The Lie Movement?

Originally posted by Griff

Second, fire CAN melt steel.

Please show oh great one. PLEASE BECAUSE YOU CAN"T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I respectfully submit the following resources for your benefit:

en.wikipedia.org...

This shows the different temperature ranges of fire. Even a bunsen burner can generate flames up to 2900 F.

Steel, depending on the allow, melts at around 2500 F. The NIST report says 2700, still below the temperature of a bunsen burner. An oxyhydrogen flame can be up to 3600 F. So yes, fire can melt steel.

Or stating that Bush and Bin Laden were in business together.

Please do your homework. Your generalization statements make me want to puke.

Still working on finding out how Bush and bin Laden were in business together?

That is what this whole thread is about. You lying to us people. Either that or you're not even 14 years old to discuss this.

I am still waiting for you to cite one reference where I lied to you. I do not think it is nice to accuse me of lying when you cannot back up the accusations.

And money is not a motivator? Please go back to you Hollywood physics...because I've already said...I don't need you and your kind in this world.....we'll see who wins and makes the history. You neo-cons (neo-nazis) AREW NOT GOING TO WIN. PLEASE I BEG YOU COME TO MY HOUSE>>>>>PLEASE!!!!!!!!!! I'll throw you down like you've never known. I'm sick of the # in this country and it's it's gettin bad. BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

U2U me your home address and I will be happy to visit you.

MODERATORS: Is calling another member a nazi and threatening physical violence allowed per TOS?

So this is what you see when you hold a mirror up to the truth movement. Not a very flattering sight, imo.

Originally posted by Springer
robertz I fear ATS may not be the forum for you. You have been post banned already in your very short time here and you still don't seem to "get it".

People who express their OPINION of what happened are not "liars". This is truly your last chance to get with the program here, when our members DISCUSS their personal opinions YOU are not the arbiter of what YOU think is "truth" and YOU will no longer call our members LIARS.

GOT IT?!

Springer...

The term liars was meant to contrast the moniker that the TRUTH movement has given themselves. I meant nothing personal by it. I apologize.

That said, I was post banned for fairly benign commentary compared to others here like Griff who called me a neo-nazi and threatened to physically harm me, and pigchunks who wished death upon me. Neither or these members even received a warning.

I point this out only to let you know that it is a bit difficult for a new member here to understand the acceptable standards when moderators fail to even make a comment about posts like these. This is why I was a bit surprised when you post-banned me for giving my opinion to another member that ATS applies a different standard for John Lear.

I hope you understand that I am not complaining about this or questioning your judgment -I just am pointing this out to you so you can get an understanding how it might be difficult for a new member to know the standards that apply here when they are not applied uniformly.

Thanks,

robert

Originally posted by robert z
The term liars was meant to contrast the moniker that the TRUTH movement has given themselves. I meant nothing personal by it. I apologize.

Oh so only the people looking for the truth are liars and the poeple who call them names and insult them, plus cannot come with any facts or evidence for debate would ever lie?

Back to the topic of this thread:

The hologram theroy is so far fetched it tops my list. This is quickly followed by hijacking by way of remote control.

Why didn't they just hologram up a few wmd's for the camera's in Iraqi.

I have tried on several occasions to debate some of these topics and facts, however instead I get the, I have research and evidence where is yours response. By the way with the exception of Craig Ranke, I have not seen their evidence.

Originally posted by wsamplet
This is quickly followed by hijacking by way of remote control.

Why didn't they just hologram up a few wmd's for the camera's in Iraqi.

1. I guess you have not seen or heard of the systems that can be used to remote control a plane. Did you know that Isreal was even blamed for crashing a plane using a remote controll system? (sorry that would prove your theory wrong)


2. So you have not seen the photos and reports of the buried MIGs with equipment on them that was banned by the UN? You must not have seen the reports that most of the WMDs and material was either taken to Syria or hidden? (oh sorry again that would prove your theory wrong)

I personally don’t buy:

