| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » 9/11 Miracles Never Cease to Wonder
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Kirby M. Wilson |
 Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 21, 10:30 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: STILL UNANSWERED 9/11 MIRACLES
opened regarding the 9/11 cover-up and the world will reel in shock
and awe ~ when the monstrous truth is known to one and all : Allen L
Roland
Every six months I return to the 9/11 scene, not to fan the flames
but, instead, to review apparent truths ~ particularly in light of the
monstrous deception beneath the unanswered 9/11 miracles.
If one accepts the " Official Version " of the events that occurred on
9/11 miracles
its Air Force where it is simulating "Multiple Hijackings of Aircraft"
within the United States of America. This drill causes great confusion
amongst Air Traffic Controllers as it provides a "Cover" for the real
Hijackings. Without these drills it is very possible that the Aircraft
Surely "The hand of ???"
The Miracle
is required. Unfortunately he goes missing for 30 minutes, on the
morning of the attacks, again impeding the ability of intercepts to be
flown. Not only this but on the day of those intercepts, supersonic US
It's miracle some of these conspiracy nuts haven't been locked up in a
psych ward
http://www.debunking911.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.htm
Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio
and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and
sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate
theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center
was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a
mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they
are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the
United States.
To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy
theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and
reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70
professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine,
including aviation, engineering and the military.
In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard
evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few
theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on
that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations
that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by
confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we
understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into
world history.
The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed
the four 9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from cockpit
recordings to forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never
returned home. Nonetheless, conspiracy theorists seize on a handful of
"facts" to argue a very different scenario: The jets that struck New
York and Washington, D.C., weren't commercial planes, they say, but
something else, perhaps refueling tankers or guided missiles. And the
lack of military intervention? Theorists claim it proves the U.S.
government instigated the assault or allowed it to occur in order to
advance oil interests or a war agenda.
Where's The Pod?
Claim: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines
Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an
object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film
"911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no
such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this
"military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-
refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the
attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who
planned and engineered 9/11."
FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed
jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published
in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital
scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space
Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an
expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of
geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After
studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a
Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that
the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the
Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing
gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an
exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on
film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in
digital versions of images -- the pixels are saturated and tend to
'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to
civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the
California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's
bull. They're really stretching.
No Stand-Down Order
Claim: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force
bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11
September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of
protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-
clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one
explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air
Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."
FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the
contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically
alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing
planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up
the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public
affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast
Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS
that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency,
mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had
hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to
(erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a
possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report
that United Flight 175 had been hijacked -- the same time the plane
slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from
Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in
Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base
in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated
planes.
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned
off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC
had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the
country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It
ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was
like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle."
Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats
and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
Flight 175's Windows
Claim: On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX
employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw
the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look
like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any
windows on the sides."
Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the
resolution to show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the
most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories -- specifically, that
th
FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the
time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in
Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact,
he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard
the explosion.
While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into
the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane
wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology
Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his
team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a
chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from
the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In
reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to
track the trajectory of the fragments he studied -- including a section
of the landing gear and part of an engine -- as they tore through the
South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the
sky.
Intercepts Not Routine
Claim: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to
immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to
communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site
oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to
intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."
FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian
plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October
1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression,
the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until
it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach
the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited
supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD
interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification
Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman
Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased
cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command
centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also
increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor
airspace over the continent.
<< Previous Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next >>
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers -- and the smaller WTC 7
a few hours later -- initially surprised even some experts. But
subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was
destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by
the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who
contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance
and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.
Widespread Damage
Claim: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th
floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second
jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South
Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both
buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged
before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet
caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on
the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site
(sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER
EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED
in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."
FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in
spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its
initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our
team of reporters.
The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the
utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for
burning jet fuel -- and fiery destruction throughout the building.
"It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman
Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's
atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go
off."
Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted
the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST
heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down"
to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and
flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering
professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar
observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and
Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes
after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he
found too horrific to film.
"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site
AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the
aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can
burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of
Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel
(2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse,
their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of
their structural strength -- and that required exposure to much less
heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says
retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The
Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've
seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is
that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer
expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior
engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel
Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."
NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing
insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the
path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the
heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a
professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego,
and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM
consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the
WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible
material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and
paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned
for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10
minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was
responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Puffs Of Dust
Claim: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and
debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement
in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of
The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds
shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse.
They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van
Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the
Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices
inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article
continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those
of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors
above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the
highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor
would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the
collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain
reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not
require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural
engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of
air. As they pancaked, all that air -- along with the concrete and
other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse -- was ejected
with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor
collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window,"
NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may
create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it
is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque
Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in
saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the
building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered
the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed
Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the
line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of
Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly,
pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original
statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying
that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the
truth.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:35 am |
|
|
|
|
On Feb 21, 8:01 am, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Subject and thread change noted as regular Disinfo tactics by Kirby.
<snip the big lie>
"If you tell a lie long enough loud enough and often enough the people
will believe it."
Adolf Hitler
http://physics911.net
http://www.ae911truth.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| B. Cropley |
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Might i add that, interestingly, a debunk of the popular mechanics
debunk is starting to circulate.
This is one toasty subject!
Ben |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Kirby M. Wilson |
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 21, 11:35 am, knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: On Feb 21, 8:01 am, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip the big lie
"If you tell a lie long enough loud enough and often enough the people
will believe it."
Adolf Hitler
yes, we know Adolf Hitler is your role model (along with Stanley
Meyers)
http://www.elmerfudd.us/kooks911.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
In the aftermath of the September 11'th terrorist attacks against New
York city, a cottage industry of conspiracy kooks have risen to
exploit the attacks, seeking to advance their financial, political,
and ideological goals as well as seeking to justify and vindicate long-
held and deeply cherished preconceived notions.
Among the most notorious and decidedly unscholarly are the handful of
individuals calling themselves "911 Scholars for Truth[1]," a rather
ironic and euphemistic label for a set of individuals, ideologies, and
practices that are anything but scholarly.
An important aspect of skeptics groups is that claims must be testable
and falsifiable. Skeptics generally aren't interested in evaluating
and addressing untestable claims since such claims are a matter of
religious faith or the dysfunctional pathologies harbored by the
mentally unfortunate. When it comes to testable claims, however, that
are in opposition to well established scientific evidence, skeptics
groups are willing and happy to debunk.
