Danish chemist finds nano-explosive in WTC dust - Page 7 - GoFuckYourself.com

OY · 04-15-2009, 07:59 PM

What did i miss????!!!!

Did a mad Danish scientist blow up the towers using angel dust?!?!?!

Ozarkz · 04-15-2009, 08:01 PM

Look at the position of Building #7 in relation to 1 and 2

It's sketchy. Admit it.

Did #6 fall? It's directly next to Building 1

directfiesta · 04-15-2009, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

You know damn well what I meant. We're pretty full up on idiots in this thread so you can go apply your proofreading skills elsewhere.

I am getting dizzy ... with all that spin ...

So now, we should concentrate on what you meant ... not what you wrote ...

Please update us when this change ....

Scootermuze · 04-15-2009, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

Flawless logic right up until the point when you started comparing buildings of completely different designs.

Bldg 7 was a completely different design than 1 & 2... and the damage was far less significant than 1 & 2.

Bldg's 1 & 2 were damaged at different levels and different areas of the bldgs...
yet they all three fell in the exact same manner..

None of the buildings located between 1,2 and 7 fell.. though 7 was supposedly badly damaged from the debris from 1 & 2.. why not as much, or more damage to the bldgs that were closer to 1 & 2?

WarChild · 04-15-2009, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

I am getting dizzy ... with all that spin ...

So now, we should concentrate on what you meant ... not what you wrote ...

Please update us when this change ....

I get it, you're having fun trolling.

StickyGreen · 04-15-2009, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minte

The word terrorism comes to mind. It's what they like to do.

Wow, do you really believe that? "It's what they like to do." lmao

Maybe, just maybe, this will help you to understand:

One person to consult if we want to understand those who wish us harm is Michael Scheuer, who was chief of the CIA's Osama Bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center in the late 1990's. Scheuer is a conservative and a pro-life voter who has never voted for a Democrat. And he refuses to buy the usual line that the attacks on America have nothing to do with what our government does in the Islamic world. "In fact," he says, those attacks have "everything to do with what we do."

Some people simply will not listen to this kind of argument, or will pretend to misunderstand it, trivializing this profoundly significant issue by alleging that Scheuer is "blaming America" for the attacks. To the contrary, Scheuer could not be any clearer in his writing that the perpetrators of terrorist attacks on Americans should be pursued mercilessly for their acts of barbarism. His point is very simple: it is unreasonable, even utopian, not to expect people to grow resentful, and desirous of revenge, when your government bombs them, supports police states in their countries, and imposes murderous sanctions on them. That revenge, in its various forms, is what our CIA calls blowback --- the unintended consequences of military intervention.

Obviously the onus of blame rests with those who perpetrate acts of terror, regardless of their motivation. The question Scheuer is asking is not who is morally responsible for terrorism --- only a fool would place the moral responsibility for terrorism on anyone other than the terrorists themselves. The question he is asking is less doltish and more serious: given that a hyperinterventionist foreign policy is very likely to lead to this kind of blowback, are we still sure we want such a foreign policy? Is it really worth it to us? The main focus of his criticism, in other words, is that our government's foreign policy has put the American people in greater danger and made us more vulnerable to attack than we would otherwise have been.

The interventionist policies that have given rise to blowback have been bipartisan in their implementation. For instance, it was Bill Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, who said on 60 Minutes that half a million dead Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions on that country during the 1990s were "worth it." Who could be so utopian, so detached from reality, as to think a remark like that --- which was broadcast all over the Arab world, you can be sure --- and policies like these would not provoke a response? If Americans lost that many of their family members, friends, and fellow citizens, would they not seek to hunt down the perpetrators and be unsatisfied until they were apprehended? The question answers itself. So why wouldn't we expect people to try to take revenge for these policies?

