9/11 was an inside job
- Thread starter WINSTON
- Start date
- Status
Seems like I have made another friend.There is only ONE effective tool - education.
Amen!! Clear, logical thinking is the only way to shut down that group of nutters that also believe in Bigfoot, ghosts, goblins and talking unicorns.
Why Otherwise Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories:
In the days following the bombings at the Boston Marathon, speculation online regarding the identity and motive of the unknown perpetrator or perpetrators was rampant. And once the Tsarnaev brothers were identified and the manhunt came to a close, the speculation didn’t cease. It took a new form. A sampling: Maybe the brothers Tsarnaev were just patsies, fall guys set up to take the heat for a mysterious Saudi with high-level connections; or maybe they were innocent, but instead of the Saudis, the actual bomber had acted on behalf of a rogue branch of our own government; or what if the Tsarnaevs were behind the attacks, but were secretly working for a larger organization?
Crazy as these theories are, those propagating them are not — they’re quite normal, in fact. But recent scientific research tells us this much: if you think one of the theories above is plausible, you probably feel the same way about the others, even though they contradict one another. And it’s very likely that this isn’t the only news story that makes you feel as if shadowy forces are behind major world events.
“The best predictor of belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in other conspiracy theories,” says Viren Swami, a psychology professor who studies conspiracy belief at the University of Westminster in England. Psychologists say that’s because a conspiracy theory isn’t so much a response to a single event as it is an expression of an overarching worldview.
As Richard Hofstadter wrote in his seminal 1965 book, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” conspiracy theories, especially those involving meddlesome foreigners, are a favorite pastime in this nation. Americans have always had the sneaking suspicion that somebody was out to get us — be it Freemasons, Catholics or communists. But in recent years, it seems as if every tragedy comes with a round of yarn-spinning, as the Web fills with stories about “false flag” attacks and “crisis actors” — not mere theorizing but arguments for the existence of a completely alternate version of reality.
Since Hofstadter’s book was published, our access to information has vastly improved, which you would think would have helped minimize such wild speculation. But according to recent scientific research on the matter, it most likely only serves to make theories more convincing to the public. What’s even more surprising is that this sort of theorizing isn’t limited to those on the margins. Perfectly sane minds possess an incredible capacity for developing narratives, and even some of the wildest conspiracy theories can be grounded in rational thinking, which makes them that much more pernicious. Consider this: 63 percent of registered American voters believe in at least one political conspiracy theory, according to a recent poll conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University.
While psychologists can’t know exactly what goes on inside our heads, they have, through surveys and laboratory studies, come up with a set of traits that correlate well with conspiracy belief. In 2010, Swami and a co-author summarized this research in The Psychologist, a scientific journal. They found, perhaps surprisingly, that believers are more likely to be cynical about the world in general and politics in particular. Conspiracy theories also seem to be more compelling to those with low self-worth, especially with regard to their sense of agency in the world at large. Conspiracy theories appear to be a way of reacting to uncertainty and powerlessness.
Economic recessions, terrorist attacks and natural disasters are massive, looming threats, but we have little power over when they occur or how or what happens afterward. In these moments of powerlessness and uncertainty, a part of the brain called the amygdala kicks into action. Paul Whalen, a scientist at Dartmouth College who studies the amygdala, says it doesn’t exactly do anything on its own. Instead, the amygdala jump-starts the rest of the brain into analytical overdrive — prompting repeated reassessments of information in an attempt to create a coherent and understandable narrative, to understand what just happened, what threats still exist and what should be done now. This may be a useful way to understand how, writ large, the brain’s capacity for generating new narratives after shocking events can contribute to so much paranoia in this country.
“If you know the truth and others don’t, that’s one way you can reassert feelings of having agency,” Swami says. It can be comforting to do your own research even if that research is flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep.
