Are 9/11 Official Story Proponents Really the Unpatriotic?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Wyn Hawks

 

You presented yourself as an expert in aircraft accidents.

...you have an over-indulged imagination...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I am trying to find out what your qualifications are....which, from your post, I am going to guess..none.

...there are no professional qualifications required to post here - and - if there were, the most efficient way to find out someone's qualifications is to ASK them...

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by ts117
Little late in the thread, but I think it is really unfair to call someone unpatriotic simply because they share a different belief or perception of what happened. There are thousands of other words that can be used to describe someone who doesnt share your particular vision (my dog's name is Stupid), but unpatriotic is not one of them.

Yeah great then...Why don't you call into the Sean Hannity show, tell the call screener that, and you just see if they'll let you on the show. No chance.

That's what we have been putting up with for YEARS, just because we dare question the official story. Back at ya.

So you want to insult a person's honor and immediately dismiss any service they may have done for our country, put them in a mentally defensive posture so they can not listen with an open mind, all because that's how the propaganda idiots of the MSM like Sean Hannity engages in logical debate?

Way back in the day, we called this strategy "Nanny-nanny boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo".

Ps. It didnt work very well.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Just so we are clear there are two groups "The Truth Movement" and the "Ignorance Movement". Awesome

I just took off all those in the "Ignorance Movement" off ignore, just for fun.

And why not...


the Anti-Truth movement
...
filled with Anti-Truthers?


The way some are dedicated to throw away a new investigation would justify the name.

Isn't it time to throw the gloves off?

(Edit: double post)
:-P

[edit on 2-6-2009 by TheTilde]

Originally posted by ts117
So you want to insult a person's honor and immediately dismiss any service they may have done for our country, put them in a mentally defensive posture so they can not listen with an open mind, all because that's how the propaganda idiots of the MSM like Sean Hannity engages in logical debate?

PROPONENT

Main Entry:
pro·po·nent
Pronunciation:
\prə-ˈpō-nənt, ˈprō-ˌ\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin proponent-, proponens, present participle of proponere
Date:
1588

: one who argues in favor of something : advocate

Now please reread the thread title, or here:

Are 9/11 Official Story Proponents Really the Unpatriotic?

This thread directly addresses those, who either with or without 9/11 research continue to actively argue the official story line, but more particularly, those who call us unpatriotic for questioning the official story. THOSE are the ones I am really after with this. Except I feel like I have provided several reasons for it, whereas they provide nothing other than outright name calling with no real basis.

While calling anyone unpatriotic might not be a good thing to do, what I am trying to say is we have more of a basis to call them that than they do us.

And so yeah, it's high time the gloves DO come off. I'm sick of it.

i am an OIF vet (06-08) and i have personally thought that the government's story on 9-11 was shady to begin with. having never witnessed an airplane crash up lose and personal like, I can at least say I've seen plenty on television. Shanksville looked nothing like an ordinary plane crash. And as for the Pentagon, that was most certainly not an airplane.
IMHO people can have two attitudes when it comes to the government's deceptions; they can blame incompetence or they can blame malevolence. Usually the masses choose the former.

posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by LucidDreamer85

 

Such a sad post. I never once advocated violence..other posters did that. I simply invited someone to come and discuss his opinions with the very people he accuses of being unpatriotic.

The very people he accuses of being unpatriotic? Exactly where in the OP or my post were the people on your base accused of being unpatriotic? As far as we know, YOU (Swampfox46_1999) are the only unpatriotic person on your base aren't you?

Fine, come on over to my base and express those opinions.

The hundreds or even thousands of people on your base have not been posturing themselves as proponents of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY have they?

Only you have done that.

What makes you think the personnel on your base are your allies in defending the 9-11 perps? What makes you think these people on your base would not be your enemies if they started researching the 9-11 New Pearl Harbor Event on their own?

In fact you do not know if some of these personnel on your base have not already researched 9-11 and are already anonomously your opponents, maybe even here on ATS, do you?

So we should be able to travel to your base, educate the personnel there, and perhaps find many willing patriotic opponents to the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY; the exact opposite of you.

There is no reason to assume that all military personnel are unpatriotic like you and automatic supporters of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is there? There are active duty opponents of the official fantasy tale aren't there?

These officers were active duty in 2005 when exposing Able Danger weren't they? There are a lot of highly decorated retired military personnel also opposing you aren't there?

Captain Scott J. Phillpott, US Navy
Major Erik Kleinsmith, U.S. Army
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve

Patriots Question 911



[edit on 6/2/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
Damn, I would at least think about it, or start a revolt against them on the plane, I like my life, and you never know what could happen when your plane gets hijacked..