We'll see in this paper that much of what 911 conspiracy kooks believe
fall within the venue of religious faith solely because what they
believe are demonstrably false, but despite the fact that what they
believe is false, a great many of their claims are testable and thus
lend themselves to scientific debunking.
Most skeptics groups make an effort to remain stoic and
professional[5] while debunking outrageous claims however the author
of this paper doesn't subscribe to the philosophy of being nice and
respectful to believers in the paranormal and other typical venues of
irrationality. Indeed, there's little to be gained from refraining
calling groups of unfortunate individuals (such as the handful of
unsalted nuts in the "911 Scholars" group) "unsalted nuts[6]." In
fact, repressing laughter at the shenanigans of conspiracy kooks is
unhealthy.
The author is also a vocal and fairly insistent impolite opponent of
the Bush regime's numerous crimes against humanity and treason against
the United States. Most claims issued by fascist regimes (such as the
Bush administration) are often testable and falsifiable and as such
the author recognizes as legitimate the very outrageous lies and
deceptions that drives 911 conspiracy kooks to adopt their own
resulting delusional beliefs.
Eyes Open 911 Conspiracy Kook
When it comes to self-proclaimed "psychics," astrologers, palm
readers, dowsers, Tarot card readers, fortune tellers, and other
claimants of the paranormal, such people fall into two camps. "Eyes
open" and "eyes closed[7]." Conspiracy advocates also follow this
stark bifurcation of believer however the percentages of people who
fall into the two classes are starkly different.
"Eyes open" advocates of the paranormal are well aware that the powers
and abilities that they claim to hold don't actually exist.
Mentalists, magicians, conjurers, religious frauds (such as Peter
Popoff[8] and all television-scale "faith healers[9]") fall into this
category, as do the likes of Uri Geller[10], and Jean Dixon[11],
individuals who seek to make money or garner fame from the ignorant
and gullible -- though often desperate -- rubes they try to exploit.
Eyes open" psychics and such are further divided into two major groups
of individuals: those who use their cold reading[12] abilities and
other magic tricks to rook, swindle, and defraud their marks out of as
much money as they think they can get away with, and a second group of
those who are honest and employ their magic act to entertain or
educate.
By far some 90% of all advocates of the paranormal are "eyes open,"
knowing the claims that they make are false. Of those who are eyes
open, perhaps 90% employ their deceptive trade to financial gain while
the rest do it for the humor, fun, and entertainment it affords at the
expense of the actual believers they play with.
When it comes to conspiracy beliefs, advocates form up into a reversal
of the usual paranormal bifurcation: Some 90% of conspiracy believers
honestly believe while the rest proclaim to do so solely to rook and
swindle the rubes who actually believe.
There is a reason for this. People who proclaim to be "psychic" or
perform astrological readings and the whole spectrum of paranormal
claptrap typically require at least a minimal of acting ability to
carry off their deceptions, and a fairly large dose of understanding
of basic human nature.
The ability to perform "cold readings" where the advocate can
successfully impress the mark into believing the "psychic" knows
things about him or her that nobody could know without having
paranormal powers is an ability that takes time, intelligence, and
practice to develop. Alternatively, conspiracy kooks don't require
any such mental capabilities or effort. For conspiracy kooks, the
only requirement these days is the ability to turn on a computer and
use the Google search engine.
"Eyes open" conspiracy advocates deserve to be ridiculed and exposed
as the frauds they are. They're preying on the honest beliefs of
people who trust in what they mistakenly perceive to be authoritative
figures, people who honestly think they've discovered truths that the
vast majority of the world either don't know anything about or
deliberately choose not to face.
Eyes Closed 911 Conspiracy Kooks
The "eyes closed" brand of conspiracy believer honestly believes what
they advocate, and while they may rook and swindle each other, selling
each other T-shirts, bumper stickers, conspiracy books and other
marketable paraphernalia, they do so because they actually believe
what they profess to believe in -- as opposed to the "eyes open"
conspiracy advocates who are in it for the money and fame.
David Hume -- a well known skeptical philosopher -- proclaimed that
skeptics should choose to understand humans rather than to laugh at or
ridicule believers, and this is a philosophy that's certainly
reasonable for those conspiracy believers who are "eyes closed." I
choose, however, to both understand them and laugh at them since 911
conspiracy kooks are vastly entertaining.
At the same time "eyes closed" conspiracy believers are deserving of
some pity and a more friendly brand of ridicule than that which
rightfully should be heaped upon the "eyes open" variety of fraud.
Determining Who is Eyes Open and Who is Eyes Closed
The determination of which "psychics" and other paranormal advocates
are "eyes open" and which are "eyes closed" is a matter of predicating
one's assumptions on simple probability unless the advocate has
accidentally or purposely stated or otherwise exposed himself or
herself as "eyes open."
The same is true for 911 conspiracy crackpots. Probability designates
that most every professed "psychic" knows he or she is a fraud and
doesn't actually believe any of the claptrap he or she sells to the
rubes. Probability also designates that most every conspiracy
advocate honestly believes in what he or she professes to believe in.
The question then becomes one of how to determine whether a 911
conspiracy kook actually believes the claptrap he or she professes to
believe from those who proclaim to believe simply to get money and
fame from the witless rubes who actually do believe.
There is no way to accurately make the determination unless the 911
conspiracy advocate admits he or she knows they're shoveling out
claptrap. The fact that so many 911 conspiracy kooks are caught and
exposed as deliberately lying is no indication that they know they're
deliberately lying, and getting caught can't be used as a metric to
judge an advocate's actual belief or not.
How can this be? How can someone deliberately lie and yet not know
it? In psychology the mental process which allows such a phenomena
among human brains is called "compartmentalization[13]."
Conspiracy kooks can honestly believe they're "scholars" and that
they're performing "science," and they can honestly pretend their self-
published "peer reviewed journals" are some how legitimate. At the
same time in direct contradiction to those beliefs they can also
believe that actual scientists who perform actual science and debunk
conspiracy notions aren't being honest -- or worse, are part of the
ever growing conspiracy.
