Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

Check out this awesome debate where Anthony Summers gets his you know what handed to him by CIT in a radio broadcast from the 10th anniversary.

youtu.be...

In his book Summers claims that he has not seen "a jot of evidence that anything like a false flag scenario was used on 9/11". No wonder he has been promoted by the mainstream media!

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

What makes him a "shill"? Simply having an opposing view point does not make one a shill. If that were the case, everyone in the world would be a shill...

I wish we would quit throwing words like that around when they are unwarranted. It's a great turn off.


I am listening to the debate and may add more later....

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
What makes him a "shill"? Simply having an opposing view point does not make one a shill. If that were the case, everyone in the world would be a shill...

I wish we would quit throwing words like that around when they are unwarranted. It's a great turn off.


I am listening to the debate and may add more later....

edit on 8-11-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)

i think he is right and i think you are a shill too.ive been judging your post for a while.remember violence is the answer.it sure worked on 911.

I think the debate is closer than you imply, but I do give the win, to Craig Ranke.

Originally posted by robomont
i think he is right and i think you are a shill too.ive been judging your post for a while.remember violence is the answer.it sure worked on 911.

Violence is the answer? To what? You have to be joking. ( It's hard to tell on the internet at times)

If you are serious. I am honored that you have been keeping an eye on my posts. I will take you calling me a "shill" as a compliment.Why? Because it means I am doing something right. It means that I am challenging your way of thinking so well, that you believe I am hired by some one to do it.

Violence is only the answer to the question " What will allow for status quo?"

Violence worked on 9/11? What did it work to do? Kill 3,000 innocent people. Plus the many thousands more who died in an unjust war that used 9/11 as an excuse. If you call that working.... Then you have much to learn, my friend.

But hey, I have been called much worse than a shill. My favorite to this day is " CIA robot, programmed for the purpose of spreading dis-info". I starred them for creativity.

Peace and love.

Gee...what do the ATS T&C say about calling other posters shills? (or any other personal insult for that matter)

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


Well here is a definition of the word shill:

2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

We know he's making money and that he's supporting the official story while making false claims about "thoroughly" considering the truth movement. CIT made that pretty clear in the debate. He is therefore, by definition, shilling for the official story.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Gee...what do the ATS T&C say about calling other posters shills? (or any other personal insult for that matter)

I don't think you'll find Anthony Summers on ATS.

ABC maybe but not ATS!

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
I think the debate is closer than you imply, but I do give the win, to Craig Ranke.

edit on 8-11-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)

Summers was shimmying, ignoring valid points and counterarguments to each of his claims (as did the host).
The host cleverly mentioned "106 witnesses to a plane". CIT never said there wasn't a plane in the area at the time of the attack.

I personally think that he wiped the floor with him. Thanks for the civil comment though.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Could not the same be said for a great number of the members of the Truth Movement? I see so many of them selling products and DVD's that have nothing to do with spreading truth, only their propaganda that appeals to the paranoia of the conspiracy minded individual. It doesn't matter if their facts are correct so long as they continuously repeat the same thing and push it as truth. I know from experience with Mormon individuals that all it takes to believe something is the adamant repeating of it over, and over, and over again.

I know I'm not an unbiased individual, but I would hope that I'm not ignoring information completely, such as that I see people here and within the Truth Movement every single day.

For example, if I see it repeated one more time that "pull it" and BBC meant that the collapse of WTC 7 was planned, I might punch a goat. It takes intentional ignorance to spread those lies.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

Could not the same be said for a great number of the members of the Truth Movement? I see so many of them selling products and DVD's that have nothing to do with spreading truth, only their propaganda that appeals to the paranoia of the conspiracy minded individual. It doesn't matter if their facts are correct so long as they continuously repeat the same thing and push it as truth. I know from experience with Mormon individuals that all it takes to believe something is the adamant repeating of it over, and over, and over again.

Well, as for CIT, I don't remember having to pay for any of their presentations.
If you know any differently, let me know.