Surprisingly, Swami’s work has also turned up a correlation between conspiracy theorizing and strong support of democratic principles. But this isn’t quite so strange if you consider the context. Kathryn Olmsted, a historian at the University of California, Davis, says that conspiracy theories wouldn’t exist in a world in which real conspiracies don’t exist. And those conspiracies — Watergate or the Iran-contra Affair — often involve manipulating and circumventing the democratic process. Even people who believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was actually a drama staged by actors couch their arguments in concern for the preservation of the Second Amendment.
Our access to high-quality information has not, unfortunately, ushered in an age in which disagreements of this sort can easily be solved with a quick Google search. In fact, the Internet has made things worse. Confirmation bias — the tendency to pay more attention to evidence that supports what you already believe — is a well-documented and common human failing. People have been writing about it for centuries. In recent years, though, researchers have found that confirmation bias is not easy to overcome. You can’t just drown it in facts.
In 2006, the political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler identified a phenomenon called the “backfire effect.” They showed that efforts to debunk inaccurate political information can leave people more convinced that false information is true than they would have been otherwise. Nyhan isn’t sure why this happens, but it appears to be more prevalent when the bad information helps bolster a favored worldview or ideology.
In that way, Swami says, the Internet and other media have helped perpetuate paranoia. Not only does more exposure to these alternative narratives help engender belief in conspiracies, he says, but the Internet’s tendency toward tribalism helps reinforce misguided beliefs.
And that’s a problem. Because while believing George W. Bush helped plan the Sept. 11 attacks might make you feel in control, it doesn’t actually make you so. Earlier this year, Karen Douglas, a University of Kent psychologist, along with a student, published research in which they exposed people to conspiracy theories about climate change and the death of Princess Diana. Those who got information supporting the theories but not information debunking them were more likely to withdraw from participation in politics and were less likely to take action to reduce their carbon footprints.
Alex Jones, a syndicated radio host, can build fame as a conspiracy peddler; politicians can hint at conspiracies for votes and leverage; but if conspiracy theories are a tool the average person uses to reclaim his sense of agency and access to democracy, it’s an ineffective tool. It can even have dangerous health implications. For example, research has shown that African-Americans who believe AIDS is a weapon loosed on them by the government (remembering the abuses of the Tuskegee experiment) are less likely to practice protected sex. And if you believe that governments or corporations are hiding evidence that vaccines harm children, you’re less likely to have your children vaccinated. The result: pockets of measles and whooping-cough infections and a few deaths in places with low child-vaccination rates.
Psychologists aren’t sure whether powerlessness causes conspiracy theories or vice versa. Either way, the current scientific thinking suggests these beliefs are nothing more than an extreme form of cynicism, a turning away from politics and traditional media — which only perpetuates the problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/m...-conspiracy-theories.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
In the days following the bombings at the Boston Marathon, speculation online regarding the identity and motive of the unknown perpetrator or perpetrators was rampant. And once the Tsarnaev brothers were identified and the manhunt came to a close, the speculation didn’t cease. It took a new form. A sampling: Maybe the brothers Tsarnaev were just patsies, fall guys set up to take the heat for a mysterious Saudi with high-level connections; or maybe they were innocent, but instead of the Saudis, the actual bomber had acted on behalf of a rogue branch of our own government; or what if the Tsarnaevs were behind the attacks, but were secretly working for a larger organization?
Crazy as these theories are, those propagating them are not — they’re quite normal, in fact. But recent scientific research tells us this much: if you think one of the theories above is plausible, you probably feel the same way about the others, even though they contradict one another. And it’s very likely that this isn’t the only news story that makes you feel as if shadowy forces are behind major world events.
“The best predictor of belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in other conspiracy theories,” says Viren Swami, a psychology professor who studies conspiracy belief at the University of Westminster in England. Psychologists say that’s because a conspiracy theory isn’t so much a response to a single event as it is an expression of an overarching worldview.