This does not mean Americans are bad people, or that they are to blame for terrorism --- straw-man arguments that supporters of intervention raise in order to cloud the issue and demonize their opponents. It means only that actions cause reactions, and that Americans will need to prepare themselves for these reactions if their government is going to continue to intervene around the world.

To those who say that the attackers are motivated by a hatred of Western liberalism or the moral degeneracy of American culture, Scheuer points out that Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini tried in vain for a decade to instigate an anti-Western jihad on exactly that basis. It went nowhere. Bin Laden's message, on the other hand, has been so attractive to so many people because it is fundamentally defensive. Bin Laden, says Scheuer, has "spurned the Ayatollah's wholesale condemnation of Western society," focusing instead on "specific, bread-and-butter issues on which there is widespread agreement among Muslims."

What Bin Laden's sympathizers object to, as they have said again and again, is our government's propping up of unpopular regimes in the Middle East, the presence of American troops on the Arabian Peninsula, the American government's support for the activities of governments (like Russia) that are hostile to their Muslim populations, and what they believe to be an American bias toward Israel. The point is not that we need to agree with these arguments, but that we need to be aware of them if we want to understand what is motivating so many people to rally to Bin Laden's banner. Few people are moved to leave behind their worldly possessions and their families to carry out violence on behalf of a disembodied idelogy; it is practical grievances, perhaps combined with an underlying ideology, that motivate large numbers to action.

At a press conference at the National Press Club in May 2007, Scheuer told reporters: "About the only thing that can hold together the very loose coalition that Osama Bin Laden has assembled is a common Muslim hatred for the impact of U.S. foreign policy... They all agree they hate U.S. foreign policy. To the degree we change that policy in the interests of the United States, they become more and more focused on their local problems." That's not what a lot of our talking heads tell us on television every day, but few people are in a better position to understand Bin Laden's message than Scheuer, one of our country's foremost experts on the man.

There is much more to support this if you want me to go on...

XXXMovie4M · 04-15-2009, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minte

The word terrorism comes to mind. It's what they like to do.

really? so that's their motivation? the most successfull attack on US soil which would have taken years to plan and god knows how much money to execute and the only reason is "they like to do it"! and they only like doing it to us?

why not attack france? everyone hates the french!

Dirty F · 04-16-2009, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StickyGreen

Dirty Franck, you seem to be the king skeptic and question asker, so I would like to ask you a question. Why is John Farmer, ex Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, coming out with a new book titled The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America?s Defense on 9/11 where he says "the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks," and "at some level of the government, at some point in time? there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.?

Go back a page or 2 and you got your answer. At least read what i type before calling me out.

Dirty F · 04-16-2009, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam X

look at all the videos on youtube of steel buildings that burned for 15 hours or more that DID NOT collapse...

Retardboy, how exactly did you miss the part that a big ass plane flew into the towers or a 20 floor hole in tower 7? Why are you talking about just a fire took them down? Are you stupid? Yes you are.

Dirty F · 04-16-2009, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

for those of you who believe the towers were attacked by Al-Qaida, what was the motivation for the attack?

Holy shit!

Ok, i'm totally convinced now. You are either 12 years old or simply a retard. I mean a real retard. Not a retard as i call other people just to make fun of them but a real retard. No sane person can be this stupid. It's impossible.

Dirty F · 04-16-2009, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

really? so that's their motivation? the most successfull attack on US soil which would have taken years to plan and god knows how much money to execute and the only reason is "they like to do it"! and they only like doing it to us?

why not attack france? everyone hates the french!

You people are crazy. Unbefuckinglievable.

StickyGreen · 04-16-2009, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Go back a page or 2 and you got your answer. At least read what i type before calling me out.

I guess you are referring to the last 2 posts on page 3. So your answer would be that John Farmer is lying.

