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

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
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.

There is no normal thought process. It is comprised of either truth, half truth which is a lie sandwich which equals a LIE.

Normal Abnormal
Good Bad
Smart Dumb
Pretty Ugly
Liberal Conservative
Rich Poor


This is one of many methodologies they use to keep you trapped.

reply to post by superluminal11


I am currently reading a frightening book titled "Propaganda", which was written in 1929 by someone that I will get to in a second.
This reading is for a research project that I am running seeking to show that the format of information distribution used by the MSM is creating leaned helplessness in viewers, or the receivers of the information.

This is a result of the concept of public relations. A concept created and employed in government and industry by Edward Bernays.

Dr. Cameron's work was important for CIA interrogation field manuals for sure (torture manuals actually), but Bernays showed the government how to control WE THE PEOPLE.

He is the lynch pin.


SUPERLUMINAL.... WATCH THIS MOVIE

Google Video Link

[edit on 3/10/2010 by Josephus23]

[edit on 3/10/2010 by Josephus23]

[edit on 3/10/2010 by Josephus23]

[edit on 3/10/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by Whyhi


I noticed you’re from Langley and that multiple comments have been made in your comment section regarding 911. I’m curious, do you want people to think you are a government employed debunker or are you really a government employed debunker? You have never created your own thread and from the look of things you run around ATS starting trouble in threads about 911. Your name whyhi. Should I add a (d) and (e) to the end of it? I’ve heard that the best place to hide something is out in the open.

I’m not a “truther” but there are a lot of legitimate unanswered questions regarding 911. People who are not willing to admit that are suspicious to me.

imho the ABC piece is better than i thought it would be, however, that interviewer is a schmuck, for trying to frame these people into a lunatic fringe group. So sad.

Will this ABC piece help to get another investigation on 911? Doubt it.
but it does look like this guy interviewed a few other people at that conference, which is good, but asks the same loaded questions he did with the loose change guys.

MSM still refuses to ask the 'Right' questions. They still refuse to ask the hard questions. Instead, they ask loaded questions designed to discredit peeps.

Originally posted by Sean48


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

September 12th, 2001

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Sean48


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

September 12th, 2001

Classic...

I normally despise short, terse attempts at dry humor on ATS, but that was no attempt.

That was success.

Star.

I like this thread but I am really tired of people posting stuff up like "Truthers are Dangerous" or just bashing people that seek the truth. The fact of the matter is, is that something did happen abnormal rather the government was involved or not but there is significant evidence that those planes could not have taken down the buildings, rather Isreal was involved or the CIA nobody knows but something did go down that was more then just terrorists.
I dont know exactly what to believe in what exactly happened but why does the CIA have someone black listed that was involved in flying a plane into one of the buildings and supposedly dead but he is not dead, he is alive and now labeled a terrorists, that sounds fabricated. Anywho, people can go all day long that Isreal did it, the CIA, the terrorists, etc. But something did happen the government is withholding from the people and truthers are not dangerous, they just want to know the truth, when is that considered a crime?
And before you ask me for evidence of my claims or where is the evidence research yourself, for those who have not done research and are only making ASSumptions your wrong for bashing people, there is alot of evidence that has been presented by professionals, professors, pilots, architects, engineers, thats enough for me and dont ask me who and how many either, you can find that on your own also.

Originally posted by esdad71


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...

So do you believe that the jet fuel melted the steel as reported by ABC in that piece? Just curious what it is you do support exactly.

Alright, everyone has their own experiences and thus their own unique conclusions. This is a big mess we are in and no one person has every answer completely correct. So every persons view is a bit different, but that is ok.

Simply put, there is no way that 100% of the theories surrounding 9/11 or any other matter on ATS are true. More than likely not even half, but something around 10% or 5% might be true. And that is what makes all the efforts of people seeking those truths worth it. The point is, some of what is talked about across this site has to be based in some truth and that is what we are after.

I have been alive long enough to know that all rumors has some truth to them and I am sure any one reading this knows this as well.

Some basic FACTS about 9/11 that give the truth movement true credibility:

1. Both towers as well as building 7 fell at near free falls speeds

2. These three buildings were also the first in history to collapse completely due to fire

3. Many credible first-hand eyewitness' reporting explosions

there is many more, but i just want to name a few to illustrate my point. Not everything is true, but some things are. sticking to the simple facts that contradict or blow a hole through the OS is what i believe this movement should focus on.

people tend to avoid complicated matters, so producing a set of basic parallels between all truth movement participants is very important.

agree, disagree? Thanks

It was a hit piece pure and simple, but the neuro-linguistic programming is wearing thin these days.

