If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scientific American)   Conspiracy theory believers more likely to reject science and behave irrationally. As if we needed a study to figure this out   (scientificamerican.com) divider line 298
    More: Obvious, conspiracy theories, University of Kent, Richard Hofstadter, lunatic fringes, Moon landing conspiracy theories  
•       •       •

3011 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2013 at 7:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



298 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-01 12:52:01 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: I've always wondered why it seems like a lot of theories seem to center around what the media reports. I can understand doubting the official record of the Government, but questioning the media who are generally just reporting whatever comes across the desk first? It's akin to using someone's typo as a means to disarm their argument.


The media didn't use to report "whatever came across their desk." They used to be much better about checking stories before they went out to the public. And they were much more willing to censor information, if the government asked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon

(See the Press Coverup section)

If that kind of thing happened today, there would be no keeping it quiet. At the time, however, the public didn't know that the truth was being hidden from them and there was a greater level of trust. That's something that was shattered (if not before) when it came to light that the media was more than willing to feed the public whatever propaganda the government wanted during the run-up to the war after 9/11.

My perception is that this erosion of trust in both the media and the government has made it much easier for the public to buy into the more extreme conspiracy theories, possibly at the expense in seeing some actual malfeasance that may be in play at any time because it can be pooh-poohed and dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Honestly, if Alex Jones was actually right about anything, no one would ever believe it because of the level of derp he operates at all the time.

It also seems like there are more conspiracy theories as a result of the almost unfiltered news coverage we get now. Not necessarily because the truth manages to get out but more often because, in the name of "breaking the story first," the story comes out so mangled before anyone bothers to sort out the actual truth that you can find bits and pieces to support almost any point of view.
 
2013-05-01 12:53:19 PM  

Flint Ironstag: stryed: Flint Ironstag: ourbigdumbmouth: The media all said Saddam was going to strike and had WMDs.

Do was that bad intelligence or a conspiracy?

You'd be a fool to think it was a conspiracy. A crazy unpatriotic fool I tell you!

That's the other logic bomb that the conspiracy theorists can't explain. How can a government plan and execute perfectly 9/11 to justify a war when they can't, or didn't bother, faking some WMDs in Iraq to justify the official reason for the war.
Faking some WMDs would have been far easier than 9/11.

Because they don't give a fark after the fact!
Bush on link between Iraq and 911:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U66ab4cMCE
bush on ben laden 6mths after 911:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o
And his "one finger victory salute":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twegJ8Kezao

You cannot possibly argue that Bush would not have been hugely, staggeringly, relieved had WMDs been found. Of course he is going to claim otherwise, just as Blair did, when it became clear there were no WMDs. To this day the "False war" accusation follows him around. Had there been WMDs he would have been shown to be right and we would respect and admire him for taking action.
And Blair is culpable because it was his people who "sexed up" the report claiming that Iraq had WMDs.


You think he is bothered by what the people think about him or the presence or absence of WMDs once goals are accomplished? Really? The point is, he was wrong and was able to pre-emptively attack a country with nothing more than fabricated evidence. Now, if the WMDs had "made in Iran" written over it and people bought it he'd probably be more than relieved but ecstatic but fortunately people aren't that gullible yet. For now they'll have to wait until they set up Iran some other way.
(Blair is culpable too..it's an anglo-american thing.)
 
2013-05-01 12:59:29 PM  

stryed: You think he is bothered by what the people think about him or the presence or absence of WMDs once goals are accomplished? Really? The point is, he was wrong and was able to pre-emptively attack a country with nothing more than fabricated evidence. Now, if the WMDs had "made in Iran" written over it and people bought it he'd probably be more than relieved but ecstatic but fortunately people aren't that gullible yet. For now they'll have to wait until they set up Iran some other way.
(Blair is culpable too..it's an anglo-american thing.)


Oh, stop that silly talk, I've said already there are no conspiracy theories. What we are told is the truth. You just have to accept these things. Oh and have you taken you're Soma today, you know a gram a day ; )
 
2013-05-01 01:07:14 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: stryed: You think he is bothered by what the people think about him or the presence or absence of WMDs once goals are accomplished? Really? The point is, he was wrong and was able to pre-emptively attack a country with nothing more than fabricated evidence. Now, if the WMDs had "made in Iran" written over it and people bought it he'd probably be more than relieved but ecstatic but fortunately people aren't that gullible yet. For now they'll have to wait until they set up Iran some other way.
(Blair is culpable too..it's an anglo-american thing.)

Oh, stop that silly talk, I've said already there are no conspiracy theories. What we are told is the truth. You just have to accept these things. Oh and have you taken you're Soma today, you know a gram a day ; )


I apologize, it was my lack of soma that was doing the talking. Won't happen again, sorry.
/not a CTist as I have science to do.
/gets back to studying.
 
2013-05-01 01:07:26 PM  

CrazyCracka420: Any investigation that uses the "political method" to come to a conclusion, is one that will leave the door open to be questioned for all of eternity.


So you admit the conspiracy theory is incorrect?  The "political method" is the precise method the 9/11 Truther movement used.  "It was an inside job" and here are the "facts to back it up."  When their "facts" were debunked they claimed the debunkers were a part of the conspiracy OR they moved the goal posts (which made the conspiracy even more of a grandiose, all-encompassing scheme).