As Richard Hofstadter wrote in his seminal 1965 book, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” conspiracy theories, especially those involving meddlesome foreigners, are a favorite pastime in this nation. Americans have always had the sneaking suspicion that somebody was out to get us — be it Freemasons, Catholics or communists. But in recent years, it seems as if every tragedy comes with a round of yarn-spinning, as the Web fills with stories about “false flag” attacks and “crisis actors” — not mere theorizing but arguments for the existence of a completely alternate version of reality.
Since Hofstadter’s book was published, our access to information has vastly improved, which you would think would have helped minimize such wild speculation. But according to recent scientific research on the matter, it most likely only serves to make theories more convincing to the public. What’s even more surprising is that this sort of theorizing isn’t limited to those on the margins. Perfectly sane minds possess an incredible capacity for developing narratives, and even some of the wildest conspiracy theories can be grounded in rational thinking, which makes them that much more pernicious. Consider this: 63 percent of registered American voters believe in at least one political conspiracy theory, according to a recent poll conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University.
While psychologists can’t know exactly what goes on inside our heads, they have, through surveys and laboratory studies, come up with a set of traits that correlate well with conspiracy belief. In 2010, Swami and a co-author summarized this research in The Psychologist, a scientific journal. They found, perhaps surprisingly, that believers are more likely to be cynical about the world in general and politics in particular. Conspiracy theories also seem to be more compelling to those with low self-worth, especially with regard to their sense of agency in the world at large. Conspiracy theories appear to be a way of reacting to uncertainty and powerlessness.
Economic recessions, terrorist attacks and natural disasters are massive, looming threats, but we have little power over when they occur or how or what happens afterward. In these moments of powerlessness and uncertainty, a part of the brain called the amygdala kicks into action. Paul Whalen, a scientist at Dartmouth College who studies the amygdala, says it doesn’t exactly do anything on its own. Instead, the amygdala jump-starts the rest of the brain into analytical overdrive — prompting repeated reassessments of information in an attempt to create a coherent and understandable narrative, to understand what just happened, what threats still exist and what should be done now. This may be a useful way to understand how, writ large, the brain’s capacity for generating new narratives after shocking events can contribute to so much paranoia in this country.
“If you know the truth and others don’t, that’s one way you can reassert feelings of having agency,” Swami says. It can be comforting to do your own research even if that research is flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep.
Surprisingly, Swami’s work has also turned up a correlation between conspiracy theorizing and strong support of democratic principles. But this isn’t quite so strange if you consider the context. Kathryn Olmsted, a historian at the University of California, Davis, says that conspiracy theories wouldn’t exist in a world in which real conspiracies don’t exist. And those conspiracies — Watergate or the Iran-contra Affair — often involve manipulating and circumventing the democratic process. Even people who believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was actually a drama staged by actors couch their arguments in concern for the preservation of the Second Amendment.
Our access to high-quality information has not, unfortunately, ushered in an age in which disagreements of this sort can easily be solved with a quick Google search. In fact, the Internet has made things worse. Confirmation bias — the tendency to pay more attention to evidence that supports what you already believe — is a well-documented and common human failing. People have been writing about it for centuries. In recent years, though, researchers have found that confirmation bias is not easy to overcome. You can’t just drown it in facts.
In 2006, the political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler identified a phenomenon called the “backfire effect.” They showed that efforts to debunk inaccurate political information can leave people more convinced that false information is true than they would have been otherwise. Nyhan isn’t sure why this happens, but it appears to be more prevalent when the bad information helps bolster a favored worldview or ideology.
In that way, Swami says, the Internet and other media have helped perpetuate paranoia. Not only does more exposure to these alternative narratives help engender belief in conspiracies, he says, but the Internet’s tendency toward tribalism helps reinforce misguided beliefs.
And that’s a problem. Because while believing George W. Bush helped plan the Sept. 11 attacks might make you feel in control, it doesn’t actually make you so. Earlier this year, Karen Douglas, a University of Kent psychologist, along with a student, published research in which they exposed people to conspiracy theories about climate change and the death of Princess Diana. Those who got information supporting the theories but not information debunking them were more likely to withdraw from participation in politics and were less likely to take action to reduce their carbon footprints.