Compartmentalization is relevant to determine who is eyes open and who
is eyes closed because those who honestly believe contradictory and
mutually exclusive things can accumulate a cognitive dysfunction known
as "cognitive dissonance[14]" which eventually manifests itself. The
conspiracy kook who grows increasingly violent and bug-shit insane,
advancing increasingly nutty notions as time develops are likely "eyes
closed," actual believers suffering from their beliefs.
The "eyes open" type of advocate may express increasingly outrageous
and amusing notions as time progresses however they generally don't
acquire violent and insane rhetoric and behavior. It's generally
always the rabid true believer that society physically suffers from
the most, not the liar professing to believe solely as a means to rook
and swindle the rubes out of their bank accounts.
What the 911 Conspiracy Kooks Believe In Public
Examining groups of conspiracy kooks such as the "911 Scholars for
Truth," it becomes apparent that what such individuals advocate and
speak about in public outside of their circle of fellow conspiracy
mongers is often diametrically opposed to what such individuals
profess and advocate in venues among fellow believers.
(Or, to be more accurate, their claims grow in absurdity when told
safely among fellow kooks.)
The reason why there's stark differences in what conspiracy crackpots
say depending on who their audience is derives from the aims and goals
of the conspiracy advocates of the moment.
When speaking in public out among normal people who don't share their
apriori conspiracy beliefs, 911 "Scholars" and their ideological
colleagues, for example, such conspiracy believers won't mention some
of their more embarrassing beliefs such as the notion that some 4000
Jews who worked in the World Trade Center buildings were warned in
advance[15] of the September 11'th terrorist attacks. When speaking
in venues where the majority of people are fellow conspiracy
believers, however, the claim about Jews being warned are routinely
expressed.
At issue is credibility and legitimacy, two attributes completely
lacking in such groups as "911 Scholars for Truth." Conspiracy
mongers will express what they hope and believe their audience will
accept when they feel they need to appeal to what they believe will be
considered credible and will be accepted by their audience.
Conspiracy kooks will convince themselves that this level of deception
is acceptable since the vast unwashed populace which laughs at them or
otherwise ignores their notions:
1. Don't want to believe the truth.
2. Have short attention spans and can't retain the truth.
3. Are incapable of understanding the truth.
4. Are part of the conspiracy.
5. Have some financial or other motive for denying the truth.
6. Are "electronically" brainwashed by the secret cabal.
So what are some of the more profoundly silly things that 911
conspiracy kooks proclaim to believe out in public among non-
believers? To be sure not all 911 kooks believe the same things, and
to be sure there's infighting among the kooks about what they're
supposed to believe involves the conspiracy and what's bullshit.
Despite that, there's some core notions held by the majority. An
exhaustive list would take a considerable amount of time to compile
however some of the major points of belief are:
1. The World Trade Center buildings were brought down by demolition
munitions planted at strategic locations within the buildings.
2. There were explosions heard and observed[16] by witnesses which
are demolition munitions (rather than electrical[17] transformer
explosions and related phenomena.)
3. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support their
demolition munitions notions.
4. There is overwhelming eye-witness accounts and statements from
fire fighters and such to support their demolition munitions notions.
5. World Trade Center building number 7 wasn't damaged badly enough
to warrant being dismantled and was demolished after the attacks to
try to hide evidence of the Bush regime's crimes and treason being
stored in the building.
6. Video admission of guilt by a fire fighter exists that World Trade
Center number 7 was "pulled[18]" with demolition munitions.
7. Pools of melted steel[19] exists which can't be explained through
physical sciences unless one posits the existence of demolition
materials such as thermite[20].
8. Evidence that thermite was used in percentages beyond the trace
amounts detected and accepted by actual scientists.
9. No evidence exists that a jet airliner was crashed into the
Pentagon.
10.Passenger jet airliner aircraft were not crashed into the World
Trade Center buildings but were instead crashed into by automated or
otherwise unmanned drone aircraft.
11.The "fourth jet airliner" that crashed in a field and was
reportedly targeted for the White House was likewise unmanned and some
how malfunctioned.
12.Cell telephone calls don't work from inside of passenger jet
airliners at certain altitudes and velocities.
13.The World Trade Center buildings fell at "free fall[21]" speeds.
14.Iron and steel don't burn. (Even head kook Jones stupidly claims
that iron can't burn. In fact it does around 1200 degrees f.)
Those are just a few of the notions proclaimed out in public among the
rational who recognize the conspiracy kooks' notions as unevidenced.
What the 911 Conspiracy Kooks Believe Among Themselves
As the audience becomes a majority of fellow 911 conspiracy believers,
the claims become ever more unscientific, untestable, and outrageous.
To be sure the majority of the 911 conspiracy kooks don't believe all
of the increasingly insane notions listed here however from web sites
and Usenet newsgroups, the increase in rabidity appears to be
spreading into the mainstream kookdom.
Some of the added "private" notions:
1) All of the Jews who worked in the World Trade Center buildings
were warned before hand about the impending terrorist attacks and were
told not to report to work.
2) The history of crimes against humanity and treason against America
at the hands of the Bush regime extend to actually performing the
September 11'th terrorist attacks personally (that is ordering the
attacks.)
3) The Bush regime knew about the impending terrorist attacks and
ordered the Air Force, NORAD, FBI, and other agencies to "stand down"
and step aside to allow the attacks to happen.
4) The 911 attacks were part of a wider world-wide conspiracy
involving "blood line Illuminati" cabals and various "secret
societies" of which Bush and his fascist regime are part.
5) The September 11'th attacks are part of the "end times" signaling
the "return" of the Christian Jesus godman.
6) The "truth" about flying saucers, John F. Kennedy's murder,
Roswell, Bigfoot, and so many other traditional paranoid kookdom are
intricately tied into the September 11'th terrorist attacks with big
oil, cocaine, and the usual world domination
Some "911 Scholars for Truth" kooks allegedly publicly proclaim quite
a few kook notions that they later allegedly deny when interviewed for
wider audiences. (One such kook allegedly called himself an
"agnostic" when it comes to whether the Bush regime actually committed
the terrorist acts when interviewed on a FOX channel's fake news show
in direct opposition to proclamations he allegedly made at a Los
Angeles kook convention among his ideological kook colleagues.)