Missile hit Pentagon (started by Rumsfeld, continued through with Meyssan)
POD theory as per In Plane Site (which has aired twice on Australian Television)
Any ‘no plane’ theory including Loose Change’s analysis. Holograms, CGI etc
Larry’s ‘pull it’ comment I feel is disinformation – not that I believe it wasn’t brought down by CD.
Directed energy weapons - ‘moon’ beams.
ET’s did it
Solely one group eg the Zionists, bankers, etc.
The official ‘conspiracy’ theory that has more unanswered questions than any other conspiracy theory (except perhaps UFO’s)

People I don’t trust (anymore): Fetzer, Wood, Meyssan, Jimmy Walters, Von Kleist, Tarpley, Rense, A Jones (yes has some good info but clearly a sensationalist at the minimum), Hilton, Morgan Reynolds. Some of they guys from patriotsquestion911 such as Major General Albert Stubblebine, Col. George Nelson, MBA plus numerous others.
Also a few from ATS that I won’t mention.

Of course I know I may be wrong but there is no doubt that the truth community is divided and there are more and more unbelievable theories that pop up continuously. It is these ‘crazy’ theories that seem to get the most air time on commercial television such as FOX. Disninfo 101.

I tend to trust the professors at Journal for 9/11 studies, stj911.org, WTC7.net but prefer doing my own research these days

Originally posted by cams
POD theory as per In Plane Site

Larry’s ‘pull it’ comment I feel is disinformation – not that I believe it wasn’t brought down by CD.

Well their is a possablity for the POD. PODs can be put on airliners or civilian aircraft.

Well fire chiefNigro contridicted Silverstiens statement that "pull it" meant the firemen.

Chief Nigro evacuated the firemen without talking to Silverstien.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by robert z
The term liars was meant to contrast the moniker that the TRUTH movement has given themselves. I meant nothing personal by it. I apologize.

Oh so only the people looking for the truth are liars and the poeple who call them names and insult them, plus cannot come with any facts or evidence for debate would ever lie?

No, I respectfully suggest that you may be missing my point. The people who claim the government is telling us lies have branded themselves the TRUTH Movement, implying that they either want the truth or know the truth. However, ironically people from the TRUTH movement repeatedly make arguments that are completely FALSE, i.e. either intentionally lying or misrepresenting factual matters unknowingly. The latter is usually the result of people parroting sites like LC.

Of course people who argue for the official story make nonsense up too, but the difference is that they do not self-righteously call themselves the TRUTH movement.

My point is that if this movement is going to be about finding the truth, then the truthers need to be extrordinarly careful about saying things that are not true.

See, if you are going to claim that you are interested in the TRUTH, then you must no perpetuate falsehoods or even half-truths or it will make you look insincere and foolish, thereby discrediting the TRUTH movement.

Make sense?

Originally posted by robert z
No, I respectfully suggest that you may be missing my point. The people who claim the government is telling us lies have branded themselves the TRUTH Movement, implying that they either want the truth or know the truth. However, ironically people from the TRUTH movement repeatedly make arguments that are completely FALSE, i.e. either intentionally lying or misrepresenting factual matters unknowingly. The latter is usually the result of people parroting sites like LC.

Well i have to respecfully say that you have not been on many forums with people who believe the official story. First most of them insult people who do not believe what they believe. Second they demand evidence from anyone who does not believe but refuse to show any evidence themselves.

Also they are usually the ones who claim they know what happened that day and that they do not need to do research to find out what happned.

I do my research on professional and government research sites. If you like ask me something to discuss and i will show evidence and sites used. And as stated several times i also file FOIA requests and e-mail companies.

I do not pick any sides, i am doing researc on my own to find out what really happened that day. I still cannot understand why people who are looking for the truth are called conspiracy theorist when the main conspiracy is the 19 terrorist hijacking planes, the theme of the official story.

Originally posted by johnlear
I would also respectfully suggest that you change the word 'lunacy' to something more appropriate like 'unlikely'.

John, I would respectfully suggest that the word lunacy be reserved only for your theories involving the moon, i.e., lunar topics.

(Note to mods: This is just a joke! Trying to lighten things up around here a little bit!)

Originally posted by robert z
John, I would respectfully suggest that the word lunacy be reserved only for your theories involving the moon, i.e., lunar topics.

(Note to mods: This is just a joke! Trying to lighten things up around here a little bit!)