Alex Jones immediately jumped to a conclusion that the Boston Marathon bombing was a government operation and then shoe-horned the evidence to fit his conclusion.

The 9/11 Commission used the powers of observation to see planes hitting the towers and started from there.  That's called "evidence" in the process of an investigation, and you tend to immediately discard ridiculous theories such as "there were hundreds of pounds of explosives and miles of detonation wiring planted in each of those buildings that went completely unnoticed and were detonated at precise moments to make it look like planes crashing into the buildings actually brought down the buildings."

The real fact is:  there was indeed a conspiracy on 9/11.  About 20 pissed off Muslims took advantage of lax airport security, hijacked four airplanes, rammed three of them into buildings and failed at the fourth attempt.

The fact that you continue this foolish line of thinking, despite the fact that you've been given explanations otherwise, demonstrates delusion.  YOU are precisely the type of person this article is about.  YOU dismiss logic, reason and science so you can cling to your own worldview that something even more sinister than what actually happened happened.

That, or you're a troll.  (In which case, 10/10, good job.)
 
2013-05-01 01:08:06 PM  
You know how I know the article is propaganda bullshiat?

"For example, the conspiracy-belief that Osama Bin Laden is still alive was positively correlated with the conspiracy-belief that he was already dead before the military raid took place.  "

See that part in bold? Nobody thinks that.  Not anyone you farkers want to mock.  Not Beck.  Not at Infowars.  NOBODY.

The part that's underlined?  Yes.  He was being treated for Marfans disease in 2001 in a hospital in Dubai, dialysis, meaning advanced marfans. in July, where he met with two CIA agents.  While he was already on the FBI's 10 most wanted for the embassy bombings and the Cole.  Assuming he actually even left that hospital and then wasn't killed in the Tora Bora caves he would have succumbed to renal failure probably no more than five years before the raid.

You might as well call the SOB Emanuel Bin Goldstein, and he's served Oceania well as a boogy man  to justify anything.
 
2013-05-01 01:12:18 PM  

Deep Contact: Wayne 985: Deep Contact: Yeah, about that science.
 [relevantnewsmedia.files.wordpress.com image 400x294]

Oh, you're mentally ill. That's unfortunate.

[www.911hardfacts.com image 360x320]


Straw man. Nobody claimed a plane did.

They did however claim the WTC North Tower damaged World Trade Center 7 when it collapsed.

As you can see in the giant hole going down the middle of it.

i.imgur.com
 

Also the several firefighters saw the damage and withdrew from trying to save it. They saw with their eyes that it was in danger of collapse.

See what they say here.
 
2013-05-01 01:18:07 PM  

Dog Welder: CrazyCracka420: Any investigation that uses the "political method" to come to a conclusion, is one that will leave the door open to be questioned for all of eternity.

So you admit the conspiracy theory is incorrect?  The "political method" is the precise method the 9/11 Truther movement used.  "It was an inside job" and here are the "facts to back it up."  When their "facts" were debunked they claimed the debunkers were a part of the conspiracy OR they moved the goal posts (which made the conspiracy even more of a grandiose, all-encompassing scheme).

Alex Jones immediately jumped to a conclusion that the Boston Marathon bombing was a government operation and then shoe-horned the evidence to fit his conclusion.


True, but there are some things that are red flags for CTists in these cases and they try to look for them : drills and ties to the CIA or other shadowy agencies. As i've posted once earlier:
Retired CIA officer Graham Fuller confirmed to Al-Monitor Saturday that his daughter was previously married to an uncle of the suspects in the Boston Marathon attacks, but called rumors of any links between the uncle and the Agency "absurd." "
http://gawker.com/ex-cia-agent-denies-rumors-of-ties-to-ruslan-tsarn ae v-483787629

I think it's interesting info especially since it's the uncle that was interviewed several times and called the brothers "losers"....brainwashing is brainwashing whether it be from shadowy CIA operatives or islamist extremists. It's not the first time these domestic terrorists have had close links to the military or the CIA. It's noteworthy isn't it?

"Graham E. Fuller is an American author and political analyst, specializing in Islamic extremism.Formerly vice-chair of the National Intelligence Council, he also served as Station Chief in Kabul for the CIA. A "think piece" that Fuller wrote for the CIA was identified as instrumental in leading to the Iran-contra affair. After a career in the United States State Department and CIA lasting 27 years,he joined Rand Corporation as senior political scientist specializing in the Middle East. As of 2006, he was affiliated with the Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada as an adjunct professor of history. He is the author of a number of books, including The Future of Political Islam. " wikied

/here, have some tinfoil. I have some to spare.
 
2013-05-01 01:21:33 PM  
The use of bold lettering in this thread is bad at relaying code.

You guys suck at being all secret-y and stuff.

/at work
//wishing for a drink
///and a "hug" from tinfoil-hat maggie
 
2013-05-01 01:22:43 PM  
"CBS News and NBC's Pete Williams reported that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev became an American citizen last year on September 11, 2012"
Now that's quite the awkward synchronicity (fun trivia, not saying it means anything...)
 
2013-05-01 01:23:45 PM  

stryed: tinfoil-hat maggie: stryed: You think he is bothered by what the people think about him or the presence or absence of WMDs once goals are accomplished? Really? The point is, he was wrong and was able to pre-emptively attack a country with nothing more than fabricated evidence. Now, if the WMDs had "made in Iran" written over it and people bought it he'd probably be more than relieved but ecstatic but fortunately people aren't that gullible yet. For now they'll have to wait until they set up Iran some other way.
(Blair is culpable too..it's an anglo-american thing.)