If this behavior is expressed by pathological liars, it's an
indication that the individuals are at least aware of the fact that
they lie. Often pathological liars have difficulty noticing that
they're deliberately changing their claims based upon their target
audience. When they internalize the fact that they're deliberately
lying to critical audiences, they justify their deceptions as
"appealing to a broader audience" while they "disseminate educational
information" among those who they believe are "asleep" or brainwashed.
Debunking the Kooks
All brands of unfortunate conspiracy believer from flying saucers
believers, through astrology, all the way to 911 "Scholars" engage in
the behavior of continually restating claims that have been soundly
and scientifically debunked hundreds or thousands of times, some
claims of which have been debunked for centuries.
When presented with irrefutable scientific fact, such believers simply
blink their eyes, draw a deep breath, ignore everything they have just
been shown, and utter their just-debunked claims yet once again. It's
a matter of religious belief; a factor of the human brain being wired
through millions of years of evolution to cling to wishful thinking
and things people want to believe despite all reason.
Here below we take a look at a bevy of claims by a 911 conspiracy
believer, an Internet entity named Paul Roberts. While we examine the
usual and heavily debunked claims, we'll comment upon them.
"What we know and don't know about 9/11" Debunked Again
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/08/344926.shtml
What we know and don't know about 9/11
author: Paul Craig Roberts
08/16/06 "Information Clearing House" -- I received a number of
intelligent responses from readers of my August 14 column, "Gullible
Americans," The letters deserve a reply.
[This is a fairly common behavioral phenomena among believers in
conspiracy theories and religious beliefs. After a fatal debunking,
the believer will almost certainly blink his or her eyes a few times,
draw a deep breath, and then restate his or her solidly debunked
notions. Science, reason, or evidence don't factory in beliefs.]
[The phenomena is apparently across the whole spectrum of "must
believers," people who have an emotional and psychological need to
believe at all cost. For example this phenomena is witnessed among
911 conspiracy believers and Christian Creationists to the same
degree.]
[At core of the psyche is self-deception first and foremost.
Believers in such profoundly debunked notions as "the World Trade
Center buildings fell at free fall speeds" and such notions as "the
world was created 6,000 years ago" must deceive themselves first
before they can attempt to deceive others. That so many 911
conspiracy believers also knowingly lie is part of the
compartmentalization which can result in cognitive dissonance. Taken
to extremes, such mental difficulties can become serious to the point
of dysfunction.]
Moreover, some contain important points that should be shared with a
wider audience.
[This is another common behavioral aspect of conspiracy believers.
The "wider audience" very often refers to people who are capable of
applying reason, science, and the rules of the burden of evidence.]
[Conspiracy believers often believe that "the people are asleep" or
otherwise too uneducated, too brainwashed, too fat, stupid, and lazy
to "accept" the notions that the conspiracy believer wants to believe
is obvious if only "the people" would wake up, do their homework,
examine the evidence, and discover the truth for themselves.]
[Those who don't adopt conspiracy beliefs can be generally divided
into two groups: Those who actually haven't examined the issues
because it doesn't interest them enough to, and those who have
examined the evidence and conclude with reason that the conspiracy
kooks are wrong.]
[In the case where "the people" aren't interested enough to actually
perform minimal research into the 911 terrorist attacks, their causes,
and the Bush regime's response, 911 conspiracy kooks are partially
correct in their complaints that such people are asleep or lazy and
don't wish to invest the time and effort needed to examine the
issues. At the same time such people who are "asleep" likewise
wouldn't be interested in the conspiracy kooks' unevidenced notions.]
[Among the 911 kooks, there's not a current of "everybody's crazy but
me," a phenomena that's fairly common among lone delusionals who don't
share the support and sympathies of fellow conspiracy believers. In
this aspect the 911 kooks are different than other kooks.]
Pundits such as myself are not the only people who have interesting
things to say. Considering the number of letters and the time it would
require to respond individually, I am replying instead in this column.
[This individual's response was posted to and then retrieved from the
Portland Indymedia web site. A search for the sentence "What we know
and don't know about 9/11" using Google turns up 11,900 web pages. An
additional search filtering out all web pages that don't contain the
author's name turns up 239 web pages.]
Most readers from whom I heard understand the difference between
loyalty to country and loyalty to a government. They understand that
to support a political party or a government that is destroying the US
Constitution and America's reputation in the world is, in fact, an act
of treason. Therefore, I did not have to read the usual drivel about
how doubting "our government" is un-American.
[This is irrelevant here. The Bush regime is certainly guilty of
committing massive crimes against humanity -- few would care to
dispute that -- and the Bush regime is certainly guilty of treason
against the people of the United States -- again, few dispute that
fact. What's at issue here is the unevidenced, unscientific,
delusional beliefs of conspiracy kooks.]
Among the issues raised are:
How could the complicity of the US government, or some part of it, in
the events of 9/11 be kept a secret?
[And in fact the Bush regime's deliberate involvement in the terrorist
attacks against New York aren't relevant here insofar as secrecy is
concerned. The so-called "Phoenix, Arizona FBI Memo," the so-called
"Downingstreet Memo," and numerous other non-secret, well-evidenced
crimes against America at the hands of the Bush regime aren't secret.
What's debatable is the degree of the Bush regime's complicity.]
For the most part, this question comes from Americans who believe the
government must have been, to some extent, complicit in the attacks on
the WTC and the Pentagon.
[Either through deliberate treason or through gross incompetence.]
How can we differentiate between the real facts, the 9/11 Commission's
reporting of the facts, and "conspiracy theories"?
[Science and reason, obviously, neither of which are employed or
respected among 911 conspiracy kooks -- or to be more accurate, both
of which are dismissed when they debunk the conspiracy believers'
deeply-held and cherished notions.]
What about the role of suicide flyers led by M. Atta?
[Atta had been a CIA asset for many years, a man who worked for the
United States government even before the Bush regime hijacked the 2000
Presidential Election.]
[Atta was just one of hundreds -- if not thousands -- of terrorists on
US payrolls however such employment was for his efforts in performing
acts that the United States deemed favorable to the corporate
interests which run the United States. There's no evidence that
Atta's employment by the Bush regime was so that he could attack New
York.]
[Atta turned on his masters, by all available evidence, and there's no
evidence that the Bush regime specifically paid him (or brainwashed
him) into performing the September 11'th terrorist attacks.]
What about the Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary that
debunk the skeptics and support the official explanation of 9/11?