Oh no, do not say that or you will get a debate going about the moon landing.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well i have to respecfully say that you have not been on many forums with people who believe the official story. First most of them insult people who do not believe what they believe. Second they demand evidence from anyone who does not believe but refuse to show any evidence themselves.

Also they are usually the ones who claim they know what happened that day and that they do not need to do research to find out what happned.

I do my research on professional and government research sites. If you like ask me something to discuss and i will show evidence and sites used. And as stated several times i also file FOIA requests and e-mail companies.

I do not pick any sides, i am doing researc on my own to find out what really happened that day. I still cannot understand why people who are looking for the truth are called conspiracy theorist when the main conspiracy is the 19 terrorist hijacking planes, the theme of the official story.

I agree 100%. The people at JREF for example are some of the most arrogant jerks that I have ever seen. But we as a group cannot be sucked into their world, nor stoop to their level, because we are the ones that have a very steep uphill battle in trying to convince people that the official story is wrong.

All it takes is one tiny distortion of the truth and the official story propagandists use it to discredit the entire truth movement.

This is why I would love to see Craig Ranke go from boasting that he has irrefutable proof of a conspiracy to saying something like he has enough probable cause to investigate further.

Follow this logic. I will use Ranke just as an example.

If Ranke says he has incontrovertible proof of an inside job to somebody who is an official story believer, and that person does not agree that the proof is undeniable as Ranke says, then the official story believer is left defending the official story. In other words, Ranke has created an all or nothing scenario in which the official story believer is forced to chose a side based on Rankes bold claims.

Now if Ranke just said he has enough proof that there is probable cause to investigate further the discrepancy between witnesses to the north of Citgo flight path and the fallen pole flight path, he could get an official story believer to agree that there is probable cause to investigate further.

In other words, trying to convince average people who believe the official story that it was an inside job planned by Bush is like seeing a pretty girl and asking her to marry you while standing in line at Starbucks. You have to go through the process of meeting her, going on a first date, etc.

Same with trying to convince people that it was an inside job somehow. You cannot just claim it was an inside job, PLUS give even debatable evidence for your case. People will laugh at you, just like the pretty girl at Starbucks would laugh at you if you asked her to marry you while standing in line.

The fallacy of the Truth Movement is that they claim to know the TRUTH about so many things when in fact the only thing they really know is that the official story is NOT true.

reply to post by ULTIMA1



Regarding the PODS. This was presented by 'In Plane Site' as virtual proof that 911 was an inside job -they had to be military planes, we can see PODS, flashes etc.
Now why would these 'PODS' be in plane view in front of thousands of cameras anyway? Why not pack the plane full of explosives?
"That was not an American Airline" - Of course it wasn't. It was UNITED Airlines 175. Flight 175 had to end up somewhere and one can only speculate as to where it may have gone. Did it land, was it shot down over the sea? Wouldn't it have been easier to use it to hit the south tower instead and dispose of it that way?
POD theory is definitely not well accepted in the 9/11 truth community, much like no planers and particle weapons etc.

Sure, Silverstein's comment absolutely makes no real sense, but that is why I believe it is disinformation. If Silverstein was talking about the firefighters, then this makes no sense grammatically but if he was referring to the actual rescue operation as 'it', then it may make more sense. However, it is widely accepted that there were no firefighters or operations happening in WTC7 after midday anyway, so his comment still baffles me. He is basically admitting complicity on national television which doesn't make a great deal of sense, especially considering how much (financial) influence over people he must have. I'm sure he never would have allowed the 'pull it' comment to be made public in the first place if he thought he was admitting guilt.
'Pull it' as far as I am aware (could be wrong though) is not a common term used in CD when using explosives. They do pull buildings with cables though. eg "Getting ready to pull building 6" (- with cables)

I just prefer not to touch Larry's comment anymore, must like I prefer to avoid the Pentagon due to too much speculation and lack of all available evidence.

1. Well if ther was a POD on the plane that hit the South tower it could have been a jammer. I have photos of airliners and civilian planes with PODs, Recon PODs and weapons PODs

2. Fire chief Nigro has contridicted Silverstiens statement about PULL IT meaning the firemen. Chif Nigro stated he evacuated the firemen wihout talking to anyone.



