Careful With Disinfo Accusations.

Originally posted by thelibra

This site exists for the sole purpose of users being able to respectfully discuss and debate their opinions, findings, and theories, about niche topics, without ridicule

Then may i suggest that you delete the toy soldier post right above your own.

Not to mention spawn's 2 long off topic posts right bellow your own post asking to stay on topic.

[edit on 5-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by thelibra
That you would condemn any of our members to death for holding a different view goes against everything ATS stands for, and quite frankly, sickens me.

Now go think about what you've done, and I suggest you apologize to the community as well.

Hmmm mod, i am quite sure that you misunderstood what zoomein meant...

The guy don't believe there were terrorists that did 911 and so that means he is saying that people who believes there were terrorists, deserves to stay in delusion.

He could have also meant the NWO were the maniacs, saying that people who believes the official story deserves what's coming to them for letting it happen.(What i mean by letting it happen is, letting the NWO do their plans.)

That's just possible interpretations of what he meant, i don't think he was saying that they deserve to die.

That's what i understood out of his statement.


[edit on 5-6-2007 by selfless]

The government is not concerned with disinfo since the general public does that enough for them, but they are the masters of propoganda. Take a look at any US army ad or Navy ad with Godsmack playing in the background, and you have propoganda.

Disinfo would be a government agent confiding in you, believing you and then pushing their agenda. Most of us are on this site for some good artciles, interesting debate and to see jsut how some people think and tick.

As long as the public is looking at WTC7, Shanksville will become a made for TV memory. Now, Flight 93, that is disinfo as it is a movie that cannot be proven with fact.

Originally posted by esdad71
The government is not concerned with disinfo

I strongly disagree with you on that.

The government relies on dis info to stay alive... if the government were at least 5% honest about what they are actually doing, the whole world would hunt them down.

Objectively speaking Zoomein's video and the discussion by Spawwwn would be somewhat on topic as it deals with information and ideas coming from a predrawn conclusion. Now if it is misinformation or even deliberate disinfo is up to the viewer's opinion.

If I were to burp in front of a pretty girl, then her opinion of if it was deliberate or accidental would be up to her as either explaination from me would be subject to her interpetation. If I don't immediately say "Excuse me" in an apologetic mannor then she may have stronger leanings towards me doing it on purpose to be rude.

Now comparing 9/11 to a burp is a bit of a stretch, but it does show how conclusions and reactions are formed very quickly. The same applies when talking about 9/11. Ultimately everyone and eveything is judged by others. Some opinions will find that WTC7 was a CD. Others will not reach that same conclusion.

Without solid proof either way then it remains in the realm of opinion. Namecalling and dismissing presentaion that is against your own opinion is where the danger lays. Strong personal belief in opinions as to exclude others and their presentations is very dangerous. Holding your opinion against others that disprove your presentation is also a dangerous position. That one happens in this forum all too often. I would give examples but I think a casual reader can find that on their own.

Bold statements like "everyone that follows the official story should be hanged right beside Bush and Cheney" is no different than "Nuke all them towelheads and let god sort them out". Both are examples of blind hate. It is unfortunate when the first one would get more cheers at a Truth Movement meeting than the second one would at a KKK meeting.

This is why the more I look into everything behind 9/11, the more I am forming the opinion that the Truth Movement is becoming more and more like a cult that excludes people that present ideas go against the core beliefs.

Ahabstar,

They turned my thread about the video.

They should make a thread about the video altogether, i think.

Don't you think?

seems quite simple to me. they planted mini-nukes on the foundations of the twin towers and building 7. the counters show a demolition, and the continued radiation didnt come from nowhere.

the planes were radio controlled into the buildings, time passed, then they demo'd the buildings.

why all the theories? its really that simple. how many expert talking heads do we need to verify sustainable facts? the scripted big brother media responded, and packaged the event into a false flag event which allowed us to invade iraq and afghanistan.

all these people creating theories are just detracting from the facts. most of them are paid by the government to spread disinformation and alternative theories. our society is built on this :

create multiple opposing viewpoints on everything, so that everything is in question, and there is never an answer. thats why we will always be talking about JFK, ROSWELL, 911, etc etc

Originally posted by TheDecider
all these people creating theories are just detracting from the facts. most of them are paid by the government to spread disinformation and alternative theories. our society is built on this :

The disinformation comes from the the corporate media channels like CNN and FOX News and those channels are tied with the shadow government's interests.

The disinformation is the official story because that's the story that the corporate corrupted news channels portrayed. It's the story that the government is advocating.