Oh, stop that silly talk, I've said already there are no conspiracy theories. What we are told is the truth. You just have to accept these things. Oh and have you taken you're Soma today, you know a gram a day ; )

I apologize, it was my lack of soma that was doing the talking. Won't happen again, sorry.
/not a CTist as I have science to do.
/gets back to studying.


You're cute I like you : )
 
2013-05-01 01:25:38 PM  

stryed: You cannot possibly argue that Bush would not have been hugely, staggeringly, relieved had WMDs been found. Of course he is going to claim otherwise, just as Blair did, when it became clear there were no WMDs. To this day the "False war" accusation follows him around. Had there been WMDs he would have been shown to be right and we would respect and admire him for taking action.
And Blair is culpable because it was his people who "sexed up" the report claiming that Iraq had WMDs.

You think he is bothered by what the people think about him or the presence or absence of WMDs once goals are accomplished? Really? The point is, he was wrong and was able to pre-emptively attack a country with nothing more than fabricated evidence. Now, if the WMDs had "made in Iran" written over it and people bought it he'd probably be more than relieved but ecstatic but fortunately people aren't that gullible yet. For now they'll have to wait until they set up Iran some other way.


He'd certainly care, since at the time he still had re election coming up. Had they found WMDs he would probably have won by a landslide whereas with Iraq hanging over him he could easily have lost.
 
2013-05-01 01:27:06 PM  

What_do_you_want_now: The use of bold lettering in this thread is bad at relaying code.

You guys suck at being all secret-y and stuff.

/at work
//wishing for a drink
///and a "hug" from tinfoil-hat maggie


Big hugs from me, and stop that implying secrets implies conspiracies ; )
 
2013-05-01 01:29:39 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: What_do_you_want_now: The use of bold lettering in this thread is bad at relaying code.

You guys suck at being all secret-y and stuff.

/at work
//wishing for a drink
///and a "hug" from tinfoil-hat maggie

Big hugs from me, and stop that implying secrets implies conspiracies ; )


I'm just saying that all the bolding isn't getting across the main points, they're pointless ramblings when you actually include the context, if you get my point?

......point.

Also, a nice quote from I don't know who.

"Three men can keep a secret if two are dead."
 
2013-05-01 01:32:14 PM  
GregoryD:

Also the several firefighters saw the damage and withdrew from trying to save it. They saw with their eyes that it was in danger of collapse.

See what they say here.


Right, like we're supposed to believe a bunch of shape-shifting lizard-man firefighters?
 
2013-05-01 01:38:31 PM  

CrazyCracka420: Dog Welder: CrazyCracka420: You don't think there's any plausible way that 1 or 2 people working for 1 person could have planted bombs and kept it a secret?

There's no plausible way that only 1 or 2 people could have wired two skyscrapers with enough demolitions (completely unnoticed!) to bring them down.

How many then, 4? 5?  To me, it's certainly conceivable that however many people it would take to do such a task, would be capable of keeping the secret.  And I don't think it would be hard to go unnoticed either, they would be dressed as construction or maintenance workers.  I read reports of construction going on, on floors that were unoccupied leading up to 9/11.  I thought I even read somewhere that some floors of the building that were occupied, were "closed" on a weekend prior to 9/11 due to some sort of maintenance.

No I don't think it would be hard at all to blend in, or keep the secret between the limited amount of people needed to carry out such an act.

I don't see how anyone can think it would be that inconceivable.  You don't have to believe demolitions brought down WTC 1, 2 or 7 to be able to see that it's certainly possible that it could have been carried out.


From the company that brought down the Farmers Bank Building in Pittsburgh:
"CDI's 13 person crew needed seven (7) days to place 1,590 linear shaped charges totaling 595 lb. of explosives on steel columns on 11 levels of the 27-story structure.  "

And that was for a single, hundred year old building that was 24 stories tall, with two months of full, unfettered access for advance preparation, and no need to hide or disguise the hundreds of pounds of explosives and thousands of yards of wiring they were attaching to it.

So yeah, the idea that 2, or 3, or 7 guys could get full access to the innermost recesses of both of those buildings, and plant explosive charges every single day for what? Eight? Twelve months? Without anyone noticing either 1) The guys themselves or 2) The  thousands of shaped charges they would have installed or 3) the thousands of yards of wiring they would have installed is so absolutely ridiculous that there is no sane reason to believe it.

On the other hand, I actually watched a 125 ton airplane filled with ten thousand gallons of jet fuel crash into one of the buildings at 600 miles per hour.

 So yeah, I suppose it's possible that my kitchen window was broken by left-wing Sandinista terrorists who used a baseball because that's all they happened to have in the glove compartment of the weinermobile they were driving down my street. but it's just a little bit more likely that it was actually the kids outside playing baseball in the street
 
2013-05-01 01:46:18 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: CrazyCracka420: Dog Welder: CrazyCracka420: You don't think there's any plausible way that 1 or 2 people working for 1 person could have planted bombs and kept it a secret?

There's no plausible way that only 1 or 2 people could have wired two skyscrapers with enough demolitions (completely unnoticed!) to bring them down.