Dirty F · 04-16-2009, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StickyGreen

I guess you are referring to the last 2 posts on page 3. So your answer would be that John Farmer is lying.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...&postcount=159

Deputy Chief Command · 04-16-2009, 04:33 AM

biskoppen · 04-16-2009, 04:39 AM

I wonder why demolition teams put dynamite in every single beam and floor when taking down a house when just taking out a few floors of a building makes it go down the exact same way like a pancake.. as we saw stunning 3 times in row on the exact same day with 3 different buildings on 9/11..

People paying a million for months of pre-work to take down a building by a demolition team must feel quite cheated when it's clearly not necessary to weaken the whole structure in order to make it come down safely as a pancake.. and no, it wasnt a coincidence that it happen on 9/11 .. 3 times in a row isnt a coincidence.. especially not happening on the same day, the same place..

Dirty F · 04-16-2009, 04:43 AM

If it was bombed they were able to exactly detonate from the floors starting under the where the plane entered. And the plane didn't damage the bombs or wires which were obviously also on those levels because they didn't know exactly where the plane would enter.

Just adding all these things up it's simply impossible...

The people who believe in this shit are simply very, very simply minded. No other possible solution.

Dirty F · 04-16-2009, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biskoppen

I wonder why demolition teams put dynamite in every single beam and floor when taking down a house when just taking out a few floors of a building makes it go down the exact same way like a pancake.. as we saw stunning 3 times in row on the exact same day with 3 different buildings on 9/11..

People paying a million for months of pre-work to take down a building by a demolition team must feel quite cheated when it's clearly not necessary to weaken the whole structure in order to make it come down safely as a pancake.. and no, it wasnt a coincidence that it happen on 9/11 .. 3 times in a row isnt a coincidence.. especially not happening on the same day, the same place..

Why do you people keep using the word pancake as if thats some kind of evidence it were detonations. Once again how the fuck do you think the building wouldve gone down otherwise?

biskoppen · 04-16-2009, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Why do you people keep using the word pancake as if thats some kind of evidence it were detonations. Once again how the fuck do you think the building wouldve gone down otherwise?

If buildings would always drop like a pancake (sorry) there's no reason for months of prep work for the demolition teams?

If everything isn't set up correctly demolitions can easily fail.. even with TONS of building trying to make the stuff below into dust

Just aint happening

A few picks from the album..
https://youtube.com/watch?v=IwNxbPybymM
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UsePU...eature=related

Dirty F · 04-16-2009, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biskoppen

If buildings would always drop like a pancake (sorry) there's no reason for months of prep work for the demolition teams?

If everything isn't set up correctly demolitions can easily fail.. even with TONS of building trying to make the stuff below into dust

Just aint happening

A few picks from the album..
https://youtube.com/watch?v=IwNxbPybymM
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UsePU...eature=related

I have no clue what you are trying to say, sorry.

MIS · 04-16-2009, 05:10 AM

Dirty F · 04-16-2009, 05:11 AM

And i have no clue why you people keep posting vids of other buildings and keep comparing the wtc towers to other buildings. Please compare it to similar structures that had a big ass plane landing in it. If those buildings acted totally different then i will listen to you.

butcherboy · 04-16-2009, 05:26 AM

Theory of conspiracy....
But no matter what they found nothing will change

Minte · 04-16-2009, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StickyGreen

Wow, do you really believe that? "It's what they like to do." lmao

Maybe, just maybe, this will help you to understand:

One person to consult if we want to understand those who wish us harm is Michael Scheuer, who was chief of the CIA's Osama Bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center in the late 1990's. Scheuer is a conservative and a pro-life voter who has never voted for a Democrat. And he refuses to buy the usual line that the attacks on America have nothing to do with what our government does in the Islamic world. "In fact," he says, those attacks have "everything to do with what we do."

