ABC Nightline -- Failed Hit-Piece on 9/11 Truth Movement (video)

reply to post by Sean48


All I have? This topic is about a supposed controlled network, allegedly controlled by some all-powerful vast group of elite, whose goal with that piece was to discredit a small movement that has some truth that escaped 99% of the world experts, and you're saying I have nothing? That by itself shows the level of paranoia in this "movement", even backed by your complete lack of evidence.

Can I call you a conspiracy theorist then? Or will you get all defensive because I don't buy into your theories? Why can truthers call debunkers names but get all fussy when someone calls you a truther? Like OS lacky? Really?

i liked how colleen rowley commented that the reporter reminded her of herself in the FBI when he was trying to ask her the discrediting questions

I rarely post anymore on this biased website but I have to give you Kudos for posting this.
Don't know how to star and flag and allthat # but I will send this to my entire empire of democratic people.
Thanks for putting this on...

peas

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by Sean48

 

All I have? This topic is about a supposed controlled network, allegedly controlled by some all-powerful vast group of elite, whose goal with that piece was to discredit a small movement that has some truth that escaped 99% of the world experts, and you're saying I have nothing? That by itself shows the level of paranoia in this "movement", even backed by your complete lack of evidence.

Can I call you a conspiracy theorist then? Or will you get all defensive because I don't buy into your theories? Why can truthers call debunkers names but get all fussy when someone calls you a truther? Like OS lacky? Really?

Well, let's make it real simple:

TRUTHER = people who don't believe the official story and want a more thorough and unbiased investigation. We don't want the wolves who are in charge of the hen house investigating who killed all the chickens... understand?

TRUSTER = people who trust the government's official story as told in the fictional work called the "9/11 Commission Report."

This really isn't that hard to understand for you, is it? You are not a "debunker" because that presupposes that you have something to debunk. You are a TRUSTER because you trust the government, you trust the 9/11 commission, you trust NIST, you trust Popular Mechanics, etc. Those are the things you are defending and trusting, choosing to ignore all the myriad of questions that are either too hard, or too embarrassing to answer.

I really think that you and Dereks must be related because you both say a lot without actually bringing forth any responses to any of the questions posed to you. Here, I'll prove my point... answer this, if you dare:

Q: Why did Bush sit at the school for nearly 30 minutes hobnobbing with the teachers once he and the Secret Service knew of the attacks? How did they know the president was safe there at the school when it was public knowledge that Bush was there and it supposedly was unknown what targets were being taken out? Why didn't they whisk the president away the minute they knew both buildings had been struck? In a national attack with unknown targets, how did they know a stinger missile wasn't aimed at the school at that very moment? And why did Bush say in public that he watched on television as the first plane hit the building, when that event was NOT on public television... though it was being filmed by the group of Israelis who came to New York to "film the event?"

Go ahead, take your best shot to answer that one if you dare... and if your answer sounds contrived, or fails to explain their actions such that it makes sense with normal Secret Service operating policies, and with normal human behaviors in the face of tragic surprises, don't expect any TRUTHER to accept it... we have good B.S. detectors, and we are not predisposed to TRUST whatever hair-brain answer TPTB tell us. We seek TRUTH, not TRUST.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


I'm with you. The 'off the deep end' theories like missile pods and holograms are a joke. They seemingly serve the purpose of muddying the waters, and leaving the average American choosing between that BS, and the official BS. There is hardly any focus on the most obvious, the corporate owned government saw it coming, and left the door open on purpose to gain support for the aggressive foreign policy, that was no secret they wanted to implement before 9/11. Just like how the government hijacked the tea party movement, they seem to have hijacked the 9/11 truth movement.

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by Sean48

 

All I have? This topic is about a supposed controlled network, allegedly controlled by some all-powerful vast group of elite, whose goal with that piece was to discredit a small movement that has some truth that escaped 99% of the world experts, and you're saying I have nothing? That by itself shows the level of paranoia in this "movement", even backed by your complete lack of evidence.

Can I call you a conspiracy theorist then? Or will you get all defensive because I don't buy into your theories? Why can truthers call debunkers names but get all fussy when someone calls you a truther? Like OS lacky? Really?

Well, let's make it real simple:

TRUTHER = people who don't believe the official story and want a more thorough and unbiased investigation. We don't want the wolves who are in charge of the hen house investigating who killed all the chickens... understand?

