I see thuthers still think falling towers "prove" controlled demolition...PROVE the towers were blown up by controlled demolition.... this proves it wasnt a controlled demolition... [video=youtube;tacYjsS-g6k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k[/video]
debunkers have no clue what those lights are after all the building power was out. lite em up! debunkers have no clue what this is or how it operates or what it is used for None the less they are experts on demolition
Honestly, you just wasted your time. And just to be clear, that isn't necessarily a dig at truthers (but any conspiracy theorist in general) but more of one at you. Asking people who don't have unfettered access to government information to 'prove' whatever theory it is they're presenting is seriously flawed thinking. I say that because if some random Internet conspiracy theorist was actually in possession of evidence that proves whatever theory it is they believe in then the conspiracy would be non-existent. Furthermore, it would have been disseminated by and to much higher authorities than some political message board. This mentality expressed by people in every conspiracy theory section on the Internet is irritating, particularly the oft repeated lines of "Do you have evidence?" or "Can you prove your theory?" The hilarious thing is that those questions are asked in all seriousness. Obviously, again, if the person arguing for any conspiracy had information to prove their theories then everyone aware of the alleged conspiracy would have heard it first from the government itself or from the media. Why? Because those two institutions are two of the primary holders of information, which they have the choice on whether or not information gets disseminated into the public realm. At any rate - just look at the words: conspiracy theory. If there was publicly available evidence to prove someone's claims then it wouldn't be a 'theory' anymore, it'd be reality. However, it could still be a conspiracy. What I mean is best illustrated by examples: consider U.S. drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan or Somalia. Another would be Area 51. A large group of people were aware of both examples before the government officially admitted reality. There is a term for that: open-secret. If a so-called theory is known as reality to many people then it isn't a theory anymore, but it is still a conspiracy until the government officially recognizes that particular reality. Side note: the way conspiracy theorists are engaged online by other people is peculiar. Only online have I ever witnessed or observed non-conspiracists continually argue or seek conspiracists out for so-called debate. I've seen "The End is Nigh/Near" sign holding guy in four different cities in the U.S. (yes, a different dude every time): San Diego, Houston, Raleigh & New York City. Want to know what I didn't see? People standing in talking distance of the doomsday guy hashing it out in a verbal argument over the merits or validity of the doomsday guy's theory. Never once was "Do you have evidence to support your claims?" asked when I was in hearing distance. No, what happened instead was one of two things: mockery behind the guy's back or zero aclnowledgement. I noticed the same thing in the Marine Corps. Marines peddling conspiracies weren't met with a 3-point counter. It was either ignored or quickly mocked, and then work or life continued on just as it previously had. No, the only time in my life outside the Internet I've ever seen someone debate someone else over a conspiracy they're talking about is when what is being said directly relates to them: I.e. some woman is saying another woman is sleeping around on her husband. Sometimes a situation like that is resolved by a verbal debate or a physical one. Unless under special circumstances, conspiracy theorizing in real-life is met with apathy or humor. Only online will a person find people devoted to rhetorically combating conspiracy theories & theorists. What makes it so strange is that the overwhelming amount of times it happens the debunker has no real stake in what's being theorized.
funny post! Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed conspiracy theory label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief. In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong confirmation bias that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the conspiracy theory label) to avoid conflicting information. The extreme irrationality of those who attack conspiracy theories has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled Dangerous Machinery: Conspiracy Theorist as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion, they wrote:If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur. But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIAs 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the conspiracy theory smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous and more rational than anti-conspiracy ones.
Anyone who purports to have an opinion on the controlled demolition theory should watch this. September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M (2:40:20 time mark)
Well, it was new in the sense that nothing like that had ever happened before, at least, of that magnitude. And according to Bush administration officials, 9/11 was a surprise attack.
Fact is, the mainstream media proclaimed that all of the damage was the result of terrorists using airliners as weapons, but the problem is they never proved it. The very fact of total destruction, is a smoking gun in and of itself. not to mention the speed of destruction. How could it have not been controlled demolition, that is the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7?
' There was NOTHING conbtrolled about the collapse of the three buildings,and there was NOT 'total destruction' And it's NOT the job of the media to 'prove' anything,the supermarket tabloids prove that..That was the job of the NTSB,and they proved it.
First of all, the NTSB abdicated the responsibility for investigating the 9/11 alleged airliner crashes to the FBI. Also to address your allegation that the destruction was not total, please provide documentation that 1% ( or something ) was still standing after the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7.
The FBI headed the investigation,but the NTSB still investigated the airliner crashes,not alleged. And you've been given the documentation of what was remaining standing,but for whatever reason,you ignored it....
was the bit remaining after the collapse, more than 1% of the total structure? the ONLY pix I was shown was a close up of a staircase, and the way it was cropped, it was very difficult to know exactly what staircase in what building. as events go, 9/11/2001 is VERY poorly documented.
"The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI." Bottom line here, the FBI controlled all of the data about the alleged airliner crashes. Why the secrecy? what possible strategic advantage is there in hiding the INFORMATION about what happened to the aircraft ( unless of course, there was NO airliner, and in that case, ...... )
So, we can conclude that everything contained in the Kean commission's summary to be complete and all inclusive?
It was self explanatory, and a pretty plain question, I thought. - - - Updated - - - Perhaps you can explain what it is that I'm dodging, and I'll do my best to illuminate you?
that's a shaped charge no evidence was found of their use... they are al so known as cutters, a small explosion superheats copper .the super heating and explosive force will cut steel.
bahahahahaha! Laurie Manwell Laurie Manwell ca.linkedin.com I have a B.Sc., B.Ed. in Education, M.Sc. in Biology, and a Ph.D. in Psychology. I have research published in many areas: effects of drugs on learning and memory in rodents; effects of drugs on cell survival mechanisms; the relationship between self-esteem and depression in young adults; the role of attention in lexical decision making and memory; the need for secondary-level education in political psychology to ensure democracy in Canada. Ive studied at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York. Academic Teaching: Ive designed and lectured courses in Arts & Science and taught university labs/tutorials integrating theory with practical application: Behavioural Neuroscience, Intellectual Disabilities, Principles of Behavior, Virology, Genetics, Food and Disease, and Microbiology I & II. Ive lectured, tutored students with disabilities, and taken University Teaching Theory and Practice with in-class assessments of my skills. Vocational Teaching: I taught part-time at the Clifford Evans Training Centre, designing/teaching courses on personal/professional development. I attended professional development conferences and courses. I see no engineering expertise!