..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link


[edit on 14-10-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by robert z
My point is that if this movement is going to be about finding the truth, then the truthers need to be extrordinarly careful about saying things that are not true.

See, if you are going to claim that you are interested in the TRUTH, then you must no perpetuate falsehoods or even half-truths or it will make you look insincere and foolish, thereby discrediting the TRUTH movement.

Make sense?

I agree with you robert z, this is the a big issue with me and others(ULTIMA?) looking for answers to the 911 riddle.

Is the government withholding the reports and other evidence because it's embarasing or to avoid lawsuits? Or is there some fundamental underlying "truth" that would shatter peoples conception of "how things are"?

Posters on both sides of the issue regularly blur the line between fact and opinion to make their arguement seem more sound. It's part of human nature I suppose.

I'll search for the answers and argue against the improbable until proven wrong or convinced otherwise.

Your thread here has been somewhat of a disturbance in the force. I too was somewhat brash when I started posting here but learned to keep my writing within the "rules of engagement".

InfinityO'Reilly

reply to post by wsamplet


I'm not sure why you dismiss remote controlled aircraft.Perhaps you can explain this......

Test crash

DEW

I threw in the DEW link because I found it interesting.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Posters on both sides of the issue regularly blur the line between fact and opinion to make their arguement seem more sound. It's part of human nature I suppose.

I'll search for the answers and argue against the improbable until proven wrong or convinced otherwise.

Your thread here has been somewhat of a disturbance in the force. I too was somewhat brash when I started posting here but learned to keep my writing within the "rules of engagement".

InfinityO'Reilly

The difference between posters on the official story side of the argument is that they have the weight of the government and 99% of the public opinion to buttress their beliefs. That is a steep uphill battle to overcome.

The truthers are the side that is trying to change the opinions and beliefs of the vast majority of the world. The truthers need only to tell a single lie, and they will be discredited beyond being taken seriously ever again.

Why?

Because people will immediately look for reasons to defend their own belief systems. If they find a flaw in your argument, they will think you are wrong and they are right.

The title of this thread, THE LIE MOVEMENT, was meant to show truthers how official story believers look at the truth movement, and why.

The difference between posters on the official story side of the argument is that they have the weight of the government and 99% of the public opinion to buttress their beliefs. That is a steep uphill battle to overcome.

The weight of the government whom simultaniously posted 3 seperate and contradictory works?

please cite your source that the public is behind the official story 99%. If you cannot consider your 'truth' debunked.

Bashing 'Truthers' may for a large part be founded; it does not add any credentials whatsoever to the '3 official stories' which have also been debunked thoroughly.

I respectfully direct you to my last post and ask you to provide any information that suggest what I have posted is incorrect.

Originally posted by jprophet420

please cite your source that the public is behind the official story 99%. If you cannot consider your 'truth' debunked.

This is just my own personal observations, as evidenced by the fact that in 6 years only a small handful of people out of 300 million in the U.S. have made any fuss about re-opening the 9/11 investigation.

Bashing 'Truthers' may for a large part be founded; it does not add any credentials whatsoever to the '3 official stories' which have also been debunked thoroughly.

Again, you miss the point. The official stories have inherent credibility built in because of the institutions that publish the stories, and the checks and balances within the institutions, overseen by a competitive 2-party adversarial system. I.e., there is reason to believe that people with vested interests inside the system would be in a position to expose lies within the official investigation.

Conversely, people like Dylan Avery bring no inherent credibility to the table. What credibility John Lear might have had has been undermined by his own unlikely theories for which he provides no evidence.

You see, the truth movement is nothing more than a random cast of characters that have little history of credibility. Steven Jones may have been the most credible, and he was certainly given a fair share a media attention.

Originally posted by robert z
The truthers need only to tell a single lie, and they will be discredited beyond being taken seriously ever again.

Why?

Because people will immediately look for reasons to defend their own belief systems. If they find a flaw in your argument, they will think you are wrong and they are right.

Human nature I suppose, I know I struggled with the idea of a heist so hugh its effects with be felt for decades. And generations of victums will be hurt by the outcome of choices made by a select few who happened to be incharge at the time of the crime. None of those incharge on 911 lost their jobs, most were promoted or given medals.