Alex Jones, a syndicated radio host, can build fame as a conspiracy peddler; politicians can hint at conspiracies for votes and leverage; but if conspiracy theories are a tool the average person uses to reclaim his sense of agency and access to democracy, it’s an ineffective tool. It can even have dangerous health implications. For example, research has shown that African-Americans who believe AIDS is a weapon loosed on them by the government (remembering the abuses of the Tuskegee experiment) are less likely to practice protected sex. And if you believe that governments or corporations are hiding evidence that vaccines harm children, you’re less likely to have your children vaccinated. The result: pockets of measles and whooping-cough infections and a few deaths in places with low child-vaccination rates.
Psychologists aren’t sure whether powerlessness causes conspiracy theories or vice versa. Either way, the current scientific thinking suggests these beliefs are nothing more than an extreme form of cynicism, a turning away from politics and traditional media — which only perpetuates the problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/m...-conspiracy-theories.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
All of that has a definite ring of truth to it.
In addition, there's also another factor that comes directly into play: So many people today live stagnated, boring lives that they are ready to believe ANYTHING that adds spice to their bland existence.
Have psychologists ever heard of Pavlov's dog?
Shouldn't psychologists expect physicists to do experiments to test hypotheses?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1nwiMUGbHY
psik
I have watched the video.....
I cannot actually scientifically explain their "CONSPIRACY SUPPORTING" findings, except to say, that it is still damn near impossible to simulate what happened that day.
But I do have a couple of questions for our dear conspiracy friends.....
Why would any government agency with plans to conduct a scenario like 9/11, plant the explosives that brought the buildings down, do so in a manner that they both free-fell within their own footprints.
Wouldn't they in doing what they did, want to create even more carnage?
So why did they deliberately bring the buildings down within their own footprints, when it would raise questions?
Why not have the buildings topple over at an angle? Think of the carnage if that was to happen...
And of course the question that has been asked before...How could they plant such large charges, at so many points of the building, and not have them noticed by anyone?
Or perhaps it's just a case, as most sane people realize, where loonie terrorists planned the whole thing over 2 years, hijacked the planes in groups, and flew them into the buildings, which then due to the impact, fires and construction methods of the buildings themselves, just happened by chance, to fall within their footprints.
And the facts are, there is far far more evidence to support the official most likely version, then the fabricated, conspiracy that loonies would have you believe.
Yep. And I bet conspiracy theorists drool whenever they think up another question about 9/11. It's a trained response.
?? Physicists do experiments to test their hypotheses. Psychology don't "expect" them to - psychology is a different field.
psikeyhackr
Like these experiments?
Final Reports from the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
Final Reports released in September 2005:
NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower
NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-1A: Design and Construction of Structural Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-1A appendixes A-B
NIST NCSTAR 1-1A appendixes C-G
NIST NCSTAR 1-1B: Comparison of Building Code Structural Requirements
NIST NCSTAR 1-1C: Maintenance and Modifications to Structural Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-1C appendixes
NIST NCSTAR 1-1D: Fire Protection and Life Safety Provisions Applied to the Design and Construction of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 and Post-Construction Provisions Applied after Occupancy
NIST NCSTAR 1-1E: Comparison of Codes, Standards, and Practices in Use at the Time of the Design and Construction of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7
NIST NCSTAR 1-1F: Comparison of the 1968 and Current (2003) New York City Building Code Provisions
NIST NCSTAR 1-1G: Amendments to the Fire Protection and Life Safety Provisions of the New York City Building Code by Local Laws Adopted while World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 Were in Use
NIST NCSTAR 1-1H: Post-Construction Modification to Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems of the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-1I: Post-Construction Modifications to Fire Protection, Life Safety, and Structural Systems of World Trade Center 7