Some people simply will not listen to this kind of argument, or will pretend to misunderstand it, trivializing this profoundly significant issue by alleging that Scheuer is "blaming America" for the attacks. To the contrary, Scheuer could not be any clearer in his writing that the perpetrators of terrorist attacks on Americans should be pursued mercilessly for their acts of barbarism. His point is very simple: it is unreasonable, even utopian, not to expect people to grow resentful, and desirous of revenge, when your government bombs them, supports police states in their countries, and imposes murderous sanctions on them. That revenge, in its various forms, is what our CIA calls blowback --- the unintended consequences of military intervention.

Obviously the onus of blame rests with those who perpetrate acts of terror, regardless of their motivation. The question Scheuer is asking is not who is morally responsible for terrorism --- only a fool would place the moral responsibility for terrorism on anyone other than the terrorists themselves. The question he is asking is less doltish and more serious: given that a hyperinterventionist foreign policy is very likely to lead to this kind of blowback, are we still sure we want such a foreign policy? Is it really worth it to us? The main focus of his criticism, in other words, is that our government's foreign policy has put the American people in greater danger and made us more vulnerable to attack than we would otherwise have been.

The interventionist policies that have given rise to blowback have been bipartisan in their implementation. For instance, it was Bill Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, who said on 60 Minutes that half a million dead Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions on that country during the 1990s were "worth it." Who could be so utopian, so detached from reality, as to think a remark like that --- which was broadcast all over the Arab world, you can be sure --- and policies like these would not provoke a response? If Americans lost that many of their family members, friends, and fellow citizens, would they not seek to hunt down the perpetrators and be unsatisfied until they were apprehended? The question answers itself. So why wouldn't we expect people to try to take revenge for these policies?

This does not mean Americans are bad people, or that they are to blame for terrorism --- straw-man arguments that supporters of intervention raise in order to cloud the issue and demonize their opponents. It means only that actions cause reactions, and that Americans will need to prepare themselves for these reactions if their government is going to continue to intervene around the world.

To those who say that the attackers are motivated by a hatred of Western liberalism or the moral degeneracy of American culture, Scheuer points out that Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini tried in vain for a decade to instigate an anti-Western jihad on exactly that basis. It went nowhere. Bin Laden's message, on the other hand, has been so attractive to so many people because it is fundamentally defensive. Bin Laden, says Scheuer, has "spurned the Ayatollah's wholesale condemnation of Western society," focusing instead on "specific, bread-and-butter issues on which there is widespread agreement among Muslims."

What Bin Laden's sympathizers object to, as they have said again and again, is our government's propping up of unpopular regimes in the Middle East, the presence of American troops on the Arabian Peninsula, the American government's support for the activities of governments (like Russia) that are hostile to their Muslim populations, and what they believe to be an American bias toward Israel. The point is not that we need to agree with these arguments, but that we need to be aware of them if we want to understand what is motivating so many people to rally to Bin Laden's banner. Few people are moved to leave behind their worldly possessions and their families to carry out violence on behalf of a disembodied idelogy; it is practical grievances, perhaps combined with an underlying ideology, that motivate large numbers to action.

At a press conference at the National Press Club in May 2007, Scheuer told reporters: "About the only thing that can hold together the very loose coalition that Osama Bin Laden has assembled is a common Muslim hatred for the impact of U.S. foreign policy... They all agree they hate U.S. foreign policy. To the degree we change that policy in the interests of the United States, they become more and more focused on their local problems." That's not what a lot of our talking heads tell us on television every day, but few people are in a better position to understand Bin Laden's message than Scheuer, one of our country's foremost experts on the man.

There is much more to support this if you want me to go on...

Do you have any of your own thoughts? All this copy and paste nonsense is only proving to everyone reading this thread that you are easily influenced by words you read on the internet.

My suggestion is look out the window,see what you see and make your own opinion. You and your companion xxxmovie can go on and on about what you think is the truth. I file your nonsense under the *If you can't wow them with the facts,blind them with bullshit* category.

If you served in the military,which I did you would know firsthand ,that the government does not have the ability to keep a secret. Nor does the government have the ability to organize anything as elegant as an attack on it's own country. The reasons are quite obvious if you take the time to look.