[This is the logic fallacy known as "begging the question." There is
no "official explanation" of September 11'th. The Bush regime and
various Bush offices have released a series of reports about the
September 11'th terrorist attacks however they're not what can
reasonably be called "official explanations."]
[None of the reports issued by the Bush regime address the regime's
deliberate "stepping aside" which allowed the Saudi Arabian hijackers
to commit their crimes. None of the reports issued by the Bush regime
address evidence covering the regime's crimes after the fact -- such
as the "Downingstreet Memo" where a "Pearl Harbor" such as September
11'th was greatly desired to justify treason and fascism against the
American people.]
What about the role of the US media in propagandizing Americans with
the official explanation instead of examining the explanation,
especially with regard to such truncated hatchet-job interviews with
9/11 skeptics such as the hatchet jobs presided over by Donny Deutsch
on CNBC and by neocon Tucker Carlson on MSNBC?
[This is another behavioral trait among 911 conspiracy kooks. There's
a dedicated effort toward attempting to describe 911 conspiracy kooks'
notions as "mainstream" and anyone who doesn't adopt or accept the
conspiracy notions are themselves believers in a conspiracy.]
[Among 911 kooks, the kooks are sane whereas everyone else is
delusioned by the Bush conspiracy. The "9/11 skeptics" referred to
here are the 911 conspiracy kooks. The fact that there actually is a
Bush conspiracy is irrelevant when it comes to the kook notions held
by 911 kooks.]
Why are so many Americans hostile to holding the Bush regime
accountable for its obvious and documented lies, lies that have misled
America to war and gratuitously slaughtered and maimed tens of
thousands of people, including our own troops?
[Irrelevant when it comes to 911 conspiracy notions. There's always a
percentage of any populace that will allow their leaders -- elected or
otherwise -- to commit any acts of treason or crimes against humanity
without calling for their leaders' trial or execution.]
[It's not a conspiracy that a percentage of the population on the
planet don't call for the Bush regime to stand trial for their
crimes. It's just an artifact of human nature, doubtlessly the result
of humanity's evolutional development.]
Free Falling Pancake
I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible
scientific fact.
We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less
steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore,
it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the
collapse of the WTC buildings is false.
[Here we have one of the most common profoundly debunked notions held
by September 11'th conspiracy kooks, including the so-called "911
Scholars" who proclaim to know science and what science entails.]
[Here we also see another application of the fatal logic fallacy known
as "begging the question." The buildings didn't fall at "free fall
speed[22]." They fell at a rate of speed consistent with their
heights, mitigated by resistance from the air compacted between floors
as the building collapsed.]
[The conspiracy kook notion is that the Bush regime employed
demolition munitions as the "explanation" for the mistaken notion that
the buildings fell at free fall. In fact the demolition notion has
been debunked endless times. See "Thermite."[23]. Also see
"explosions."[24]]
Air Force Stand Down Order
We also know for a fact that the Air Force somehow inexplicably failed
to intercept the alleged hijacked airliners despite the fact that the
Air Force can launch jet fighters to 29,000 feet in 2.5 minutes.
[Irrefutable incompetence doesn't equate to a deliberate of treason.
As yet there's no evidence that the Bush regime issued any "stand
down" order or was in any way responsible for the failure to intercept
hijacked aircraft. That doesn't mean the Bush regime didn't order the
"stand down," it just means that there's no evidence for such an
order.]
[Some 911 conspiracy kooks don't accept the fact that passenger jet
aircraft were crashed into the World Trade Center buildings or the
Pentagon. Some have adopted the unusual notion that the thousands of
eye-witnesses who observed the passenger aircraft are either part of
the "Bush conspiracy" or just the typical poor witness.]
[The fact that there are videotapes of the World Trade Center
buildings being impacted by passenger jet airliners prompts these
kooks to proclaim the videos to be faked. Some kooks claim that the
jet airliners shown on the videos are in fact unmanned drones being
controlled by the Bush regime.]
Conflicting Authority and "Salad Bar" Kooks
We also know that the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission have just
written a book that reveals that the US military lied to the
Commission about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners.
[Another behavioral trait of the conspiracy kook is the "salad bar"
approach to picking and choosing which "evidence from authority" to
accept and which to dismiss. When the claims support their conspiracy
notions, kooks accept it. When the larger mountain of claims which
dispute their kook notions is offered, the kooks reject it as "part of
the conspiracy" or the findings of the brainwashed and uneducated.]
[The failure to intercept the jet aircraft has numerous mundane
explanations which don't rely upon any orders from the Bush regime.
Conspiracy believers reject them and adopt the most treasonous
explanation to support their predisposed beliefs.] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:43 am |
|
|
|
|
On Feb 21, 8:55 am, "B. Cropley" <cneb3...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Might i add that, interestingly, a debunk of the popular mechanics
debunk is starting to circulate.
This is one toasty subject!
Ben
It is well known the PM is a controled CIA front.
It happened back when no more articles were ever seen about anti-
gravitics in just about any mainstream, educatonal, or Prof.
Associstion's publications.
That is when it all went completely underground, literally.
Check this for more bad evidence of the lies.
ea911thruth.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Kirby M. Wilson |
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 21, 12:43 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: On Feb 21, 8:55 am, "B. Cropley" <cneb3...@gmail.com> wrote:
Might i add that, interestingly, a debunk of the popular mechanics
debunk is starting to circulate.
This is one toasty subject!
Ben
It is well known the PM is a controled CIA front.
It happened back when no more articles were ever seen about anti-
gravitics in just about any mainstream, educatonal, or Prof.
Associstion's publications.
That is when it all went completely underground, literally.
Check this for more bad evidence of the lies.
http://www.debunking911.com
OK, you're starting to catch on. company in Northern Virginia,
mysterious circumstances,
the disinformation campaign by George Bush Jr. and the Federal
Reserve
It's all starting to make sense now ....
http://www.debunking911.com
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/
http://www.sawyerhome.net/whatilearned.html
What I Learned from 9-11 Conspiracy Theories.
# The U.S. is actually quite popular worldwide; so much so, in fact,
that its government must create artificial terrorist organizations to
attack it. Left to their own devices, everybody else pretty much
respects Americans and leaves them alone.
# It takes the complacency or cooperation of the world's largest
superpower to hijack a defenseless civilian aircraft.