If the government makes up theories about 911 being an inside job, it's still putting forth the inside job ideology into the collective consciousness and that aspect of the event of 911 is not supposed to be exposed.

Like i said before, if the government was putting forth disinfo theories about possible inside job methods. It would be like a criminal admitting to murder but instead of telling the truth that he used a knife, he would say that he used a sword.

The truth is that the 911 movement was not planned by the government and they are avoiding it altogether and hoping that it doesn't break out of control.

There are still more people in USA who believes the official story over anything else, the government is not in serious trouble yet.

[edit on 5-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless
Ahabstar,

They turned my thread about the video.

They should make a thread about the video altogether, i think.

Don't you think?

Yes I agree that a separate discusson thread about that video should be started unless one already exists. However sometimes a topic does remind someone of a different point. And then someone else will address that point. Such a derailing isn't overly polite, but it does happen from time to time. Some derailings lead to interesting places, some do not.

As the OP, you have stated you don't want it in your thread so as a poster I will respect that and not comment on that video in this thread.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
As the OP, you have stated you don't want it in your thread so as a poster I will respect that and not comment on that video in this thread.

No, I'm sorry.

Feel free to post anything you want.

Just because i made the thread doesn't make me a dictator :0

I just thought there was enough material to make a new thread about their arguments, that's all.

Surely you have heard this famous statement: 'The people deserve the government they put in power'

THAT is what I mean.

I am offended if you think I want people murdered. Do I hell. Which is why I am part of the 9/11 truth Movement.

(edit--this post is reply to the 'warning' I have received')

[edit on 6-6-2007 by zoomein]

actually you're right because i dont wanna "hyjack" this thread. i'll make it in 2 minutes.

Originally posted by zoomein
Surely you have heard this famous statement: 'The people deserve the government they put in power'

THAT is what I mean.

Yes, I've used that phrase many times myself, and am in full agreement with it. However, what you posted was in no way, shape, or form, resembling that sentiment. Let's revisit it one more time, just to be crystal clear why you were first warned.

Originally posted by zoomein
Look really. The attitude from the first, arrogance, and evasiveness, of you two is not WORTH MY efforts. Wallow in your ignore-ance if that is your wish.

All you had to do is answer the friggin questions. But as is usual, you OCTers always evade, and accuse. You never think, and apply yourselves. You deserve the maniacs who do such things like 9/11, but many others dont!

There is zero resemblence to what you claim you meant, and the very last sentence smacks of murderous intent towards your fellow members. Thus, you were warned.

Regardless of what you claim you meant, your warn should have served as a wake up call to better phrase what you mean. An intelligent individual would have left it at that. However, your answer U2U back to me, that you refuse to apologize, and called me a hysterical fool.

That is what resulted in your post-ban by Springer.

Originally posted by zoomein
I am offended if you think I want people murdered. Do I hell. Which is why I am part of the 9/11 truth Movement.

You are offended that your insult and threat wasn't interpreted in the allegorically vague manner you claim it was intended?

You would do well to take some constructive criticism on how you word things. You will never convince anyone of anything by calling them names, and claiming they deserve to be visited with some 9/11 action, and further, you will severely anger the board staff for those kinds of remarks. But what will really get you some unpleasant results is insulting the staff of ATS when they warn you. That got you post-banned.

Some time away from posting will cool your jets for a while. I suggest you use it to learn some tact and humility. I've posted this in-thread just so there is no confusion over what happened. Hopefully others learn from your example of what not to do.

thelibra, I have to disagree.

If I was able to know what zoomein meant, others should have been able to understand it as well.

Edit: I vouch that zoomein was wrongfully accused.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless
thelibra, I have to disagree.

If I was able to know what zoomein meant, others should have been able to understand it as well.

Edit: I vouch that zoomein was wrongfully accused.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by selfless]

You are welcome to disagree, but the consensus of the staff is otherwise, and to make matters worse, he U2Ued insult in addition to his stated refusal to apologize.

The complaint button is at your disposal should you feel the need to take the issue further, otherwise I suggest learning from the experience.

You can, likewise, expect a similar reaction any time I see someone state that a fellow member deserves to be the target of a 9/11 style attack, regardless of what they claim to have meant. I absolutely will not tolerate it within forums that I moderate, to my knowledge, none of the other moderaters will tolerate it in theirs, and since Springer, one of the three founders of the site opted for the post-ban, I feel pretty safe saying the owners of the site will not tolerate it either.

So, again, I would recommend taking this as a learning experience to be careful what you say about your fellow members, and if there is a misunderstanding, it's a real bad idea to insult the staff member who warns you.