And wasn't the media and US government more guilty of "repeating" to brainwash proportions on 9/11 and in the weeks, months and years after?

For example, if I see it repeated one more time that "pull it" and BBC meant that the collapse of WTC 7 was planned, I might punch a goat. It takes intentional ignorance to spread those lies.

I know you're probably just letting off steam but that's a little off topic, no?

Those two instances did happen though. I'm not convinced by "it" meaning the "firefighter effort". At all. But that argument can go round in circles all day.
As for the BBC announcing WTC7's collapse, what stood out to me more was the sudden "breaking up" of the satellite connection just after.

Did you watch the video debate I posted by any chance?

I watched it. It was hopelessly biased. Chucking comments on top of Summers' dialogue - often ones that seem superficially relevant but are in fact just designed to vaguely discredit him - is hardly the tactic of a balanced source.

Ranke's initial point is nonsense anyway. So what if Summers hasn't personally spoken with all the eyewitnesses? Ranke just prioritises that because he knows he can coach witnesses into saying what he wants when he "interviews" them.

His flyover hypothesis is nonsense. There's plenty more I could say about this charade but I'm too depressed to continue.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Check out this awesome debate where Anthony Summers gets his you know what handed to him by CIT in a radio broadcast from the 10th anniversary.

youtu.be...

In his book Summers claims that he has not seen "a jot of evidence that anything like a false flag scenario was used on 9/11". No wonder he has been promoted by the mainstream media!

edit on 8-11-2011 by ThePostExaminer because: url

I don't get your point. So because this Summers guy was caught fibbing about speaking to any of the witnesses as he claimed in the book, that necessarily means all the eyewitnesses around the Pentagon are really sinister secret disinformation agents and a billion pieces of aircraft wreckage was planted all over the place in broad daylight without anyone noticing, all in a coverup of some secret plot to take over the world?

I'm sorry, but this isn't a case of "either A is wrong or B is wrong". It's a case of "both A and B are wrong". This truther guy made his point in that he caught an author being fast and loose with his sources but that doesn't mean he isn't drinking the Kool-aid himself. I can see right away from his map making that he's quoting the Rob Balsamo line and he's been discredited so many times it's not even funny.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Ranke's initial point is nonsense anyway. So what if Summers hasn't personally spoken with all the eyewitnesses? Ranke just prioritises that because he knows he can coach witnesses into saying what he wants when he "interviews" them.

His flyover hypothesis is nonsense. There's plenty more I could say about this charade but I'm too depressed to continue.

What I don't understand is the guy's point of attempting to map out the flight path from the eyewitness accounts. It's idiotic to claim impropriety over errors in distance judgement from someone saying they thought the plane was 100 yards away when it was really 110 yards away, especially when they were standing way off at the Citgo station at the time. Plus, the truthers asked nine different witnesses and got nine different flight paths, so if the truthers' point is that these witnesses were lying about seeing a plane, then why the heck are the truthers using any other parts of their accounts?

The truthers are just grasping at straws here, and claiming this author is a "secret government shill working to cover up the sinister conspiracy to take over the world" simply because he was being fast and loose with his sources is stretching things to absurdity.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Biased in what sense?? If it was biased in any way it was most certainly the host who was guilty.

Summers kept repeating the "memory issue" nonsense about the witnesses being interviewed by Craig Ranke in 2006 while ignoring the fact that many had given testimony in 2001 to government bodies! The host repeatedly ignored this fact too and wanted to "move on".

First hand interviews with witnesses is crucial. I don't understand how on one hand, some people dismiss witness testimony as being "unreliable" yet in the same breath dismiss probing the very same evidence to the full to eek out all of the details as being irrelevant!

What's even more bizarre is to claim that all of these witnesses "misremembered" in the exact same way.

Most of the alleged original witness "quotemines" turned out to be very different from what the media portrayed.

Also, you say, "So what if Summers hasn't personally spoken with all the eyewitnesses?"