Lets just say I wouldn't roll the dice and expect the plane to land with me getting off of it if they were threatening to blow up the plane (while only wielding box cutters)

This is a classic example why 99.9% of the Troothers are not to be believed or given the time of day. The ignorance (not a pejorative) they display on these matters is astounding.

FAA policy regarding hijacks, pre 9/11, was for aircrew to employ a "Common Strategy" with regards to hijacks, that is to comply with the hijacker's wishes and go where they want/fly where they say/do what they say to do. Do not resist, was the common strategy. Get the plane on the ground safely and then a wealth of options open up - fuel denial, negotiations cna begin, SWAT or Special Forces teams can be employed, many, many things can begin. If some hijacker IS armed with a firearm in the sky, getting the plane on the ground if he decides to shoot is much
preferable to having him shoot while still airborne.

The final layer, security on board commercial aircraft, was not designed to counter suicide hijackings. The FAA-approved "Common Strategy" had been elaborated over decades of experience with scores of hijackings, beginning in the 1960s. It taught flight crews that the best way to deal with hijackers was to accommodate their demands, get the plane to land safely, and then let law enforcement or the military handle the situation. According to the FAA, the record had shown that the longer a hijacking persisted, the more likely it was to end peacefully. The strategy operated on the fundamental assumption that hijackers issue negotiable demands (most often for asylum or the release of prisoners) and that, as one FAA official put it, "suicide wasn't in the game plan" of hijackers. FAA training material provided no guidance for flight crews should violence occur.

From National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States

Today? Sure...you'd have a hundred or however many passengers ripping a team of hijackers apart if he stood up with a "box cutter" - geez! Kind of like what happened on United 93! To retroactively say "Boxcutters? I would have torn him apart!" is really a pretty childish response and typical of the 9/11 Troother mentality.

I mean come on man

Yeah...come on, man.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
Damn, I would at least think about it, or start a revolt against them on the plane, I like my life, and you never know what could happen when your plane gets hijacked..

Lets just say I wouldn't roll the dice and expect the plane to land with me getting off of it if they were threatening to blow up the plane (while only wielding box cutters)

This is a classic example why 99.9% of the Troothers are not to be believed or given the time of day. The ignorance (not a pejorative) they display on these matters is astounding.

Umm no, that is probably the worst example you could ever give of why 911 Truthers are not "to be believed or given the time of day." :shk:

In fact, your very own example is why you in the ignorance movement should not be given any more time of day, night, dawn, or dusk. You are just not making sense. At ALL.

Originally posted by trebor451
This is a classic example why 99.9% of the Troothers are not to be believed or given the time of day. The ignorance (not a pejorative) they display on these matters is astounding.

Oh trebor451- of the expedient logical fallacy.

Hasty generalization

Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. It commonly involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population.
...
Alternative names

The fallacy is also known as: fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, generalization from the particular, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, law of small numbers, unrepresentative sample, and secundum quid.

Leaping to a conclusion

You do realize that you have failed to provide one single source or statistic for your bold assertions don't you?

Originally posted by TheTilde
the Anti-Truth movement
...
filled with Anti-Truthers?

Where do all these Anti-Truthers come from exactly?

I'm not sure I'd call them unpatriotic so much as I'd call them cowards.
The implications of what our own government did to us on September 11th, are staggering and terrifying.

They are the pinnacle of appeasers and ostriches.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Perhaps they can't see how the unofficial story could happen
and are just patriotic in their actions.

Would any 911 truther be called liar or unpatriotic or anything
else but a confused citizen looking for answers.

Confusing airline data.
Erroneous video broadcast.
No hijack plane responses.

Many other things that have no excuses.
A job was not done somewhere or the job was done to us.
Perhaps both plus a lot of ingenious and lucky hijackers.

The building core beams melted and pancaked and shot out stuff like
a roman candle.

reply to post by trebor451

FAA policy regarding hijacks, pre 9/11, was for aircrew to employ a "Common Strategy" with regards to hijacks, that is to comply with the hijacker's wishes and go where they want/fly where they say/do what they say to do. Do not resist, was the common strategy. Get the plane on the ground safely and then a wealth of options open up - fuel denial, negotiations cna begin, SWAT or Special Forces teams can be employed, many, many things can begin. If some hijacker IS armed with a firearm in the sky, getting the plane on the ground if he decides to shoot is much
preferable to having him shoot while still airborne.

So according to you, the pilots, co-pilots, navigators and the rest of the flight crews agreed to crash into the WTC rather than make an attempt to subdue the hijackers.
Ignorance loses out to logic and common sense again.

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Just because you haven't had the energy, know-how , or gumption to find out who these people are doesn't change the fact that they spawned these conspiracy theories from 2001-2003.
You just believe what you are fed... I get it. No need to look further.

