfless
The following is my opinion, please take it as such.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's obvious by now that no terrorists did 911...
So now people know this and they are trying to figure out how it was done.
When someone introduces a theory in the realm of 911 being an inside job, people will call them disinfo if they don't agree with the theory...
This is getting ridiculous to say the least. Why can't people be open to all possibilities on how 911 was done. There are multiple evidence that suggests all kinds of theories so how can a theory be a disinfo?
The disinfo is the official story, that's about as far as disinfo can go...
You can't have disinfo if the theory is still saying 911 was an inside job.
All theories on how 911 was done are speculations at this point so how is it possible to single out a theory and stamp it disinfo? It can't...
Disinfo's purpose is to hide who did the crime to the population, not say that 911 was an inside job but hide how it was done. That's like admitting to a crime but tell the police that you used a sword instead of a knife...
Simply, you can't have a disinfo if the theory still says that 911 was an inside job because the purpose of disinfo is to sway the populations that 911 was done by terrorists. Any theories that suggests inside job no matter what the claim on how it was achieved is the resulting manifestation of individuals who are doing research and putting up theories on how it was done.
Originally posted by selfless
It's obvious by now that no terrorists did 911...
Originally posted by Ahabstar
The Official Story is Theory.
It's obvious by now that no terrorists did 911...
All theories on how 911 was done are speculations at this point so how is it possible to single out a theory and stamp it disinfo? It can't...
Originally posted by selfless
The following is my opinion, please take it as such.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's obvious by now that no terrorists did 911...
My Thoughts - How so ? I believe the exact OPPOSITE ..
So now people know this and they are trying to figure out how it was done.
My Thoughts - It was done by 19 pissed off zealots .
When someone introduces a theory in the realm of 911 being an inside job, people will call them disinfo if they don't agree with the theory...
My Thoughts -Completely Untrue .. their just wrong
This is getting ridiculous to say the least. Why can't people be open to all possibilities on how 911 was done. There are multiple evidence that suggests all kinds of theories so how can a theory be a disinfo?
My Thoughts - Im open to the idea , I just believe my eyes and my eyes
tell me that the towers gave way at the impact site on both buildings .
Disinformation is just that , disinformation . The only disinformation about 911 is that the truth virus's taking almost all statements and listening to sound bytes and taking it as fact , not caring to listen to the whole sentence or paragraph . And drawing conclusions from that .
Originally posted by selfless
The following is my opinion, please take it as such.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's obvious by now that no terrorists did 911...
So now people know this and they are trying to figure out how it was done.
When someone introduces a theory in the realm of 911 being an inside job, people will call them disinfo if they don't agree with the theory...
This is getting ridiculous to say the least. Why can't people be open to all possibilities on how 911 was done. There are multiple evidence that suggests all kinds of theories so how can a theory be a disinfo?
The disinfo is the official story, that's about as far as disinfo can go...
You can't have disinfo if the theory is still saying 911 was an inside job. All theories on how 911 was done are speculations at this point so how is it possible to single out a theory and stamp it disinfo? It can't...
Disinfo's purpose is to hide who did the crime to the population, not say that 911 was an inside job but hide how it was done. That's like admitting to a crime but tell the police that you used a sword instead of a knife...
Simply, you can't have a disinfo if the theory still says that 911 was an inside job because the purpose of disinfo is to sway the populations that 911 was done by terrorists. Any theories that suggests inside job no matter what the claim on how it was achieved is the resulting manifestation of individuals who are doing research and putting up theories on how it was done.
These are not disinfo, but speculations and researching...
I'm not with the government and i could come up with a theory right now on how 911 was done and tell others about it.Someone might say that i am a disinfo agent but yet all i did was theorize on possibilities of methods that 911 was created and not be a disinfo agent at all...
Be careful with these disinfo accusations... The accusations them selves might be the resulting end of awareness on 911, not the actual theories that were stamped disinfo......
[edit on 3-6-2007 by selfless]
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Disinformation = consciously and strategically incorrect information
It's misinfo but on purpose. Misinfo abouds, and it seems some of it's gotta be DISinfo.
I will explain better later...
disinformation=
Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation:
misinformation=
To provide with incorrect information.
disinfo is the official story, that's about as far as disinfo can go...
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Your thread is titled "careful with disinfo accusations," which is reasonable enough. But in reality you seem to be saying here that, BY DEFINITION, no such thing as disinfo from within the movement exists. With all due respect, that's a pretty silly thing to say. Or am I misreading?