"All of the eyewitnesses"? If you watch the video, the point is that he didn't speak to ANY of the witnesses! Not one!

reply to post by GoodOlDave

What I don't understand is the guy's point of attempting to map out the flight path from the eyewitness accounts. It's idiotic to claim impropriety over errors in distance judgement from someone saying they thought the plane was 100 yards away when it was really 110 yards away, especially when they were standing way off at the Citgo station at the time.

Of course you're never going to get one definitive flightpath from a multitude of witnesses, but they all described the same area using the only landmark between the Pentagon facade and the Navy Annex.

The witnesses were dotted around the area, not only at the Citgo Gas Station (although those at the gas station would have been in the best position to judge the path - them and the guy sitting in the heliport face on and one sitting looking out of the Navy Annex window opposite him!)

Some of those witnesses wouldn't have been physically able to see the official flightpath.

Plus, the truthers asked nine different witnesses and got nine different flight paths, so if the truthers' point is that these witnesses were lying about seeing a plane, then why the heck are the truthers using any other parts of their accounts? The truthers are just grasping at straws here, and claiming this author is a "secret government shill working to cover up the sinister conspiracy to take over the world" simply because he was being fast and loose with his sources is stretching things to absurdity.

I think you need to listen to the interviews. There is about double that figure at the moment. There have been more uncovered since the CIT video was released (some by people who tried to "debunk" what the witnesses were repeatedly describing to CIT).

And who is claiming that there was "no plane"??

I simply claimed that the author was a shill and that his defence of the Pentagon OCT was weak. The rest is from your own imagination.

Here's the original video interviews in case you haven't seen it.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Of course you're never going to get one definitive flightpath from a multitude of witnesses, but they all described the same area using the only landmark between the Pentagon facade and the Navy Annex.

...and they all specifically said the Plane hit the Pentagon, which is the exact opposite of what the CIT guy is attempting to insinuate.

I think you need to listen to the interviews. There is about double that figure at the moment. There have been more uncovered since the CIT video was released (some by people who tried to "debunk" what the witnesses were repeatedly describing to CIT).

So what if there were nine or ninety? They're still human beings capable of making errors in judgement in distances. This is because we as humans don't have laser range finders built into their heads and don't have the natural ability to judge exact distances down to the exact foot.

All the witnesses specifically said the plane flew within the general vicinity of (in the CIT's words) "the official story" so as far as I'm concerned they still corroborate each other AND the 9/11 commission report regardless of the petty differences in precise measurements.

And who is claiming that there was "no plane"??

Technically, French conspiracy theorist Thierry Meyssan, as he's the one who invented that whole "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" conspiracy to sell a bunch of books. The CIT people themselves are apparently trying to convince people the plane really flew over the Pentagon and bombed it before turning invisible, which is just as absurd.

I simply claimed that the author was a shill and that his defence of the Pentagon OCT was weak. The rest is from your own imagination.

No, the rest is from your not wanting to admit the flaws in your claims. A "shill" by definition means a person who's secretly working for someone else while pretending to be a nonparticipant. Logically this means the "shill" knows what he's saying is false. If what he's saying is false, it necessarily means the hundred or so eyewitnesses who specifically saw the plane hit the Pentagon (including the eyewitnesses the CIT truther are referencing) are lying. If all those people are lying, it necessarily means they're active participants in the coverup as well.

Didn't you think your conspiracy claims all the way through yet?

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


As I said I'm too depressed to continue. If you can't see bias like this in front of your face then you're going go be misled a lot. People will flatter your prejudices for their own ends.

I don't really care though. Your opinion is of little import.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

As I said I'm too depressed to continue. If you can't see bias like this in front of your face then you're going go be misled a lot. People will flatter your prejudices for their own ends.

I don't really care though. Your opinion is of little import.

Things aren't going too well for you in the real world, Trick...?

As yesterday was election day, I'm presuming that has something to do with it. Believe me, I can definitely relate.