How many then, 4? 5?  To me, it's certainly conceivable that however many people it would take to do such a task, would be capable of keeping the secret.  And I don't think it would be hard to go unnoticed either, they would be dressed as construction or maintenance workers.  I read reports of construction going on, on floors that were unoccupied leading up to 9/11.  I thought I even read somewhere that some floors of the building that were occupied, were "closed" on a weekend prior to 9/11 due to some sort of maintenance.

No I don't think it would be hard at all to blend in, or keep the secret between the limited amount of people needed to carry out such an act.

I don't see how anyone can think it would be that inconceivable.  You don't have to believe demolitions brought down WTC 1, 2 or 7 to be able to see that it's certainly possible that it could have been carried out.

From the company that brought down the Farmers Bank Building in Pittsburgh:
"CDI's 13 person crew needed seven (7) days to place 1,590 linear shaped charges totaling 595 lb. of explosives on steel columns on 11 levels of the 27-story structure.  "

And that was for a single, hundred year old building that was 24 stories tall, with two months of full, unfettered access for advance preparation, and no need to hide or disguise the hundreds of pounds of explosives and thousands of yards of wiring they were attaching to it.

So yeah, the idea that 2, or 3, or 7 guys could get full access to the innermost recesses of both of those buildings, and plant explosive charges every single day for what? Eight? Twelve months? Without anyone noticing either 1) The guys themselves or 2) The  ...


Plus expecting those charges to not go off when the planes hit and started burning  but would be left intact and functional to work perfectly an hour later. And for the planes to hit the exact right floor for the charges to make it look like the plane damage caused the collapse.
 
2013-05-01 01:47:58 PM  

GregoryD: Deep Contact: Wayne 985: Deep Contact: Yeah, about that science.
 [relevantnewsmedia.files.wordpress.com image 400x294]

Oh, you're mentally ill. That's unfortunate.

[www.911hardfacts.com image 360x320]

Straw man. Nobody claimed a plane did.

They did however claim the WTC North Tower damaged World Trade Center 7 when it collapsed.

As you can see in the giant hole going down the middle of it.

[i.imgur.com image 640x480]
 

Also the several firefighters saw the damage and withdrew from trying to save it. They saw with their eyes that it was in danger of collapse.

See what they say here.


Sorry, they were told the buiding was going to be pulled. Funny, there was no explanation in the 9/11 ommission report for #7.
Look at the detonations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=fvwp&NR=1
 
2013-05-01 01:48:14 PM  

Flint Ironstag: stryed: You cannot possibly argue that Bush would not have been hugely, staggeringly, relieved had WMDs been found. Of course he is going to claim otherwise, just as Blair did, when it became clear there were no WMDs. To this day the "False war" accusation follows him around. Had there been WMDs he would have been shown to be right and we would respect and admire him for taking action.
And Blair is culpable because it was his people who "sexed up" the report claiming that Iraq had WMDs.

You think he is bothered by what the people think about him or the presence or absence of WMDs once goals are accomplished? Really? The point is, he was wrong and was able to pre-emptively attack a country with nothing more than fabricated evidence. Now, if the WMDs had "made in Iran" written over it and people bought it he'd probably be more than relieved but ecstatic but fortunately people aren't that gullible yet. For now they'll have to wait until they set up Iran some other way.

He'd certainly care, since at the time he still had re election coming up. Had they found WMDs he would probably have won by a landslide whereas with Iraq hanging over him he could easily have lost.


You mean the Bush vs Kerry election, the first ever skull and bones members only election? Don't think he cared as bonesmen didn't care of the outcome of that election.
 
2013-05-01 01:52:14 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Plus expecting those charges to not go off when the planes hit and started burning but would be left intact and functional to work perfectly an hour later. And for the planes to hit the exact right floor for the charges to make it look like the plane damage caused the collapse.


Yeah, I was going to bring that up, but I was already tired of typing to a guy who's Just Asking Questions. I'm glad you did.
 
2013-05-01 02:07:05 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Flint Ironstag: Plus expecting those charges to not go off when the planes hit and started burning but would be left intact and functional to work perfectly an hour later. And for the planes to hit the exact right floor for the charges to make it look like the plane damage caused the collapse.

Yeah, I was going to bring that up, but I was already tired of typing to a guy who's Just Asking Questions. I'm glad you did.


Alright fine, ya can't figure that one out y'all win.
 
2013-05-01 02:21:57 PM  
What if every conspiracy nut is part of a greater conspiracy to throw us off the trail of the real culprits by claiming everything's a conspiracy, thereby providing a smokescreen?
 
2013-05-01 02:24:41 PM  
Sure, *one* of the Lee Harvey Oswalds acted alone.
 
2013-05-01 02:25:11 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: stryed: tinfoil-hat maggie: stryed: You think he is bothered by what the people think about him or the presence or absence of WMDs once goals are accomplished? Really? The point is, he was wrong and was able to pre-emptively attack a country with nothing more than fabricated evidence. Now, if the WMDs had "made in Iran" written over it and people bought it he'd probably be more than relieved but ecstatic but fortunately people aren't that gullible yet. For now they'll have to wait until they set up Iran some other way.
(Blair is culpable too..it's an anglo-american thing.)

Oh, stop that silly talk, I've said already there are no conspiracy theories. What we are told is the truth. You just have to accept these things. Oh and have you taken you're Soma today, you know a gram a day ; )

I apologize, it was my lack of soma that was doing the talking. Won't happen again, sorry.
/not a CTist as I have science to do.
/gets back to studying.