The truth movement is only covered in the context of what motivated John Patrick Bedell's "anti-government" attack on the Pentagon.

Almost every voiced-over claim in the piece is misleading or untrue.
As others have noted, lies are inserted so frequently, it requires a state of conscious vigilance on the part of the viewer not to succumb to their effect. The more prosaic purpose of these lies is to keep the ignorant in the dark and prevent them becoming inquisitive.

A lot of people are going to look at this and wonder, 'Are you part of, kind of, a lunatic fringe?'

- the usual craziness labelling is accompanied by the implication (disproved by several polls) that most Americans accept the OS. Betsy Metz counters the madness slur rather effectively.

A viral community of true believers. Its gospel the film Loose Change...

- suggesting that those who don't accept the OS are engaged in an irrational act of faith, blindly following some crazy dogma. In fact many, myself included, will not have watched Loose Change.

Their film peddles some largely discredited arguments claiming:

• jet fuel was not hot enough to melt the steel structure
  
• that the buildings pancaked down in controlled explosions
  
• that the hijacker of flight 77 lacked sufficient training to fly the plane
  

The discredited argument is the claim that jet fuel was hot enough to melt the steel structure - no serious scientist would make such a silly claim, but ABC news are nevertheless willing to put it out.

By placing the big lie first, followed rapidly by two more debatable statements, we don't have time to counter it in our minds. This is the important one to hammer home, because it blocks questions about a primary problem with the OS - why did the buildings collapse? Planes + jetfuel = melted steel = collapsed towers = no further questions.

Then it is stated that a controlled demolition hypothesis has been dis-proven - without acknowledging that many accredited engineers and architects (including those they didn't interview at the conference) dispute this.

But notice the subtle choice of words here - having introduced the image of the collapsing towers, the ABC "voice of authority" states that it is "a discredited argument" that "the buildings pancaked down in controlled explosions". What they are trying to discredit in our minds is two other realities of the day: that "the buildings pancaked down" and that there were "explosions".

Finally, they disingenuously truncate the real argument that "the hijacker of flight 77 lacked sufficient training to fly the plane into the Pentagon" into "the hijacker of flight 77 lacked sufficient training to fly the plane".

Although Hani Hanjour's lack of flight experience, training and acknowledged incompetence in a Cessna 172 might not have precluded him from taking the controls of a Boeing 757, it is much harder to accept that he performed the manoeuvre into the Pentagon described by NATCA: "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane,"




[edit on 10-3-2010 by EvilAxis]

reply to post by Josephus23


Ok, so, did any of you ever read the commission report or did you write it off as garbage because the internet told you so?

Also, I understand i am 'typing on the internets' but what I am stating is take off the prisonplanet/loosechange blinders and read. Look around. Pick up a book. If you do not understand what I am attempting to say then you have already blocked out logical thought and reasoning and are using prejudice.


Why is it that I should wake up as you state? I am immediately told that I follow the govt like a sheep or I cannot think for myself. I DO NOT believe the entire OS. I am positive 93 was shot down as well as Flight 587 being destroyed by a similar Reid type mission by one of the hijackers not allowed in the county for 9/11. Many of you think that there is No way, someone who believes there were no explosives or US involvement can not be a truster of the OS.

If you read the commission report, you would know why I am so pissed at my government that since there was #ty intel and pissing contests between agencies that the correct information was not relayed properly. They should be held responsible but they were not involved not let it happen.

You need to wake up and stop being used by the 'truther' movement.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I do not believe any steel melted during the hours after impact. However, since it burned for months there was smoldered steel in the lower levels. It is simple science.

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

All questions have been answered?

Please show me in the where in the governments official explanation of 9/11 where they explain the money sent to Mahommad Atta from the head of the Pakistani ISI?

Can you please show me where they explain how Osama Bin Laden got NORAD to fail so miserably on 9/11?

Can you show me where it is explained how the fires in WTC Building 7 become so hot that it caused the building to collapse into the path of most resistance? Sorry this questions has been answered, and I do reject the answer given. "Phenomena" simply will not fly

Can you show me where they explain what all the secondary explosions were that were reported that day by reporters and first responders and numerous eyewitnesses?