Martin · 04-16-2009, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minte

If you served in the military,which I did you would know firsthand ,that the government does not have the ability to keep a secret. Nor does the government have the ability to organize anything as elegant as an attack on it's own country. The reasons are quite obvious if you take the time to look.

LOL.. What a damn joke..

TyroneGoldberg · 04-16-2009, 07:56 AM

idiots and sane people

not hard to know which is which

Martin · 04-16-2009, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TyroneGoldberg

idiots and sane people

not hard to know which is which

Says the guy with a sick Avatar.

Dollarmansteve · 04-16-2009, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StickyGreen

Naturally, since you have been lied to about reality your entire life, any truthful revelations contradicting your false worldview may indeed appear to be far-fetched. But, to make things even worse, human beings are stubborn creatures who let their egos override everything else: Instead of learning about new information that does not fit within your current worldview, you would rather exercise your ego by letting others know what is and is not possible, merely based upon your personal knowledge and feeble understanding of what actually exists.

As a matter of fact, human beings are actually pompous enough to think that their status quo worldview is more rational than the truth. They neglect to factor the concept of intentional deception into their logical thought process, and thus fail to realize that the only reason why their worldview seems "rational" is because it is actually composed of a plethora of lies and distortions. So, in one of the greatest ironies ever, human beings think the lies that they are fed are reality, and that the truth, on the other hand, is crazy, unrealistic, and bizarre.

Official doctrines, by definition, do not incriminate the officials who created them. If official doctrines did incriminate the officials who created them, then the officials would be looked down upon by the public, and therefore they and their doctrines would no longer be considered official. This is simple logic.

So, as you can see, official doctrines are by no means synonymous with the truth. Rather, official doctrines are simply doctrines that were designed to keep in power the very officials who created them.

Furthermore, the word "official" should not be associated with the word "rational." Science is indeed an official government doctrine, yet it is not completely rational. The scientific community, in a bizarre and irrational manner, completely blows off the concept of government secrets. Science, by design and necessity, always downplays the significance of the government's power.

Science must downplay the significance of the government's power because it is of the utmost importance that the ignorant followers of science who are not "in the know," such as the common atheist, only think within the framework of status quo reality. If science did not downplay the significance of the government's power, then people would quickly realize that science is bullshit and that the status quo conception of reality is also bullshit. In other words, if people knew what really goes on behind the scenes, then they would quickly realize that science is just another form of control, courtesy of the ruling elite.

9/11 truthers fall into the following psychological traps:

- confirmation bias

9/11 truthers go to irrational lengths to justify their improbable beliefs. No one can say thay anything is "impossible", but to deny the most probable series of events is not indicative rational or analytic thought. This is the paradox of the 9/11 truther - the basis of THEIR skepticism is to "not believe what they're told" and "question the 'official' story" and seek "truth". Yet, the first thing one must do when buying into the "9/11 truth" movement is to throw common sense, rational thought and critical thinking out the window to justify pie-in-the-sky, low-probablility, postdictive speculations.

- out-group homogeneity

The 9/11 truther is brainwashed into believing that anyone who "believes the official story" is a "sheep" or is "unable to think for themselves". This is a defense mechanism used by the 9/11 truther to cast all those who don't share their beliefs as being the same. Once all those in the out-group are cast as being the same, they can be discredited and demonized. The demonization is carried out by piggy-backing unpopular political and social beliefs onto the generic "non-truther". The popular method has been to cast all non-9/11 truthers as being "republican" or "Bush loving" ignorant zombies who watch fox news, etc.

Social disenfranchisement is the driver for belief in conspiracy theory. Asymmetrical information and incorrect information entaglement also plays a role.

Social disenfranchisement creates a macro "them vs. us" psychology. This disenfranchisement manifests in the micro-sense through vehicles like conspiracy theory movements. 9/11 and the subsequent 9/11 truth movement is perhaps the most glaring example of how political and social (and now economic) disenfranchisment can manifest itself as mass psychosis.

