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 jthomas
Originally posted by Jezus
Now you admit there are some unexplained anomalies?
No, we explained 9/11 "Truthers" many years ago.
25 Tactics for Truth Suppression
...
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
Example: "Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won't revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago."
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 - associate charges with old news)?
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
Do you really think we all just missed you blatantly ignoring an equally blatant contradiction in the "official story"? You didn't explain a damned thing.
Originally posted by jthomas
"Official story" blah...blah..
You know full well I don't have to explain anything.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by jthomas
"Official story" blah...blah..
You know full well I don't have to explain anything.
No, you're right.
Originally posted by jthomas
BTW, what was the name of that person you convinced we needed a new invetigation?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by jthomas
BTW, what was the name of that person you convinced we needed a new invetigation?
I think it was the same person you were showing all of your "evidence" to, you know, ranting and then not backing any of it up?
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
Do you really think we all just missed you blatantly ignoring an equally blatant contradiction in the "official story"? You didn't explain a damned thing.
"Official story" blah...blah..
You know full well I don't have to explain anything.
Originally posted by jprophet420
And you exercise that right daily.
Thank you, you have convinced more people that the OS is a lie than any "truther" I know.
That is not directed as sarcasm, I am serious.
Originally posted by jthomas
There's BIG money to be made off of "Truthers."
Originally posted by jthomas
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
Do you really think we all just missed you blatantly ignoring an equally blatant contradiction in the "official story"? You didn't explain a damned thing.
"Official story" blah...blah..
You know full well I don't have to explain anything.