# If you believe what your government tells you about 9-11, you are
part of the conspiracy or, at least, part of "the problem." But if you
accuse people at all levels of the government, including the U.S.
military, of planning and carrying out the largest terrorist attack on
U.S. soil, killing thousands of civilians, then you are a patriot.
# The large fireballs seen at the WTC impacts look like napalm
explosions, so it was probably a napalm bomb that actually caused the
damage. Of course, napalm being jellied fuel, and jet aircraft being
full of fuel, you can see the vast difference there.
# The WTC towers fell in what was obviously a controlled demolition.
The largest, messiest, deadliest, most witnessed, most mismanaged,
most ill-timed, most poorly executed, and most uncontrolled controlled
demolition in history.
# Even though our civilian airliner pilots had been trained to
cooperate with hijackers and not try to physically resist, and even
though short knives and box cutters were allowed in carry-on luggage,
we shouldn't believe the absurd claim that four or five strong and
very determined men armed with knives and a fanatic eagerness to die
killing Americans could take over an unlocked cockpit.
# Several of the hijackers are still alive, and apparently are living
well.
# The government planted explosives at the exact aircraft impact sites
of the Pentagon and both WTC towers, the explosives and activity
surrounding their placement went completely unnoticed, the rigging of
the explosives was unharmed by the aircraft impacts, and they went off
exactly when planned.
# Somehow orchestrating the hijacking of multiple airliners to have
them crash at explosive-rigged sites was more effective than just
setting off the explosives by themselves in the first place.
# Those plane crashes were like so totally fake cuz they were so
totally unlike all the real fiery passenger jet crashes into buildings
I've seen in real life.
# When you refer to the planes, say "alleged aircraft." When referring
to the terrorists, say "alleged terrorists." Because not only can we
not be sure they even existed, but also, "alleged" has such a nice,
objective ring to it.
# The plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers were an absurdity, like a
cat-shaped hole in a fence in a Tom and Jerry cartoon, because the
planes would have either smashed to pieces against the building and
fallen straight down to the street below, or flown right through the
building (making a cartoon-like hole) and emerged out the other side
relatively intact.
# Cries of "Death to America!" and "America is the Great Satan!" by
Islamic extremists are all part of our government's plan for world
domination. Left to themselves, the so-called "extremists" are
actually quite pleasant, simple folk (but very good actors).
# The rigged explosives in the upper floors of WTC2 were powerful
enough to collapse a skyscraper, but not powerful enough to instantly
kill Kevin Cosgrove, on floor 105, who was talking on the phone with a
fire dispatcher and managed to blurt out three words between the time
of the "explosion" and the collapse that killed him.
# The meandering directions of the hijacked aircrafts' flight paths
were all part of well-planned routes, and not due to the terrorist
pilots flying and navigating a large, real, multi-engine passenger jet
for the first time.
# Our service men and women chose not to shoot down the planes or
protect the Pentagon and WTC because they were part of the conspiracy,
and they're not speaking out because they've been bought off. Better
still, NORAD actually sent the remote-controlled aircraft into their
targets.
# A black helicopter was hovering over the WTC South Tower before,
during, and after the crashes, and the floor that was on fire the most
must have had barrels and barrels of a crude oil-diesel mixture that
was remotely ignited to ensure a hiding place for the helicopter which
is the only thing that could explain black sooty smoke coming from an
office building filled with office supplies, and the people working on
that floor didn't notice the barrels and barrels of oil and went about
their daily routine, and nobody working security or janitorial in the
building noticed black-suited men rolling barrels of crude oil on the
elevators, all to hide the black helicopter because we all know what
black helicopters do. Seriously!
# If a large, thin-skinned aircraft impacts the side of a thick
concrete building at 400mph, and only small pieces of the aircraft are
found outside on the lawn, then it's obvious the pieces were planted
there, and a plane didn't crash at all.
# The shape of the Pentagon and the approach path of the aircraft are
Illuminati symbols. 'Nuff said.
# Although the 1993 WTC bombing was obviously the work of terrorists,
the idea that the 2001 attacks were perpetrated by terrorists is
ludicrous.
# Because the shape of the impact holes in the WTC towers and the
Pentagon don't match what I think the shape of the planes should be,
then it must have been some other type of craft that did the damage,
in spite of all of the eyewitness reports and physical evidence to the
contrary. Which means that, since the alleged hijacked aircraft are,
indeed, missing, and the passengers on said aircraft are, indeed,
missing, then the government must have landed those passenger jets in
secret somewhere, removed the people, killed them, dismembered them,
sprinkled their remains around the crash sites somehow, and destroyed/
hid the aircraft somewhere else. Masterful. Much more convincing than
just actually crashing the planes into the buildings in the first
place.
# The same nefarious conspirators that pulled off the single largest
concerted suicide attack in history forgot to make a hole in the
Pentagon to help fake the airliner impact site.
# The images and other references of the WTC on pre-9-11 terrorism
reports and books reveals a casual, open foreknowledge of the 9-11
attacks, and in no way could possibly ever ever refer to the largest
pre-9-11 foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the 1993 WTC parking
garage bombing.
# Of course, if the shadow government could pull off the 9-11 attacks,
then plotting the 1993 WTC attack would have been child's play.
# Incompetence, being unprepared, not foreseeing events, rushed
decisions, finger pointing, blame trading, and hysteria equal
"conspiracy."
# More information only muddles "the truth:" The most accurate and
complete reports of any disaster are from selections of the first
hurried reports, not from more complete, thoughtful analysis and more
thorough eyewitness reports that come later.
# Of all the types of aircraft described by witnesses at the WTC and
Pentagon, we should choose to believe only the ones that fit our
theories, not the ones that describe actual planes that are missing
that contained actual passengers who are missing and whose body parts
and DNA were found at the crash sites and whose planes were tracked to
impact.
# When some eyewitnesses at the WTC describe a really big noise as an
"explosion," we should believe them, and not our own eyes that saw
floors pancaking on each other, ejecting debris out the windows. And
we should believe their assessment of the "explosions" because, you
know, of their experience discriminating between the sounds of some of
the tallest skyscrapers in the world collapsing and explosions 80
stories up.
# When we hear witnesses describing "something like a bomb going off"
in the Pentagon, we should ignore subsequent (and concurrent)
eyewitness reports of a rather large passenger jet flying into exactly
the same spot, and ignored reports and photos of engines, landing
gear, other aircraft parts, aircraft passengers, and other debris
being found on and in the site, and absolutely no evidence of any
explosive.