Asymmetrical information plays its role in the truth movement because there is so much information and knowledge spread amongst so many different individuals / groups / agencies. In fact, I would say that there is no single entity that has the "whole" picture. As an outside observer (say, the average 9/11 truther) it is very difficult to find "the truth" since it's basically impossible to have all the information. Even at its best, there would be massive, massive holes in information. The shortcut then is to fill in those holes with "rules of thumb" or, as I will explain, incorrect information entaglement.

Incorrect information entaglement means simply: to connect pieces of information together that have nothing to do with eachother. 9/11 truthers engage in this practice almost endlessly to overcome asymmetrical information in the irrational quest for truth. I credit the internet and the mass availability of information as being the driver for this phenomenon. One good example is the citing of "operation nothwoods" as being causally connected to 9/11. Operation Northwoods was a theoretical operation that would have involved a "false-flag" attack in order to justify further military intervention in cuba in the 1960s. The rationale of the 9/11 truther is that, since at some point in the past some group (1960s CIA) proposed the idea of a false-falg operation, that it was probable that it would happen again. The psychology is understandable, it's why people buy stocks that are on the way up (buy high) and sell on the way down (sell low) - the exact opposite of rational behavior. People expect past events to predict future events. Unfortunately, this information has been incorrectly entangled with 9/11 (with massive confirmation bias) solely for the purpose of suppoting the highly improbably (yet minutely possible) scenario of 9/11 being a false flag operation perpetrated by the US government. There are many other examples, some are pretty crazy and are on display in this thread (numerological arguments, symbolic predictions in media, etc).

I could go on. I have a keen interest in the psychology of the 9/11 truther. The pitfall is actually getting into the details of the arguments.. since, as you've stated above, the ego of the 9/11 truther is ultimately insurmountable. The nature of conspiracy belief is kind of like an old philosophy joke:

So I had this dream where all the great philosophers came to me: Socrates, Plato, Hume, Locke, Kant... and as each of them spoke to me I was able to present a counter-argument to all of their great theories, and it was the same to each. I had discovered the great grand unified philosophical theory.. at this point, half asleep, I was able to write down what I said to each of them on a notepad by my bed. When I awoke in the morning I grabbed the notepad to see what I had written down, it said "That's what YOU think!"

Basically, the 9/11 truther always has a "that's what YOU think" argument as a last resort which cannot be overcome. There is much that can be learned about sociology and psychology by studying things like the 9/11 truth movement. Unfortunately (and ironically), there isn't much than can actually be learned about 9/11 by studying 9/11 truth, lol.

_Richard_ · 04-16-2009, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MIS

? everyone has to wear those hats or whatever they're called. it's respectful and mandatory

biskoppen · 04-16-2009, 10:11 AM

We are all going to die

Dirty F · 04-16-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

9/11 truthers fall into the following psychological traps:

- confirmation bias

9/11 truthers go to irrational lengths to justify their improbable beliefs. No one can say thay anything is "impossible", but to deny the most probable series of events is not indicative rational or analytic thought. This is the paradox of the 9/11 truther - the basis of THEIR skepticism is to "not believe what they're told" and "question the 'official' story" and seek "truth". Yet, the first thing one must do when buying into the "9/11 truth" movement is to throw common sense, rational thought and critical thinking out the window to justify pie-in-the-sky, low-probablility, postdictive speculations.

- out-group homogeneity

The 9/11 truther is brainwashed into believing that anyone who "believes the official story" is a "sheep" or is "unable to think for themselves". This is a defense mechanism used by the 9/11 truther to cast all those who don't share their beliefs as being the same. Once all those in the out-group are cast as being the same, they can be discredited and demonized. The demonization is carried out by piggy-backing unpopular political and social beliefs onto the generic "non-truther". The popular method has been to cast all non-9/11 truthers as being "republican" or "Bush loving" ignorant zombies who watch fox news, etc.