TRUSTER = people who trust the government's official story as told in the fictional work called the "9/11 Commission Report."

This really isn't that hard to understand for you, is it? You are not a "debunker" because that presupposes that you have something to debunk. You are a TRUSTER because you trust the government, you trust the 9/11 commission, you trust NIST, you trust Popular Mechanics, etc. Those are the things you are defending and trusting, choosing to ignore all the myriad of questions that are either too hard, or too embarrassing to answer.

I really think that you and Dereks must be related because you both say a lot without actually bringing forth any responses to any of the questions posed to you. Here, I'll prove my point... answer this, if you dare:

Q: Why did Bush sit at the school for nearly 30 minutes hobnobbing with the teachers once he and the Secret Service knew of the attacks? How did they know the president was safe there at the school when it was public knowledge that Bush was there and it supposedly was unknown what targets were being taken out? Why didn't they whisk the president away the minute they knew both buildings had been struck? In a national attack with unknown targets, how did they know a stinger missile wasn't aimed at the school at that very moment? And why did Bush say in public that he watched on television as the first plane hit the building, when that event was NOT on public television... though it was being filmed by the group of Israelis who came to New York to "film the event?"

Go ahead, take your best shot to answer that one if you dare... and if your answer sounds contrived, or fails to explain their actions such that it makes sense with normal Secret Service operating policies, and with normal human behaviors in the face of tragic surprises, don't expect any TRUTHER to accept it... we have good B.S. detectors, and we are not predisposed to TRUST whatever hair-brain answer TPTB tell us. We seek TRUTH, not TRUST.

He wont have a straight answer for you at all. Cannot even begin to imagine where he thinks 99% of world experts agree on the official story as that is complete and utter rubbish and quite well known by anyone who cares to check that there are a fair few FIRST TIME EVER events like the collapse of the actual towers from fire after burning just a fw hours being just one. How about the guy actually admitting he decided to have BUILDING 7 PULLED and then try to say that was a turm for pulling firemen out yet firemen themselves have never been familiar with the term being used in such a manner. How about no blood or dna from any bodys was ever found on any of the downed planes including the pentagon. That also reminds me that 2x 5 ton engines with tinanium compents actually vaporised in the pentagon because they was never recoved . THE LIST IS ENDLESS

reply to post by downisreallyup


For the record, I too question the OS. There are too many unanswered questions, a thorough criminal investigation was thwarted, and there appeared to be a rush to judgment on part of both the U.S. Govt. and American citizens. I remember that same rush to judgment when the OK city bombing occurred; we all just KNEW it had to be Muslim terrorists. Until it wasn't.

I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation as to Bush's actions on 9/11 when the SS failed to whisk him away when it was evident that the country was under attack. Two airliners had crashed into the WTC and two more were off course, out of touch and inbound to somewhere (D.C.?) and yet the president sat in a schoolroom near an airport. If there was ever an emergency on the part of this country, it was that day. Yet our leader did nothing but sit in a dazed stupor for nearly 30 minutes after being informed of this. The official explanation is that they did want to startle the children. Does that make sense to anyone? Anyone?

"Whoops. Duty calls and I have to go now, kids. Sorry I couldn't stay to the end but this happens when we are in charge. Thanks for the time."

How hard would that have been? That would have traumatized those kids? Sorry but this explanation is weak and makes him appear complicit or at least knowledgeable that he could do nothing and was in no danger. It implies pre-knowledge of the occurrence.

With that said, his comment about seeing the first plane strike was taken too literally. What Bush said was: "And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident.'"

Bush's grammar has always been bad so taking his words literally is always a slippery slope. What he really said, in Texan, was that he saw the news reports of the first attack not that he literally saw it hit. The correct grammar for him should have been "I saw -that- an airplane -had- hit the tower.." He gets the Mulligan for this comment, in my opinion. But not for his actions after the second strike.

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by Sean48

 

Truthers aren't looking for the truth, the label truther was probably meant to be sarcastic, apparently this went over your head...? Truthers aren't "asking questions" either, they are rejecting evidence. Quit pretending you guys are some kind of ultimate seekers of some secret truth, and that you're being being held back from "asking questions", people answered your questions, you refuse to see the truth of the matter and would rather continue in your NWO-ruled world of complete evilness behind everything and all that other funny thoughts you guys spew out as truth

You have committed quite a good number of logical fallacies.