# When pointing out how a B-25 flew into the Empire State Building in
1945, but the building easily survived and didn't collapse, we should
disregard how much smaller the B-25 is than a 767, the amount of fuel
that each contains, and that the ESB was constructed largely of
concrete (like, say, the Pentagon).
# Any videos of the crashes that surface more than a day or two after
the event are obviously computer-generated fakes, because the time it
took to create the fake videos explains why they weren't immediately
released. Because everyone knows that if someone takes home video of a
disaster, they run straight to a media outlet to share it with the
rest of the world.
# The same government conspirators who plotted this complex event
didn't prepare fake videos ahead of time. They waited until the events
happened to prepare the computer-generated fakery, which delayed their
release until a cloud of suspicion could fall on their authenticity.
# No buildings in history ever fell because of fire until 9-11. And if
the WTC towers were the first modern, steel structures to collapse by
fire, it is not a testament to the intelligent engineering put into
the design of skyscrapers in general, but only evidence that the WTC
was brought down by other means. No, I don't mean by airplanes filled
with thousands of pounds of fuel ramming into them, I mean by a bomb.
Yes!
# Steel supports must liquify at their melting point of 3000°F in
order to weaken and fail, and everything that metalurgists and
engineers have told us about heat of only about 700°Fweakening steel
is false, and for thousands of years, metal workers like blacksmiths
and armorers have just had it all wrong, because they only needed
large blast furnaces, spigots, and molds to form horseshoes, swords,
and plowshares from liquid metal, and they didn't need a hammer and
anvil, as you see in Hollywood movies' special effects.
# If a large plane crashes into a large skyscraper and starts a raging
fire inside, then a woman later waves from the outside edge of a lower
part of the huge jagged entry hole, then that's proof that the fire
inside isn't actually all that hot.
# Although a simple concrete barrier can sucker punch a dump truck to
a dead stop and virtually atomize a fighter jet, we should expect the
impact site of a passenger jet on the world's largest reinforced
concrete building to be marked by a plane-shaped hole in the wall.
# When actor Charlie Sheen says that the U.S. government was behind
the attacks, and that "We're not the conspiracy theorists on this
particular issue," we should believe him because he is a "highly
credible public figure" who is a star on the current hit comedy show
"Two and a Half Men." And his stammering, "The more you look at stuff,
especially specific incidents, specific events, in or around the
fateful day, it just-- it just raises a lot of questions" makes you
realize just how articulate he is, and how Tom "You don't
know...psychiatry--I do" Cruise could take debating pointers from him.
# Most of the WTC towers' exterior was glass; most of the Pentagon's
exterior was thick concrete. Naturally, we should expect them to be
affected by aircraft impacts the same way.
# If there is disagreement on the approach angle and bank of the plane
hitting the Pentagon in an official report and from online bloggers,
then we can safely assume that the plane, in fact, did not exist.
# When pointing out how the FAA rule allowing pilots to fly armed was
rescinded two months before 9-11, we should ignore the fact that at
the time, no pilots were taking advantage of the rule, and we should
not jump to the conclusion that the repeal is any different than
businesses or schools banning employees from carrying firearms.
# It doesn't make sense that remains of the hijackers and passengers,
who hit the sides of mostly open-spaced office buildings at hundreds
of miles an hour and ejected out the other side, were some of the
first remains discovered, and not under thousands of tons of rubble
straight down. The body parts must have been planted on streets, on
the roofs of buildings, and through broken windows by burglars. Or
something.
# If people aren't listening to my theories, then maybe shouting them
in eye-searing hot pink will do the trick.
# Disagreement between government reports and eyewitness accounts do
not mean that the individuals witnessed the same event; they only mean
that the accounts that don't agree with my paranoid point of view are
lies as part of the government cover-up, are mass hallucinations, or,
just to be thorough, both.
# Since verbose, difficult-to-read scientific reports contradict my
claims of conspiracy, I'll use a different approach: Nothing says
"Science" like lots of photos, drawings, and short captions in a
PowerPoint or Flash animation backed by spooky "conspiracy music."
# If video is poor quality, or with low frame rates (like with a
surveilance film), it must be fake.
# The WTC towers fell straight down (more or less), which proves that
it was a controlled demolition. If it were a true building falling
down, it would have fallen over like a popsicle stick.
# Although video clearly shows smoke and debris being blown out the
pancaking WTC upper floors as the floors collapse against each other,
but video of planned, controlled building demolitions clearly shows
bright flashes of explosions before the building begins collapsing,
the explosives planted in the towers must be some new super-secret
kind because the explosive effect obviously goes back in time and
starts the collapse of the building before the explosions throw stuff
out the windows. So now there's the whole "Government Stuff Can Travel
Through Time" consipiracy, and don't get me started.
# George W. Bush is at once America's most deviously intelligent
autocrat and its most stupidest president ever.
# When an eyewitness describes a loud sound or strong, sudden
vibration as "like a bomb," it means unequivocally that it was a bomb,
because, you know, people have so much experience identifying bomb
noises versus nearby passenger jet crashes.
# If I am on the faculty of a university, and I use the university's
good name and my position in the university as a crutch to
substantiate my claims of a 9-11 mega-conspiracy, expecting my learned
colleagues to believe and support me, I will get a harsh dose of
reality when I am slapped down to administrative leave as my continued
employment at said university is reconsidered.
# 99.9% of the world's top engineers, architects, physicists, and
chemists are all wrong, and I am right, because I read the Intarweb
and I am so smart.
# If I repeat the same absurd claims enough times, they will become
truth: There are over 6.5 billion people in the world, and about 1.1
billion of those people use the Internet. Chances are, I could claim
anything on the Web, and at a million-to-one odds, over a thousand
people would believe me. In the age of the Internet, that makes me an
expert.
# I can't be wrong because thousands of people believe my theories.
But you can be wrong even though hundreds of millions believe you,
because we all know there are millions of stupid people in the world.
# Any information that comes from the government is suspect, because
everybody knows that "the government" is one vast conspiracy utterly
controlled by a small number of evil-doers, not made up of millions of
honest, hard-working people, at all levels of bureaucracy, of all
ages, of all parties, of all walks of life, each fighting in their own
way for truth, justice, and the American way.