You're cute I like you : )


Well that certainly adds to my credibility!
 
2013-05-01 03:06:01 PM  

stryed: Flint Ironstag: stryed: You cannot possibly argue that Bush would not have been hugely, staggeringly, relieved had WMDs been found. Of course he is going to claim otherwise, just as Blair did, when it became clear there were no WMDs. To this day the "False war" accusation follows him around. Had there been WMDs he would have been shown to be right and we would respect and admire him for taking action.
And Blair is culpable because it was his people who "sexed up" the report claiming that Iraq had WMDs.

You think he is bothered by what the people think about him or the presence or absence of WMDs once goals are accomplished? Really? The point is, he was wrong and was able to pre-emptively attack a country with nothing more than fabricated evidence. Now, if the WMDs had "made in Iran" written over it and people bought it he'd probably be more than relieved but ecstatic but fortunately people aren't that gullible yet. For now they'll have to wait until they set up Iran some other way.

He'd certainly care, since at the time he still had re election coming up. Had they found WMDs he would probably have won by a landslide whereas with Iraq hanging over him he could easily have lost.

You mean the Bush vs Kerry election, the first ever skull and bones members only election? Don't think he cared as bonesmen didn't care of the outcome of that election.



img845.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-01 03:11:15 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh, and sorry ciberido , granted I still want to know if I'm old enough to play on you're lawn, maybe too old ; )


Is that some sort of sexy euphemism?
 
2013-05-01 03:30:12 PM  

Flint Ironstag: stryed: Flint Ironstag: stryed: You cannot possibly argue that Bush would not have been hugely, staggeringly, relieved had WMDs been found. Of course he is going to claim otherwise, just as Blair did, when it became clear there were no WMDs. To this day the "False war" accusation follows him around. Had there been WMDs he would have been shown to be right and we would respect and admire him for taking action.
And Blair is culpable because it was his people who "sexed up" the report claiming that Iraq had WMDs.

You think he is bothered by what the people think about him or the presence or absence of WMDs once goals are accomplished? Really? The point is, he was wrong and was able to pre-emptively attack a country with nothing more than fabricated evidence. Now, if the WMDs had "made in Iran" written over it and people bought it he'd probably be more than relieved but ecstatic but fortunately people aren't that gullible yet. For now they'll have to wait until they set up Iran some other way.

He'd certainly care, since at the time he still had re election coming up. Had they found WMDs he would probably have won by a landslide whereas with Iraq hanging over him he could easily have lost.

You mean the Bush vs Kerry election, the first ever skull and bones members only election? Don't think he cared as bonesmen didn't care of the outcome of that election.


[img845.imageshack.us image 363x310]


I expected that but this is from a journalist who wrote a book on the society and according to her, had called up several bonesmen asking about their opinion on the election, and the people who responded told her they didn't care who got elected. Then again, the journalist in question was blonde so laugh at her all you want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwJDs1cg9Eo
 
2013-05-01 03:56:11 PM  

Deep Contact: GregoryD: Deep Contact: Wayne 985: Deep Contact: Yeah, about that science.
 [relevantnewsmedia.files.wordpress.com image 400x294]

Oh, you're mentally ill. That's unfortunate.

[www.911hardfacts.com image 360x320]

Straw man. Nobody claimed a plane did.

They did however claim the WTC North Tower damaged World Trade Center 7 when it collapsed.

As you can see in the giant hole going down the middle of it.

[i.imgur.com image 640x480]


Also the several firefighters saw the damage and withdrew from trying to save it. They saw with their eyes that it was in danger of collapse.

See what they say here.

Sorry, they were told the buiding was going to be pulled. Funny, there was no explanation in the 9/11 ommission report for #7.
Look at the detonations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=fvwp&NR=1


I've always liked this response about #7:

"For an exercise, look up the mass of the towers, and figure out how much kinetic energy is released by dropping that mass half the height of the WTC; that's the approximate energy released into the ground next door. Convert to sticks of dynamite for reference.

The formula is E=(m)(g)(Δs), where m is mass, g is the ~9.8 m/(s2), and Δs the height of the fall, which on average is half the WTC height. (The foolish can do the calculus to integrate and show its the same result.)

A kilo of dynamite going bang releases about 7.5 megajoules."

Link
 
2013-05-01 03:58:11 PM  
oi41.tinypic.com
 
2013-05-01 04:50:10 PM  

stryed: Flint Ironstag: stryed: Flint Ironstag: stryed: You cannot possibly argue that Bush would not have been hugely, staggeringly, relieved had WMDs been found. Of course he is going to claim otherwise, just as Blair did, when it became clear there were no WMDs. To this day the "False war" accusation follows him around. Had there been WMDs he would have been shown to be right and we would respect and admire him for taking action.
And Blair is culpable because it was his people who "sexed up" the report claiming that Iraq had WMDs.

You think he is bothered by what the people think about him or the presence or absence of WMDs once goals are accomplished? Really? The point is, he was wrong and was able to pre-emptively attack a country with nothing more than fabricated evidence. Now, if the WMDs had "made in Iran" written over it and people bought it he'd probably be more than relieved but ecstatic but fortunately people aren't that gullible yet. For now they'll have to wait until they set up Iran some other way.