1) The entire comment is an understated argument ad hominem and that is apparent from the first sentence.
2) You overgeneralized anyone who asks questions of the OS by saying that they already have been answered, but yet you have not presented any questions in question.
As funny as this sounds, that is a form of begging the question or circular reasoning.
3) And finally, to keep this brief, you pulled out the straw man, a favorite among ATS'ers, regarding this comment:

you refuse to see the truth of the matter and would rather continue in your NWO-ruled world of complete evilness behind everything and all that other funny thoughts you guys spew out as truth

I am not sure how you got that comment out of questioning the official 911 storyline.

Unless, of course, your intent was to associate someone who questions the OS of 911 with a nutjob, but you wouldn't do that. Your motives must be of pure origin.
(That was hyperbole)

Any other questions?

This is probably one of the best Nightline pieces that I have seen recently. It makes one wonder who was responsible for the final edit. It really does deem like someone on the inside at ABC derailed their intended hit piece.

Star and Flag for the OP and a tip of the hat to whomever slipped this through the ABC "filters".

reply to post by downisreallyup

TRUTHER = people who don't believe the official story and want a more thorough and unbiased investigation. We don't want the wolves who are in charge of the hen house investigating who killed all the chickens... understand?

TRUSTER = people who trust the government's official story as told in the fictional work called the "9/11 Commission Report."

This is so far from true it is ridiculous. I would think that removing Kissinger from the commission would have shown that this was not controlled and unbiased. I know for a fact you never read that report because it is not fiction. It gives a complete timeline to the event that occurred on 9/11.

There are pieces of it that were also not released until after the Moussaui trial so nothing was hidden it was just not released to protect an ongoing investigation.

I do no trust my government. Nope. I seek the truth just like anyone else. I do not like the moniker truther to be honest, it should be more like Questioners. A 'truther' questions everything with minimal fact and quite a bit of fiction. There is nothing wrong with that but you can only beat a dead horse for so long until there is nothing left. I am actually tired of the labels on both sides.

The only real difference I see between those who believe it was a terror attack and those who think it was the government. That is it. Black and white folks. Investigate all you want but do it on your own and stop depending on web bloggers for your information that is pieced together for impact. READ the original news post ANY time someone puts a swing on it.

As far as the piece, it was ok but there is again, nothing new.

PS - read my tag at the bottom of my post and please try to understand it...You cannot create your own facts...







[edit on 10-3-2010 by esdad71]

So...for all you truthers.....
A guy flew a plane into an irs building made of "steel and concrete"...

why didn't it crash to the ground?

hahahah..Oh, well it wasn't the same as 911....

right...

keep your blinders on....it will eventually come to you that there is only "one" caption on the ship.....who is sailing yours?

peas

Unbeliveable to see news like this on mainstream media. Way to go! It was nice to see the end result of Loose Change guys interview.

Originally posted by esdad71
Investigate all you want but do it on your own and stop depending on web bloggers for your information that is pieced together for impact.

...and there goes any reason to listen to you as well. Interesting how so many of you come in here and whine about how you think people only get their opinions from the internet all while expecting people to give some sort of value to what you are typing on the internet.

reply to post by esdad71


Look guys....

I will do this until you learn the rules of logic.

You can't appeal to a questionable authority and then ad-hoc a proposed future hypothesis.

This is an indirect way to associate guilt and appeal to emotion.

This is so far from true it is ridiculous. I would think that removing Kissinger from the commission would have shown that this was not controlled and unbiased. I know for a fact you never read that report because it is not fiction. It gives a complete timeline to the event that occurred on 9/11. There are pieces of it that were also not released until after the Moussaui trial so nothing was hidden it was just not released to protect an ongoing investigation.

You used circular reasoning and you overgeneralized when you said that "I know for a fact that you never read the report because it is not fiction".

You contradicted the credibility of your source by stating that it "It gives a complete timeline to the event that occurred on 9/11", and then you validate any ad-hoc, after the fact reasoning, by stating that "there are pieces of it that were also not released until after the Moussaui trial so nothing was hidden, it was just not released to protect an ongoing investigation". They contradict the validity of one another.