Social disenfranchisement is the driver for belief in conspiracy theory. Asymmetrical information and incorrect information entaglement also plays a role.

Social disenfranchisement creates a macro "them vs. us" psychology. This disenfranchisement manifests in the micro-sense through vehicles like conspiracy theory movements. 9/11 and the subsequent 9/11 truth movement is perhaps the most glaring example of how political and social (and now economic) disenfranchisment can manifest itself as mass psychosis.

Asymmetrical information plays its role in the truth movement because there is so much information and knowledge spread amongst so many different individuals / groups / agencies. In fact, I would say that there is no single entity that has the "whole" picture. As an outside observer (say, the average 9/11 truther) it is very difficult to find "the truth" since it's basically impossible to have all the information. Even at its best, there would be massive, massive holes in information. The shortcut then is to fill in those holes with "rules of thumb" or, as I will explain, incorrect information entaglement.

Incorrect information entaglement means simply: to connect pieces of information together that have nothing to do with eachother. 9/11 truthers engage in this practice almost endlessly to overcome asymmetrical information in the irrational quest for truth. I credit the internet and the mass availability of information as being the driver for this phenomenon. One good example is the citing of "operation nothwoods" as being causally connected to 9/11. Operation Northwoods was a theoretical operation that would have involved a "false-flag" attack in order to justify further military intervention in cuba in the 1960s. The rationale of the 9/11 truther is that, since at some point in the past some group (1960s CIA) proposed the idea of a false-falg operation, that it was probable that it would happen again. The psychology is understandable, it's why people buy stocks that are on the way up (buy high) and sell on the way down (sell low) - the exact opposite of rational behavior. People expect past events to predict future events. Unfortunately, this information has been incorrectly entangled with 9/11 (with massive confirmation bias) solely for the purpose of suppoting the highly improbably (yet minutely possible) scenario of 9/11 being a false flag operation perpetrated by the US government. There are many other examples, some are pretty crazy and are on display in this thread (numerological arguments, symbolic predictions in media, etc).

I could go on. I have a keen interest in the psychology of the 9/11 truther. The pitfall is actually getting into the details of the arguments.. since, as you've stated above, the ego of the 9/11 truther is ultimately insurmountable. The nature of conspiracy belief is kind of like an old philosophy joke:

So I had this dream where all the great philosophers came to me: Socrates, Plato, Hume, Locke, Kant... and as each of them spoke to me I was able to present a counter-argument to all of their great theories, and it was the same to each. I had discovered the great grand unified philosophical theory.. at this point, half asleep, I was able to write down what I said to each of them on a notepad by my bed. When I awoke in the morning I grabbed the notepad to see what I had written down, it said "That's what YOU think!"

Basically, the 9/11 truther always has a "that's what YOU think" argument as a last resort which cannot be overcome. There is much that can be learned about sociology and psychology by studying things like the 9/11 truth movement. Unfortunately (and ironically), there isn't much than can actually be learned about 9/11 by studying 9/11 truth, lol.

I'm afraid they won't have a clue what you're saying. As you said they miss common sense and this post is all about common sense.

hershie · 04-16-2009, 10:22 AM

Awesome post Dollarmansteve.

WarChild · 04-16-2009, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

9/11 truthers fall into the following psychological traps:

- confirmation bias

9/11 truthers go to irrational lengths to justify their improbable beliefs. No one can say thay anything is "impossible", but to deny the most probable series of events is not indicative rational or analytic thought. This is the paradox of the 9/11 truther - the basis of THEIR skepticism is to "not believe what they're told" and "question the 'official' story" and seek "truth". Yet, the first thing one must do when buying into the "9/11 truth" movement is to throw common sense, rational thought and critical thinking out the window to justify pie-in-the-sky, low-probablility, postdictive speculations.