That's just flat-out BS. You have no idea what goes on out here in the real world. I wasn't fed anything. What I did was spent several months of my own time researching the claims and their validity. What I found was:

These plumes are not seen anywhere else but controlled demolitions and are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dab83d90c0f.jpg[/atsimg]


For buildings to do the following, every single support beam has to be severed at exactly the same time, which only happens in controlled demolitions:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39ae149b0f6.gif[/atsimg]


And the CEO of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) states that it requires a miracle for the WTC to collapse straight down due to "fires" when in the past, buildings have only collapsed in that fashion with precisely placed explosives.

You are not a demolitions expert, the CEO of CDI is. I will believe him, my research, and what I can see with my own eyes in the images above, over anything you or anybody else has to say, truther or not.

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
You are the one who doesn't even know who the theory founders are nor have you ever heard of them

The theories are founded and fueled by the evidence. There is no one single person who is creditable to a single theory.

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Show me another event where two jet liners slammed into steel framed buildings... THERE IS NOTHING TO COMPARE IT WITH.

There are many accidents where jetliners have crashed into or through buildings. You should do some real research sometime.

And I see you couldn't dispute my points, which I reposted again at the beginning of this post. You won't be able to either.

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Bodies hitting the ground, cars gas tanks exploding, transformers exploding, elevators slamming the basement levels, falling steel slamming into ground level objects... they ALL go "BOOM" not one is an explosive

Bodies hitting the ground won't blow the lobby windows out, nor will they blow several-hundred-pound marble tiles off of the walls.

Car gas tanks don't magically explode outside of a building for no reason, let alone explode at all. Mythbusters did a show on it, Google it.

There was no falling steel until the towers collapsed.

I know you didn't watch the video I posted, otherwise you wouldn't even have just typed the BS that you did. None of the above explain the multiple explosions in the basement, knocking walls and other debris onto people and killing or hurting them. Also, none of your excuses would explain the lobby being heavily damaged or the smoke rising from the bases of the towers where the explosions were occuring.

You go ahead and keep making up excuses to explain away the facts so that it helps you sleep better at night.

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Not the distinct synchronized series of explosions heard at EVERY controlled demolition of any significant scale.

And that's why I said in my last post that you have no idea what you're talking about and are unresearched. There are many survivors that heard the synchronized series of explosions as the towers were being brought down.

Every single point you try to make against controlled demolition is moot. There is video evidence of the explosives being detonated in the form of plumes, there's multiple witness testimony to the explosives going off as the buildings are collapsing and on more than one occasion, scientists have found an incendiary in the dust. Even the CEO of one of the worlds largest demolition companies said there's no way those buildings could have collapsed the way they did due to "fires" without a miracle.

All the evidence is stacked against you, Taxi. Time to open up and let it in, or move on because everything you type is countered with real facts instead of your biased, denial-fueled opinions.


[edit on 2-6-2009 by _BoneZ_]

One's position on the many theories of the 911 attacks has nothing to do with patriotism and the suggestion that it does smacks of the 'political correctness' that is common in CT groups. I believe that the discourse we all engage in is sufficient witness to the patriotism of all involved and sullying the reputations of those so engaged accomplishes nothing, save group validation of those who need such and some bombastic posturing by a few who desire attention.

reply to post by pteridine

One's position on the many theories of the 911 attacks has nothing to do with patriotism and the suggestion that it does smacks of the 'political correctness' that is common in CT groups.

I disagree with you on this, the “political correctness” is with the OS believers ,being patriot to America and being told to not to listen to people who appose the OS and here is proof of it.

GW Bush on
9/11 Conspiracy Theories

When President Bush spoke of "outrageous conspiracy theories" he
was for the first time acknowledging something of great significance. There
are informed viewpoints completely missing from the propaganda war being
relentlessly waged on Americans about 9/11 and its aftermath, viewpoints
which are as opposite from the official story as it is possible to get.

whatreallyhappened.com...

reply to post by impressme

If you believe that this concept is valid, where is the line between patriot and non-patriot? Demolition? No planers? Shoot down? Thermite only?
I contend that you cannot draw a line and that the position one takes on the issues has absolutely nothing to do with ones patriotism or service to ones country.

reply to post by pteridine

I contend that you cannot draw a line and that the position one takes on the issues has absolutely nothing to do with ones patriotism or service to ones country.

That is a load of …. and you know it, I can tell you there is a line drawn on 911.
Either you believe in the OS, or you don’t and that is the line. You are trying to make something out of nothing against people who do not believe in the OS fairy tail.

The bush supporters cannot believe their guy(hero)would ever be
involved in anything criminal!
So they refuse to even look and resort to name calling. Classic.
These guys are war criminals who authorized invasion and torture.
Isn't that exactly why we claim we went after saddam?
Since there were no WMD's and we have to justify this all somehow.
Who supports a (real) independant investigation?
Certainly not these guys OR their (still duped) supporters!