Where is it explained describing what the "secondary devices" are that were reported that day by numerous first responders?

Where does the official story explain why Bush and Cheney could not testify to the 9/11 commission under oath or separately? Why was there not allowed to be a record of what they testified to?

Can you please direct me to the area in the official story that answers the question as to what order was being followed as described by Norman Mineta when being questioned by Lee Hamilton? (The infamous ,"Do the orders still stand?" story).

And could you please show me where the explanation is for the running of War Games on then morning of 9/11 that simulated the same scenario as we saw unfolding that morning, yet the Government made it very clear that they never could have imagined planes being used as weapons before that day?

Well looks to me like there are several questions asked that have no evidence to reject, and do you know why? The answer would be because those questions were never answered.

Originally posted by MrWendal

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

All questions have been answered?

Please show me in the where in the governments official explanation of 9/11 where they explain the money sent to Mahommad Atta from the head of the Pakistani ISI?

Can you please show me where they explain how Osama Bin Laden got NORAD to fail so miserably on 9/11?

Can you show me where it is explained how the fires in WTC Building 7 become so hot that it caused the building to collapse into the path of most resistance? Sorry this questions has been answered, and I do reject the answer given. "Phenomena" simply will not fly

Can you show me where they explain what all the secondary explosions were that were reported that day by reporters and first responders and numerous eyewitnesses?

Where is it explained describing what the "secondary devices" are that were reported that day by numerous first responders?

Where does the official story explain why Bush and Cheney could not testify to the 9/11 commission under oath or separately? Why was there not allowed to be a record of what they testified to?

Can you please direct me to the area in the official story that answers the question as to what order was being followed as described by Norman Mineta when being questioned by Lee Hamilton? (The infamous ,"Do the orders still stand?" story).

And could you please show me where the explanation is for the running of War Games on then morning of 9/11 that simulated the same scenario as we saw unfolding that morning, yet the Government made it very clear that they never could have imagined planes being used as weapons before that day?

Well looks to me like there are several questions asked that have no evidence to reject, and do you know why? The answer would be because those questions were never answered.

1. ISI is corrupt. I have some other awesome books you could read. We did not send money to Atta

2. OBL did nothing to NORAD. the reason it took so long to respond was the FAA and AA. Look it up it is in the commission report.

3. Please look at the architecture, the new pictures that show damage multiple floors in size in multiple areas caused by the other collapses.

4. Something sounded like explosions or loud noises. There were some I sure with the fires and electrical components on multiple floors. I do now know anyone who says they heard boom boom boom boom boom and it came down. Firefighters inside the WTC said they could hear and feel it coming and is sounded like a train not explosions ( this is in the book 102 minutes..pick it up.

5. Neither did Clinton or Gore. Actually, here is hte story from 2004. Sound like 3 hours of questioning to me. link

6. Ahhhh...the missing link. Mineta is the one who holds the key to the 93 shootdown.

7. Running wargames? It was scheduled before the Bush admin was in office. Also, planes striking buildings has been thought of numerous times in the past. Even Tom Clancy did it before 9/11. Maybe he was in on it...


Any more questions???

Originally posted by esdad71
I do not believe any steel melted during the hours after impact. It is simple science.

More like "simple denial". The FEMA report did a preliminary analysis on some of the steel and found that some of the steel at one point been "liquefied". Their wording. I also have a thread where I posted a video of the witnesses that saw the molten steel, and there are a couple pieces of the previously molten steel shown as well:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And you don't have to believe there was any molten steel. You are entitled to believe whatever you like. But evidence and facts don't change just because you don't believe in them.




[edit on 10-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

And there goes Bonze again, harping about how deep in the FEMA report, they mention during the metalurgical analysis, the eutectic mixture that formed deep in the pile in the weeks after 9/11 had partially liquified some of the microns of the steel, mostly from hot corrosion.

Of course he has to run off and now say, SEE? We have PROOF that there really was liquid steel in the pile. I do not think that a few microns of liquified steel on the surface of a steel member that was found weeks later after being exposed to intense corrosive reactions for weeks, counts as "pools of molten steel". But of course with this, he is going to think that if he continues to parrot this, and force an acknowledgement of a micron layer of corroded steel, that this is going to confirm the "pools of molten steel" in the basement nonsense.