He'd certainly care, since at the time he still had re election coming up. Had they found WMDs he would probably have won by a landslide whereas with Iraq hanging over him he could easily have lost.

You mean the Bush vs Kerry election, the first ever skull and bones members only election? Don't think he cared as bonesmen didn't care of the outcome of that election.


[img845.imageshack.us image 363x310]

I expected that but this is from a journalist who wrote a book on the society and according to her, had called up several bonesmen asking about their opinion on the election, and the people who responded told her they didn't care who got elected. Then again, the journalist in question was blonde so laugh at her all you want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwJDs1cg9Eo


Saying they didn't care is like saying you don't care which player on your football team scores the goals. But that is very different from claiming that they themselves don't care if they score the winning goal or one of their team mates. Sure, they'll be happy to win either way, but they'll want to score the winning goal personally. Bush would have to be a robot to not want to win even if his opponent was on the same team.

This also ignores the fact that at the time of the Iraq invasion it wasn't yet settled that Kerry would be his challenger. If someone else got the nomination then Bush would certainly have wanted to have his war legitimized by finding WMDs.

You're suggesting that the entire campaign was done as a total sham, and ignoring the fact that since it will very much be in their interest for whoever wins to be seen to win a clear victory then logically you'd expect, once they got their two people as the only two left standing that they'd tell Kerry to go easy and let Bush win easily.

Lastly it makes no sense either way. If Bush didn't care about public opinion (about no WMDs found in Iraq) then why would he care about public opinion (carrying out 9/11) to justify the invasion? The US has taken action against countries on far smaller justifications. Why kill 3000 of your won citizens and destroy a chunk of NYC when you could just say "They have WMDs so we're going to invade"?
Also, whether your man Bush or your man Kerry won, both, but especially Bush, would have far more legitimacy on the world stage had they been proved right on Saddam having WMDs.
If you can carry out 9/11 then there are huge reasons to fake WMDs and zero reasons not to.
 
2013-05-01 04:59:23 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: ciberido: A 14-year old in an AOL chat room would still be a step up from most Farkers.
[www.themagazine.ca image 475x275]
Does someone need a hug?

I need a hug.


*HUGS*

And some emoticons to piss off the right folks for good measure :)  :-P
 
2013-05-01 05:07:44 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: I probably am and don't even know it, so sad and here all I can think about is ciberido biatch slapping someone for me : ) What?
/Why does she have have to live far away and be so mysterious.


Nobody gets me.   I'm the wind, baby.

/I'm sorry you're sad.  I wish I could help.
 
2013-05-01 05:15:00 PM  

Deep Contact: GregoryD: Deep Contact: Wayne 985: Deep Contact: Yeah, about that science.
 [relevantnewsmedia.files.wordpress.com image 400x294]

Oh, you're mentally ill. That's unfortunate.

[www.911hardfacts.com image 360x320]

Straw man. Nobody claimed a plane did.

They did however claim the WTC North Tower damaged World Trade Center 7 when it collapsed.

As you can see in the giant hole going down the middle of it.

[i.imgur.com image 640x480]
 

Also the several firefighters saw the damage and withdrew from trying to save it. They saw with their eyes that it was in danger of collapse.

See what they say here.

Sorry, they were told the buiding was going to be pulled. Funny, there was no explanation in the 9/11 ommission report for #7.
Look at the detonations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=fvwp&NR=1


"Detonations" that occur after the building has started to collapse.
 
2013-05-01 05:27:47 PM  

Flint Ironstag: stryed: Flint Ironstag: stryed: Flint Ironstag: stryed: You cannot possibly argue that Bush would not have been hugely, staggeringly, relieved had WMDs been found. Of course he is going to claim otherwise, just as Blair did, when it became clear there were no WMDs. To this day the "False war" accusation follows him around. Had there been WMDs he would have been shown to be right and we would respect and admire him for taking action.
And Blair is culpable because it was his people who "sexed up" the report claiming that Iraq had WMDs.

You think he is bothered by what the people think about him or the presence or absence of WMDs once goals are accomplished? Really? The point is, he was wrong and was able to pre-emptively attack a country with nothing more than fabricated evidence. Now, if the WMDs had "made in Iran" written over it and people bought it he'd probably be more than relieved but ecstatic but fortunately people aren't that gullible yet. For now they'll have to wait until they set up Iran some other way.

He'd certainly care, since at the time he still had re election coming up. Had they found WMDs he would probably have won by a landslide whereas with Iraq hanging over him he could easily have lost.

You mean the Bush vs Kerry election, the first ever skull and bones members only election? Don't think he cared as bonesmen didn't care of the outcome of that election.


[img845.imageshack.us image 363x310]

I expected that but this is from a journalist who wrote a book on the society and according to her, had called up several bonesmen asking about their opinion on the election, and the people who responded told her they didn't care who got elected. Then again, the journalist in question was blonde so laugh at her all you want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwJDs1cg9Eo

Saying they didn't care is like saying you don't care which player on your football team scores the goals. But that is very different from claiming that they themselves don't care if they s ...