NIST NCSTAR 1-1J: Design, Installation, and Operation of Fuel Systems for Emergency Power in World Trade Center 7
NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-2A: Reference Structural Models and Baseline Performance Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-2B: Analysis of Aircraft Impacts into the World Trade Center Towers (Chapters 1-8)
NIST NCSTAR 1-2B: Chapters 9-11
NIST NCSTAR 1-2B: appendixes
NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
NIST NCSTAR 1-3A: Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
NIST NCSTAR 1-3B: Steel Inventory and Identification
NIST NCSTAR 1-3C: Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components
NIST NCSTAR 1-3C: appendixes
NIST NCSTAR 1-3D: Mechanical Properties of Structural Steels
NIST NCSTAR 1-3E: Physical Properties of Structural Steels
NIST NCSTAR 1-4: Active Fire Protection Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-4A: Post-Construction Fires prior to September 11, 2001
NIST NCSTAR 1-4B: Fire Suppression Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-4C: Fire Alarm Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-4D: Smoke Management Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-5A: Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis (Chapters 1-8)
NIST NCSTAR 1-5A: Chapters 9-appendix C
NIST NCSTAR 1-5A: appendixes D-G
NIST NCSTAR 1-5A: appendixes H-M
NIST NCSTAR 1-5B: Experiments and Modeling of Structural Steel Elements Exposed to Fire
NIST NCSTAR 1-5C: Fire Tests of Single Office Workstations
NIST NCSTAR 1-5D: Reaction of Ceiling Tile Systems to Shocks
NIST NCSTAR 1-5E: Experiments and Modeling of Multiple Workstations Burning in a Compartment
NIST NCSTAR 1-5F: Computer Simulation of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-5G: Fire Structure Interface and Thermal Response of the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-6A: Passive Fire Protection
NIST NCSTAR 1-6B: Fire Resistance Tests of the Floor Truss Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-6C: Component, Connection, and Subsystem Structural Analysis
NIST NCSTAR 1-6D: Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and Fire
NIST NCSTAR 1-7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication
NIST NCSTAR 1-7A: Analysis of Published Accounts of the World Trade Center Evacuation
NIST NCSTAR 1-7B: Technical Documentation for Survey Administration: Questionnaires, Interviews, and Focus Groups
NIST NCSTAR 1-8: The Emergency Response Operations
NIST NCSTAR 1-8: Appendixes A-L
All of these reports can be read here...
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm
Like these experiments?
Final Reports from the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
Final Reports released in September 2005:
NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower
NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-1A: Design and Construction of Structural Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-1A appendixes A-B
NIST NCSTAR 1-1A appendixes C-G
NIST NCSTAR 1-1B: Comparison of Building Code Structural Requirements
NIST NCSTAR 1-1C: Maintenance and Modifications to Structural Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-1C appendixes
NIST NCSTAR 1-1D: Fire Protection and Life Safety Provisions Applied to the Design and Construction of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 and Post-Construction Provisions Applied after Occupancy
NIST NCSTAR 1-1E: Comparison of Codes, Standards, and Practices in Use at the Time of the Design and Construction of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7
NIST NCSTAR 1-1F: Comparison of the 1968 and Current (2003) New York City Building Code Provisions
NIST NCSTAR 1-1G: Amendments to the Fire Protection and Life Safety Provisions of the New York City Building Code by Local Laws Adopted while World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 Were in Use
NIST NCSTAR 1-1H: Post-Construction Modification to Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems of the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-1I: Post-Construction Modifications to Fire Protection, Life Safety, and Structural Systems of World Trade Center 7
NIST NCSTAR 1-1J: Design, Installation, and Operation of Fuel Systems for Emergency Power in World Trade Center 7
NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-2A: Reference Structural Models and Baseline Performance Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-2B: Analysis of Aircraft Impacts into the World Trade Center Towers (Chapters 1-8)
NIST NCSTAR 1-2B: Chapters 9-11
NIST NCSTAR 1-2B: appendixes
NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
NIST NCSTAR 1-3A: Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
NIST NCSTAR 1-3B: Steel Inventory and Identification