# The jets that crashed were not piloted by hijackers, but by
"advanced robotics and remote-control technology." So the video
footage of "men of middle-eastern descent" boarding each of the
aircraft was falsified, the cockpit voice recordings were falsified,
the ground service crew, mechanics, and flight crew of the four
aircraft didn't notice any of the
advancedroboticsandremotecontroltechnology while prepping the
aircraft, body parts of known terrorists were planted at the crash
sites, the live phone conversations between crew, passengers, and
their loved ones on the ground were implanted memories and falsified
recordings, and the Flight 93 passengers actually wrestled with some
hidden robotic equipment, not terrorists.
# "The 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue
group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist
'Pearl Harbor' event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle
Eastern countries." You know, because that strategy has worked so well
in the past. And no it is not shameful to mention "conspiracy" and
"Pearl Harbor" in the same breath.
# The government has a track record of blowing up its own buildings to
push its own nefarious agenda, like they did in the Oklahoma City
bombing and the 1993 WTC attack, because, you know, those attacks
enabled the government to, you know,... do stuff, and stuff. So you
can see this isn't a new idea for them.
# If I cave in to the majority and concede that the planes did, in
fact, exist, then quibbling about the degrees of bank or impact angles
or other meaningless trifles will somehow vindicate me.
# If other conspiracy theorists make claims that are later widely
disbelieved even in the conspiracy theory community, then it's not
that fellow conspiracy theorists are wrong, it's that it was sinister
counter-intelligence trying to undermine the "9/11 truth movement"
with claims so absurd that it compromises the efficacy of the whole.
Seriously.
# Confusion of timelines and action reports at the time of the largest
modern enemy attack on the United States were intentionally deceptive,
and not the result of actual confusion, inconsistent memories, or
finger pointing that usually accompany failures of intelligence.
# The 9-11 attacks and the related misinformation/propaganda campaign
were designed by the government to precipitate the lingering war in
Iraq, so that we could get thousands of our men and women killed and
thousands of Iraqi civilians killed to make the U.S. more popular and
make the current administration more popular, which has worked like a
charm.
# The Pentagon fire owed much of its smoke to an emergency generator
near the crash site that was remotely detonated, it's suspicious that
an emergency generator would have a large extra fuel tank next to it,
and the WTC was only made of steel and concrete, with little to no
combustible materials inside like carpet, desks, electronics and
electrical cables, cubicle walls, file cabinet contents, storage
rooms, and pens.
# When an "earwitness" to the Flight 93 crash claims she didn't hear a
crash, but instead heard "an explosion, like an atomic bomb," we
should believe her, because of her experience discriminating between
the sounds of large passenger jets hitting the ground at high speed
and the detonation of atomic weapons.
# Cory Lidle's plane crash into an apartment building proves that the
WTC should have survived a similar attack. Because although both
planes were vastly different in size, mass, fuel load, and speed, and
although the buildings were vastly different in structure, they both
happened in New York City.
# It's somehow productive to pontificate ad nauseum about whether
there was a napalm bomb, or a missile, or a pod, or a whatever,
attached under a passenger jet, since we all know how much more
explosive power would be added by attaching something like that to a
civilian jet already full of thousands of pounds of fuel.
# It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that any web pages
that poke fun at conspiracy theories are a part of the conspiracy
itself. Surely no right-thinking person could doubt and preach against
the conspiracies by their own free will.
# If I e-mail the author of a web site that pokes fun at my conspiracy
theories, I will write masterfully persuasive arguments for several
pages, taking an entire evening of my time, making the text flow
juuust right, and when he gets the e-mail he will read it all and will
naturally be persuaded to see the error of his ways. After seeing how
much work I put into it, he wouldn't just delete it without reading
past the first ranting line. He just wouldn't.
# People will see what they want to see, and believe what they want to
believe. Because rubbing someone's face in their own absurd beliefs
only makes them close their eyes tighter, the claims in this list will
continue to be believed by many. To all others: May our future rest in
your capable hands. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:25 am |
|
|
|
|
On Feb 21, 9:34 am, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
More disinfo.
www.infowars.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| tankfixer |
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| strabo |
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 6:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
tankfixer wrote:
Why is that? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Bloomquist |
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| strabo |
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
An article about Wall Street and Bank Runs? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:56 am |
|
|
|
|
On Feb 21, 9:34 am, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip propaganda rant>
www.ae911truth.org
Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!
277 architectural and engineering professionals
and 1005 other supporters including A/E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:36 am |
|
|
|
|
On Feb 25, 12:31 pm, "Paul Thomas, CPA"
<paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Quote: knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote
277 architectural and engineering professionals
The AIA estimates there are over 91,000 architects in the US of A.
So?
Quote: I can't find a number for engineers, but there are 16,000 licensed PE's in
Georgia, so if there were no other PE's in the US, that's over 100,000
engineering and architectural professionals - and all you could find are 277
to be allowed to be quoted out of context, or who are willing to step up and
declare a "fact" without any proof at all. Were any of these 277 people
like, there, on site? Have any done any testing ~on~ the materials ~from~
that building?
How could they when all the "evidence" was hauled off to China?
Quote: What you claim to have is like 2 tenths or one percent of all professionals.
So?
The rest weren't exactly "polled" to ask them to sign the petition.
Quote: Those aren't good statistics.
Truth isn't based on statistics.
Quote: Ron Paul has better numbers than that.
Good.
But most people who would vote for him aren't even aware of him either
because of the MEDIA BLACKOUT in him. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Bloomquist |
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
strabo wrote:
Well, that's what I found at the top when I got there. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Thomas, CPA |
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<knews4u2chew@yahoo.com> wrote
Quote: 277 architectural and engineering professionals
The AIA estimates there are over 91,000 architects in the US of A.
I can't find a number for engineers, but there are 16,000 licensed PE's in
Georgia, so if there were no other PE's in the US, that's over 100,000
engineering and architectural professionals - and all you could find are 277
to be allowed to be quoted out of context, or who are willing to step up and
declare a "fact" without any proof at all. Were any of these 277 people
like, there, on site? Have any done any testing ~on~ the materials ~from~
that building?
What you claim to have is like 2 tenths or one percent of all professionals.
Those aren't good statistics.
Ron Paul has better numbers than that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:45 am
|
|