I really don't think you can equate the pride one has with scoring a goal in sports with policy making...Such things are bigger than personal pride. Our main differences lie in that you believe in these teams, whilst I believe these seperate teams have the same idiological goals.
I think most elections are a total sham unfortunately, and the most interesting candidates who have no chance of winning are also those who can be the most truthful.  I also don't think they care about approval ratings that much as long as approval of the system in place is A-OK. I'm a bit jaded.
As for invading without 911, well the PNAC doc addresses the question. People need to be riled up, people need to believe in a just cause, and most countries would not accept unilateral intervention. "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor". I don't like quoting this famous part of the PNAC doc because so much more concerning the regime change in IRAK would be overlooked...
I believe the people in charge think of the US citizens as people with ADHD, that concentrate on one point after another but never put two and two together.
You do have a point, one that I have been struggling with myself..why not gain more trust and legitimacy? I don't know...perhaps to divide and conquer public opinion? Hopefully not to weed people out or I'd be in trouble! ;)
/cheers for being polite
 
2013-05-01 10:13:51 PM  

GregoryD: Deep Contact: Wayne 985: Deep Contact: Yeah, about that science.
 [relevantnewsmedia.files.wordpress.com image 400x294]

Oh, you're mentally ill. That's unfortunate.

[www.911hardfacts.com image 360x320]

Straw man. Nobody claimed a plane did.

They did however claim the WTC North Tower damaged World Trade Center 7 when it collapsed.

As you can see in the giant hole going down the middle of it.

[i.imgur.com image 640x480]


You mean like this building?

www.serendipity.li

You know, WTC 6, which DIDN'T collapse despite having a huge gaping hole through the center and was also burning?
 
2013-05-01 10:22:28 PM  
I guess it's time for a hard truth. I am behind all of this. As an immortal space lemur, the only thing that amuses me these days is messing with people on a grand scale.

If you truly care about your fellow humans, send me money or BIE.
 
2013-05-01 11:15:00 PM  

FatherChaos: GregoryD: Deep Contact: Wayne 985: Deep Contact: Yeah, about that science.
 [relevantnewsmedia.files.wordpress.com image 400x294]

Oh, you're mentally ill. That's unfortunate.

[www.911hardfacts.com image 360x320]

Straw man. Nobody claimed a plane did.

They did however claim the WTC North Tower damaged World Trade Center 7 when it collapsed.

As you can see in the giant hole going down the middle of it.

[i.imgur.com image 640x480]

You mean like this building?

[www.serendipity.li image 587x533]

You know, WTC 6, which DIDN'T collapse despite having a huge gaping hole through the center and was also burning?


WTC6 is 8 floors. Constructed differently then a highrise. Apples meet Oranges. The fact that you even attempted to compare the two shows me you don't have the faintest clue how buildings or physics work.
 
2013-05-01 11:22:16 PM  
I think a lot of conspiracy theories rely on the Dunning-Kruger effect, where people truly believe they know more than world class experts about such things as the behavior of steel framed skyscrapers or the ballistics of strange Italian bullets.

The JFK assassination is a great example of how most conspiracy theories rely on bullshiat. All the talk about how "magical" the trajectory of the bullet was is pure bs. When you actually analyze the situation you find that the bullet followed a complex but perfectly plausible trajectory. Just like with 9/11, people who can barely add 2 + 2 definitely stat that it is utterly IMPOSSIBLE for a steel framed building to collapse due to fire, even after being hit by an enormous airplane that destroyed a large fraction of its structural supports.

blog.mlive.com
 
2013-05-02 12:00:20 AM  

What_do_you_want_now: Also, a nice quote from I don't know who.

"Three men can keep a secret if two are dead."


That's attributed to Benjamin Franklin.
 
2013-05-02 12:23:03 AM  

stryed: I really don't think you can equate the pride one has with scoring a goal in sports with policy making...Such things are bigger than personal pride. Our main differences lie in that you believe in these teams, whilst I believe these seperate teams have the same idiological goals.
I think most elections are a total sham unfortunately, and the most interesting candidates who have no chance of winning are also those who can be the most truthful.  I also don't think they care about approval ratings that much as long as approval of the system in place is A-OK. I'm a bit jaded.
As for invading without 911, well the PNAC doc addresses the question. People need to be riled up, people need to believe in a just cause, and most countries would not accept unilateral intervention. "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor". I don't like quoting this famous part of the PNAC doc because so much more concerning the regime change in IRAK would be overlooked...
I believe the people in charge think of the US citizens as people with ADHD, that concentrate on one point after another but never put two and two together.
You do have a point, one that I have been struggling with myself..why not gain more trust and legitimacy? I don't know...perhaps to divide and conquer public opinion? Hopefully not to weed people out or I'd be in trouble! ;)
/cheers for being polite


No problem. But there's still the contradictions. They don't care about public opinion? But they carried out 9/11 to win over public opinion?
Public opinion is also pretty important at election time and when invading Iraq and looking for the WMDs they didn't know Kerry was going to be his opponent. Had Kerry lost and an "outsider" stood against Bush then they'd be kicking themselves for not faking some WMDs, which would be far easier than carrying out 9/11 and would have hugely improved Bush's standing and popularity.

And if you go further and say they have the whole system sewn up and could be certain of Kerry winning the nomination then why would it be such a big deal that this was the first time two Skull and Bones men were standing against each other? Why could they only arrange that this election but not before or since?

The US has started military actions many times without a 9/11. Vietnam, Korea, Kosovo, Grenada, First Iraq war and so on.
And 9/11 didn't even point to Iraq. If they staged it to justify the war why didn't they plant evidence pointing to Iraq as the terrorists and plant evidence framing Saddam?
 