NIST NCSTAR 1-3C: Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components
NIST NCSTAR 1-3C: appendixes
NIST NCSTAR 1-3D: Mechanical Properties of Structural Steels
NIST NCSTAR 1-3E: Physical Properties of Structural Steels
NIST NCSTAR 1-4: Active Fire Protection Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-4A: Post-Construction Fires prior to September 11, 2001
NIST NCSTAR 1-4B: Fire Suppression Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-4C: Fire Alarm Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-4D: Smoke Management Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-5A: Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis (Chapters 1-8)
NIST NCSTAR 1-5A: Chapters 9-appendix C
NIST NCSTAR 1-5A: appendixes D-G
NIST NCSTAR 1-5A: appendixes H-M
NIST NCSTAR 1-5B: Experiments and Modeling of Structural Steel Elements Exposed to Fire
NIST NCSTAR 1-5C: Fire Tests of Single Office Workstations
NIST NCSTAR 1-5D: Reaction of Ceiling Tile Systems to Shocks
NIST NCSTAR 1-5E: Experiments and Modeling of Multiple Workstations Burning in a Compartment
NIST NCSTAR 1-5F: Computer Simulation of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-5G: Fire Structure Interface and Thermal Response of the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-6A: Passive Fire Protection
NIST NCSTAR 1-6B: Fire Resistance Tests of the Floor Truss Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-6C: Component, Connection, and Subsystem Structural Analysis
NIST NCSTAR 1-6D: Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and Fire
NIST NCSTAR 1-7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication
NIST NCSTAR 1-7A: Analysis of Published Accounts of the World Trade Center Evacuation
NIST NCSTAR 1-7B: Technical Documentation for Survey Administration: Questionnaires, Interviews, and Focus Groups
NIST NCSTAR 1-8: The Emergency Response Operations
NIST NCSTAR 1-8: Appendixes A-L
All of these reports can be read here...
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm
Well aren't the responses interesting.
Just look at all that FEAR.
Here's my post clearly saying that I have no theories only QUESTIONS (listed above)
And what they do? They wheel out the old chestnut - YOU'RE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST. That's because they only have this in their armory.
Well it's time to issue my nickname for you people.
I call you the BOXCUTTER CONSPIRACY THEORISTS or BCTs for short.
There you all are sanctioning the invasion of two sovereign countries whom it is admitted had nothing to do with the attacks and you all do this without a single shred of hard evidence to support your claim . Just a load of THEORIES based on a series of must-have-dones.
Well before I disturb your fluffy pink bunny rabbit world let me see if I can post this for starters.
h t t p : / /w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m /watch?v=pGbEJ3pXwWM
I'm unable to post links at the moment and I need to have posted 15 and yesterday I had posted 14 which has now gone back down to 11.
Yes you really really are frightened of me are you?
Yes, we are all afraid of you. Because only you have the courage to speak the TRUTH! and that frightens all the SHEEPLE.
Now could you please post something about nanothermite? Or all the people from Flight 93 who are in a FEMA prison camp? Or the missiles with the hologram generators that REALLY caused all the destruction? I liked that one. Maybe post a video you made of a Lego tower that fell over. Or perhaps you could claim that steel doesn't melt at the temperatures that jet fuel burns at? It's always funny to watch truthers make that claim then try to weasel out of it later.
Well you see all this has been done to death and these BCTs still have their heads shoved where the sun don't shine. Their fear exceeds their moral fortitude. Their condition can be likened to one of Aesop's fables - The Fox and the Grapes.
Aesop's fable goes that the fox saw the crow eating the grapes and the crow was saying how nice the grapes were. Try as he might the fox couldn't reach the grapes so he reasoned that the grapes must be sour. - Hence the phrase Sour Grapes.
Well these BCTs cannot handle the suggestion that big organized crime syndicates have actually achieved what they would want to do and taken over the government of various countries, using fear and bribery. These BCTs have the clear racist view that this kind of thing only happens in other countries e.g. 1930s Germany. So when you suggest to them that it has happened they cannot handle this because they have little or no moral fortitude and cannot look the demon in the face. So they go into what Orwell called DOUBLETHINK. Even though they know they should be questioning this they cannot handle it if it were true and so they do the Sour Grapes equivalent and say that anyone telling them things must be nutters.