Micron level intergranual melting is not the same as thermite-reaction molten steel pools. but alas, he has me on ignore, because he thinks he knows better.

www.abmbrasil.com.br...

This powerpoint is very informative and goes into the analysis a little bit better of the sulfidation and hot corrosion.

reply to post by esdad71


Hahaha....

Esdad, if you actually want to engage in a debate on this topic then I am all up for it.

I am at work right now and I get home at 11:45 EST.

Look for a reply.

I am going to tear your logic apart.

It's called deductive reasoning.

You cannot derive anything logical from a false premise.
(which is your MO)

Look at my posts. I have consistently pointed out the flaws in the arguments of others, but all I see from you are ad hominems and appeals to emotion.

You honestly do not understand the rules of logic.
It is painfully obvious when reading your posts.

11:45 EST homes.

Be there.

So, 8 1/2 years after 9/11, two illegal and unjust wars, a trillion $ in bailouts to a bunch of crooks, Media Guy decides to take a stand against those big bad 9/11 truthers. Thank you Media Guy for covering the stories which really matter! I can't imagine what we would do without you.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

"I do not think that a few microns of liquified steel on the surface of a steel member that was found weeks later after being exposed to intense corrosive reactions for weeks, counts as "pools of molten steel."

If there was no molten steel at the lower levels as you claim, can you please explain to me what these 9/11 firefighters are talking about? Certainly, guys who make a living extinguishing fires would know what molten steel looks like when they see it.

Originally posted by esdad71
1. ISI is corrupt. I have some other awesome books you could read. We did not send money to Atta

2. OBL did nothing to NORAD. the reason it took so long to respond was the FAA and AA. Look it up it is in the commission report.

3. Please look at the architecture, the new pictures that show damage multiple floors in size in multiple areas caused by the other collapses.

4. Something sounded like explosions or loud noises. There were some I sure with the fires and electrical components on multiple floors. I do now know anyone who says they heard boom boom boom boom boom and it came down. Firefighters inside the WTC said they could hear and feel it coming and is sounded like a train not explosions ( this is in the book 102 minutes..pick it up.

5. Neither did Clinton or Gore. Actually, here is hte story from 2004. Sound like 3 hours of questioning to me. link

6. Ahhhh...the missing link. Mineta is the one who holds the key to the 93 shootdown.

7. Running wargames? It was scheduled before the Bush admin was in office. Also, planes striking buildings has been thought of numerous times in the past. Even Tom Clancy did it before 9/11. Maybe he was in on it...


Any more questions???

As a matter of fact yes...


1. There are many who would fully disagree with you on this one. Even Wiki and you can easily find countless other sources that lay out this whole scenario.

2. NORAD claims that they were notified that flight 11 was hijacked 10 mins before it hit the North Tower. That would make the time 8:36am EST. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37am EST. So with one full hour from the time of notification, still not a single plane was intercepted, and you really believe NORAD didnt stand down? Even if it is a case of gross negligence, why was no one held accountable for what is..hands down... the biggest failure in the history of NORAD?

3. Well, I don't need to look at any of that again. You can make any claim you wish, but NIST has already declared that collapse was due to "Phenomena". Now if you disagree with NIST's findings, then would that not mean that there are more questions to be answered?

4. No one at all who heard boom boom boom and it came down? I am sure these first responders would disagree with your claim.

5. I do not dispute that Bush and Cheyne were questioned by the 9/11 commission. The problem and the question I had asked was why did they insist on testifying TOGETHER instead of separately? Why did the refuse to be under oath? Why was no record of the meeting allowed?

6. Norman Mineta certainly holds the keys to something. Of course my post was in reply to someone claiming that all questions from 9/11 have been answered. Clearly, even as you can agree there is a big question here, my point is proven.

7. I would agree with you that planes hitting builds is not a new idea at all. However that is not what we were told in the wake of 9/11. In fact the Government made a completely different claim. Unfortunately I can no longer link the video due to the fact that YouTube removed the video for violating it's terms of use and I now have to get to work and can no longer stay and continue searching for it. If you care to look for it yourself, Bush and Rice both claimed,"No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon, into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile." You can of course find mention of this claim in Rice's testimony to the 9/11 Commission where she attempts to explain this away and that transcript can be found HERE

[edit on 10-3-2010 by MrWendal]

[edit on 10-3-2010 by MrWendal]