2013-05-02 01:29:50 AM  

muck4doo: Fact: Global Warming started about the same time U.F.O's started showing up. Coincidence? I think not.
Fact: They are changing our climate and atmosphere to match theirs.


Charlie Sheen from the move "The Arrival" would like a word with you
 
2013-05-02 01:43:10 AM  

CrazyCracka420: Flint, I remember reading reports about loud construction going on reported by people who worked in the WTC buildings, leading up to 9/11.  Again, just because it's unlikely, doesn't mean that it wasn't possible.


People really believe that the building were demolished?
Holy christ on a cracker....
 
2013-05-02 01:48:18 AM  

CrazyCracka420: Dog Welder: CrazyCracka420: Again, although I believe demolitions brought down the WTC buildings, I'm trying to play devil's advocate here. Asking why or what's the risk is not what I'm getting it. I'm trying to paint the picture that it was certainly possible to rig up buildings for demolition and keep the secret between the people who did it. That is all. If people can't even accept that possibility, they have a very closed mind.

Yes, yes, we've heard it.  "I'm just asking questions here!"

The problem is YOU'RE NOT LISTENING TO THE ANSWERS.  This shiat has been debunked, in this very thread already, and you continue.  Nothing is going to convince you.

It isn't a "closed mind" that doesn't allow us to think of this as a possibility, it's a logical mind that actually allows us to think through the scenario and realize the bullshiat smells like bullshiat.

Your answer was that it is not possible to rig up a building with demolitions without being noticed or kept secret, and I think that's incorrect.  Your other answer were actually questions about "why" or "is it worth the risk" to do what I was suggesting could be done.


Do you work in the field of building demolition?
I know two guys who are, I have seen them set up.

Its NOT POSSIBLE to do it without totally disrupting the building.

NOT REMOTELY POSSIBLE.

Look it up , educate yourself.

Cause damn man, WOW. You are peddling some weapons grade stupid here.
 
2013-05-02 01:53:40 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: CrazyCracka420: Dog Welder: CrazyCracka420: You don't think there's any plausible way that 1 or 2 people working for 1 person could have planted bombs and kept it a secret?

There's no plausible way that only 1 or 2 people could have wired two skyscrapers with enough demolitions (completely unnoticed!) to bring them down.

How many then, 4? 5?  To me, it's certainly conceivable that however many people it would take to do such a task, would be capable of keeping the secret.  And I don't think it would be hard to go unnoticed either, they would be dressed as construction or maintenance workers.  I read reports of construction going on, on floors that were unoccupied leading up to 9/11.  I thought I even read somewhere that some floors of the building that were occupied, were "closed" on a weekend prior to 9/11 due to some sort of maintenance.

No I don't think it would be hard at all to blend in, or keep the secret between the limited amount of people needed to carry out such an act.

I don't see how anyone can think it would be that inconceivable.  You don't have to believe demolitions brought down WTC 1, 2 or 7 to be able to see that it's certainly possible that it could have been carried out.

From the company that brought down the Farmers Bank Building in Pittsburgh:
"CDI's 13 person crew needed seven (7) days to place 1,590 linear shaped charges totaling 595 lb. of explosives on steel columns on 11 levels of the 27-story structure.  "

And that was for a single, hundred year old building that was 24 stories tall, with two months of full, unfettered access for advance preparation, and no need to hide or disguise the hundreds of pounds of explosives and thousands of yards of wiring they were attaching to it.

So yeah, the idea that 2, or 3, or 7 guys could get full access to the innermost recesses of both of those buildings, and plant explosive charges every single day for what? Eight? Twelve months? Without anyone noticing either 1) The guys themselves or 2) The  ...


Thread over.
 
2013-05-02 04:48:29 AM  
There are so many delusional, non-fact-checking, irrational, ignorant fools in the USA.  i really wish I was less ethical, so it would be easier to find a way to separate these fools from their money.
 
2013-05-02 06:15:30 AM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: Deep Contact: GregoryD: Deep Contact: Wayne 985: Deep Contact: Yeah, about that science.
 [relevantnewsmedia.files.wordpress.com image 400x294]

Oh, you're mentally ill. That's unfortunate.

[www.911hardfacts.com image 360x320]

Straw man. Nobody claimed a plane did.

They did however claim the WTC North Tower damaged World Trade Center 7 when it collapsed.

As you can see in the giant hole going down the middle of it.

[i.imgur.com image 640x480]
 

Also the several firefighters saw the damage and withdrew from trying to save it. They saw with their eyes that it was in danger of collapse.

See what they say here.

Sorry, they were told the buiding was going to be pulled. Funny, there was no explanation in the 9/11 ommission report for #7.
Look at the detonations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=fvwp&NR=1

"Detonations" that occur after the building has started to collapse.


That's how they pull buildings.
 
2013-05-02 08:32:18 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: ciberido: Valacirca: tinfoil-hat maggie

Stop using smiley faces, you're not a 14-year old in an AOL chat room.


A 14-year old in an AOL chat room would still be a step up from most Farkers.
[www.themagazine.ca image 475x275]
Does someone need a hug?

I need a hug.
/Well it's a bit more complected than that but, well ; )


Don't use winky faces, it give mixed messages.

/not sure if turned on
 
2013-05-02 07:24:03 PM  
This thread is full of fart smell.
 
Displayed 48 of 298 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report