Questions
Well since these were ignored as true to form let me post these QUESTIONS again
1)the unprecedented failure of the US air defense system on the morning of the attacks; I'VE GOT SOME GOOD STUFF ON THAT ONE. Trouble is these BCTs are so utterly scared of me they keep putting back the number of postings I've made so I can't post links.
2) the AWOL military chain of command during the actual attacks, including the inexplicable behavior of the presidential entourage and the total lack of recriminations for those who were supposedly in charge that day.
3)the seeming impossibility of official claims with regard to Flight 77; WATCH EM LINE UP FOR THAT ONE.
4) the evidence that Flight 93 was shot down;
5) contradictions and dubious evidence in the official claims about the alleged hijackers and masterminds, and doubts about their real identities;
6)signs that the alleged hijackers enjoyed high-level protection against discovery by honest investigators; This is a big one and totally undeniable.
7) evidence that the alleged hijackers were financed by states allied with US intelligence; another biggy.
8) suspicious and massive international financial trades suggesting foreknowledge of the attacks;
9)widespread signs of official foreknowledge and, in fact, advance preparation for the 9/11 attack scenario;
10)the long-running links between Islamist fundamentalist terror cells and US covert operations, dating back to CIA support for the anti-Soviet mujahedeen and Osama Bin Ladin himself;
11) the demolition-like collapse of the third skyscraper, WTC 7; THIS ONE HAS BEEN THE SOURCE OF MUCH AMUSEMENT TO ME. SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE COME UP WITH A THEORY OF COLLAPSE THROUGH FIRE ALONE AND EACH ONE HAS BEEN BLOWN AWAY BY ME SIMPLY REFERRING THEM TO THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION BY NIST. THEY ALL DISAGREE WITH IT. OOOOPS!!!!
12) and questions concerning who could have logically expected to derive benefit in the aftermath of a massive attack on the United States. Certainly not IRAQ nor indeed Afghanistan. The two countries that were attacked even after the Official story had insisted that the hijackers came from another country altogether.
13) The Chairman of the only inquiry that has been made has said publicly that QUOTE "THE INQUIRY WAS SET UP TO FAIL" UNQUOTE.
Careful observers will note that these are QUESTIONS and not THEORIES
Only the BCTs can be legitimately called CONSPIRACY THEORISTS
Well since these were ignored as true to form let me post these QUESTIONS again
1)the unprecedented failure of the US air defense system on the morning of the attacks; I'VE GOT SOME GOOD STUFF ON THAT ONE. Trouble is these BCTs are so utterly scared of me they keep putting back the number of postings I've made so I can't post links.
2) the AWOL military chain of command during the actual attacks, including the inexplicable behavior of the presidential entourage and the total lack of recriminations for those who were supposedly in charge that day.
3)the seeming impossibility of official claims with regard to Flight 77; WATCH EM LINE UP FOR THAT ONE.
4) the evidence that Flight 93 was shot down;
5) contradictions and dubious evidence in the official claims about the alleged hijackers and masterminds, and doubts about their real identities;
6)signs that the alleged hijackers enjoyed high-level protection against discovery by honest investigators; This is a big one and totally undeniable.
7) evidence that the alleged hijackers were financed by states allied with US intelligence; another biggy.
8) suspicious and massive international financial trades suggesting foreknowledge of the attacks;
9)widespread signs of official foreknowledge and, in fact, advance preparation for the 9/11 attack scenario;
10)the long-running links between Islamist fundamentalist terror cells and US covert operations, dating back to CIA support for the anti-Soviet mujahedeen and Osama Bin Ladin himself;
11) the demolition-like collapse of the third skyscraper, WTC 7; THIS ONE HAS BEEN THE SOURCE OF MUCH AMUSEMENT TO ME. SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE COME UP WITH A THEORY OF COLLAPSE THROUGH FIRE ALONE AND EACH ONE HAS BEEN BLOWN AWAY BY ME SIMPLY REFERRING THEM TO THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION BY NIST. THEY ALL DISAGREE WITH IT. OOOOPS!!!!