You have also lied, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

The first passenger manifests released by the g'ubment stated that Mohamed Atta was not on the plane, but the manifests shown as evidence in Moussaui travesty of justice called a "trial" stated differently.

That is deception.

All we are asking for is an open and honest investigation based on the proper research sequence. THAT IS IT.
Saying that the reason that the OS was open and honest was because Kissinger was removed is another fallacy.
You are trying to prove a point with the absence of evidence.

Learn how to debate.

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by Sean48

 

Truthers aren't looking for the truth, the label truther was probably meant to be sarcastic, apparently this went over your head...? Truthers aren't "asking questions" either, they are rejecting evidence. Quit pretending you guys are some kind of ultimate seekers of some secret truth, and that you're being being held back from "asking questions", people answered your questions, you refuse to see the truth of the matter and would rather continue in your NWO-ruled world of complete evilness behind everything and all that other funny thoughts you guys spew out as truth

One time I went to a quilt making party full of old women. I sat quietly in the corner until they had made a few and then sprung venomously out of my chair pointing my finger and claiming that all of their quilts were stupid. They were all horrified by my accusations and so angry with my ignorance and hatred that not one of them bothered to ask me this; "If I don't like quilts then what the hell am I even doing at a quilting party?"

So what the hell are you even doing on this forum if your mind is already made up?


Oh, and no I don't think you are a shill. I just think that, judging by the delivery and content of your writing, you may be an awful person.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by dangeresque]

reply to post by esdad71


I think you greatly under estimate the amount of research people who call themselves truthers have done.

The official report leaves out massive amounts of known details and offers in response a great deal of speculation. They fail to accurately report when the planes were suspected of being hijacked, when the planes went off course and failed to respond to attempts to contact the planes in order to avoid the obvious huge discrepancy in the response time.

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by seattletruth

 

I think the Loose Change guys will be pleased with this end result.

This story , as you said, actually shows the TM for what it really is.

A bunch of people seeking the truth.

When did seeking the truth in the US become a bad thing?

Seeking truth isn't necessarily bad to the government because they can always lie and cover that up. Its people who critically think that the government views as bad. As a matter of fact, anyone who actually uses their brain seems to be a threat to the government. Its only a matter of time before thinking becomes illegal.

That's the reason we see this growing trend of psychoactive drugs that the government loves to peddle to people. Zoloft, prozac, etc etc. These are the very things that help inhibit our critical thinking abilities. And eventually, these drugs will become mandatory.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by impressme


That guy is not a good reporter.

Reporter: "Do you think the government had a hand at killing those people on 911?"

Anyone really: "Well I believe that the" (cut off by reporter)

Reporter: "I am asking, yes or no, do you think the government had a hand at killing those people on 911?"

Person: "If you let me finish, I would like to say that" (cut off again by reporter)

Reporter: "Thank you for your time. There you have it folks, these 911 truthers are simply crazy conspiracy theorists.

Reporter to camera man: "Hey do you think we made em look crazy enough? Maybe some editing will do the trick. Hahaha don't want anything happening to my fat paycheck. Lets go get some sushi now."

Seriously, when I saw that guy interview the guys from "Loose Change" I couldn't believe the questions he asked. That is not reporting. He was pushing buttons so the tone of their response would overshadow any content to what they were saying. I would have done a much better job.

reply to post by esdad71


Sounds to me like you to wake up from your nightmare because you're still desperately sleeping. Your explanation is tired, ridiculous, and non-challenging to anyone who has normal thought processes.

If you choose to continue your nap, please don't give the sleeping pills to others, there are already enough like you who share your same illusion of reality.

I suggest everyone study in depth
intelligence
counter intel methodologies of all the International spy agencies
psychological operations
a> Dr. Ewing Cameron Canadian (MK Ultra)
b> Joseph Goebels
c> All the empires and what modalities they used to control large groups of people.
Egypt
Rome
Ottoman Empire
Czars of Russia
Nazi Germany
Chinese Dynasties

Once you have a substantial knowledge base on this info only then will you be able to see.

The deep black compartments within intel agencies and the propaganda secret committees created actually create both sides.
1. The conspiracy theorists (whistle blowers) (whether theory or fact) and 2. the actual act being theorized on.
Example:
911
USS Liberty
UFOs
etc.

Rule #1
You can be used in a psyops without you knowing you are being used in one. I dont care how pure and well intentioned you think you are.