12) and questions concerning who could have logically expected to derive benefit in the aftermath of a massive attack on the United States. Certainly not IRAQ nor indeed Afghanistan. The two countries that were attacked even after the Official story had insisted that the hijackers came from another country altogether.
13) The Chairman of the only inquiry that has been made has said publicly that QUOTE "THE INQUIRY WAS SET UP TO FAIL" UNQUOTE.
Careful observers will note that these are QUESTIONS and not THEORIES
Only the BCTs can be legitimately called CONSPIRACY THEORISTS
So you have the answers have you?...You have irrefutable proof that it was a governemnt job, have you?
So why come here, where you are swept away into the conspiracy forum, generally made for nutballs.
Why not take your ground breaking information and knowledge out there to the media, and governmental opposition parties.....I'm sure they would love something like this!
I'll tell you why....Because it's only on forums such as this, where you are able to rant and rave about your manufactured evidence...No one else wants a bar of it....No one else wants to be seen promoting rubbish and bull crap.
In other words this and other forums are the only outlet you have to try and drum up support for the crazy idea you propose.
We all know why 9/11 happened, and how it happened, because that is what the greater bulk of evidence tells us.
That is the situation, now, tomorrow and in another decade and beyond.
Answer to question 1
NOPE! Need a new inquiry - Got a problem with that have you?
Answer to Question 2
All Government sponsored disinformation forums need to be squashed. It gets easier, I can only assume that the payment for your average schill is not that high.
Answer 3
We do.
Have this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDrc8ZIZ4is
paddoboy said:
Well I mixed it with JREF four times and they couldn't live with me.
paddoboy said:
OOOOHH!!! The man says he has evidence. Oh Goody.
Come on then let's hear it.
Warning I've seen that statement before and challenged it many many many times. The result is nothing zilch nada.
Hey perhaps you'll be different.
I'm not holding my breath.
Answer to question 1
NOPE! Need a new inquiry - Got a problem with that have you?
Answer to Question 2
All Government sponsored disinformation forums need to be squashed. It gets easier, I can only assume that the payment for your average schill is not that high.
Answer 3
We do.
Have this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDrc8ZIZ4is
paddoboy said:
Well I mixed it with JREF four times and they couldn't live with me.
paddoboy said:
OOOOHH!!! The man says he has evidence. Oh Goody.
Come on then let's hear it.
Warning I've seen that statement before and challenged it many many many times. The result is ALWAYS nothing, zilch, nada. You know and I know that you simply don't have any evidence. Cue name calling because that will make you think you are making some kind of reasoned argument.
Hey perhaps you'll be different.
I'm not holding my breath.
We all know why 9/11 happened, and how it happened.
That is the situation, now, tomorrow and in another decade and beyond.
All you and your kind need to do is take it out there and convince the world its not true, like I said.
You do? You did??
Funny, I don't see any of it at all, other than the very very occasional sensationalist 1/2 documentary that people may watch, get's them wondering for a while, and then common sense kicks in and they have a good belly laugh at the improbability.
That is the situation, now, tomorrow and in another decade and beyond.
All you and your kind need to do is take it out there and convince the world its not true, like I said.
You do? You did??
Funny, I don't see any of it at all, other than the very very occasional sensationalist 1/2 documentary that people may watch, get's them wondering for a while, and then common sense kicks in and they have a good belly laugh at the improbability.
Excuse me Hello!!! Planet Earth calling!!!!
You said you have evidence, I'm still waiting.
Please post this 'evidence' YOU say YOU have here.
It's funny that after 12 years of asking and dealing with this glib statement you BCTs always chicken out when challenged.
- Status