- out-group homogeneity

The 9/11 truther is brainwashed into believing that anyone who "believes the official story" is a "sheep" or is "unable to think for themselves". This is a defense mechanism used by the 9/11 truther to cast all those who don't share their beliefs as being the same. Once all those in the out-group are cast as being the same, they can be discredited and demonized. The demonization is carried out by piggy-backing unpopular political and social beliefs onto the generic "non-truther". The popular method has been to cast all non-9/11 truthers as being "republican" or "Bush loving" ignorant zombies who watch fox news, etc.

Social disenfranchisement is the driver for belief in conspiracy theory. Asymmetrical information and incorrect information entaglement also plays a role.

Social disenfranchisement creates a macro "them vs. us" psychology. This disenfranchisement manifests in the micro-sense through vehicles like conspiracy theory movements. 9/11 and the subsequent 9/11 truth movement is perhaps the most glaring example of how political and social (and now economic) disenfranchisment can manifest itself as mass psychosis.

Asymmetrical information plays its role in the truth movement because there is so much information and knowledge spread amongst so many different individuals / groups / agencies. In fact, I would say that there is no single entity that has the "whole" picture. As an outside observer (say, the average 9/11 truther) it is very difficult to find "the truth" since it's basically impossible to have all the information. Even at its best, there would be massive, massive holes in information. The shortcut then is to fill in those holes with "rules of thumb" or, as I will explain, incorrect information entaglement.

Incorrect information entaglement means simply: to connect pieces of information together that have nothing to do with eachother. 9/11 truthers engage in this practice almost endlessly to overcome asymmetrical information in the irrational quest for truth. I credit the internet and the mass availability of information as being the driver for this phenomenon. One good example is the citing of "operation nothwoods" as being causally connected to 9/11. Operation Northwoods was a theoretical operation that would have involved a "false-flag" attack in order to justify further military intervention in cuba in the 1960s. The rationale of the 9/11 truther is that, since at some point in the past some group (1960s CIA) proposed the idea of a false-falg operation, that it was probable that it would happen again. The psychology is understandable, it's why people buy stocks that are on the way up (buy high) and sell on the way down (sell low) - the exact opposite of rational behavior. People expect past events to predict future events. Unfortunately, this information has been incorrectly entangled with 9/11 (with massive confirmation bias) solely for the purpose of suppoting the highly improbably (yet minutely possible) scenario of 9/11 being a false flag operation perpetrated by the US government. There are many other examples, some are pretty crazy and are on display in this thread (numerological arguments, symbolic predictions in media, etc).

I could go on. I have a keen interest in the psychology of the 9/11 truther. The pitfall is actually getting into the details of the arguments.. since, as you've stated above, the ego of the 9/11 truther is ultimately insurmountable. The nature of conspiracy belief is kind of like an old philosophy joke:

So I had this dream where all the great philosophers came to me: Socrates, Plato, Hume, Locke, Kant... and as each of them spoke to me I was able to present a counter-argument to all of their great theories, and it was the same to each. I had discovered the great grand unified philosophical theory.. at this point, half asleep, I was able to write down what I said to each of them on a notepad by my bed. When I awoke in the morning I grabbed the notepad to see what I had written down, it said "That's what YOU think!"

Basically, the 9/11 truther always has a "that's what YOU think" argument as a last resort which cannot be overcome. There is much that can be learned about sociology and psychology by studying things like the 9/11 truth movement. Unfortunately (and ironically), there isn't much than can actually be learned about 9/11 by studying 9/11 truth, lol.

I couldn't have said it better myself if I spent all day trying to do it.

Dirty F · 04-16-2009, 10:40 AM

Dollarmansteve, you're almost at my level when it comes to forum posting and putting thoughts into words. Well done.

Martin · 04-16-2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Dollarmansteve, you're almost at my level when it comes to forum posting and putting thoughts into words. Well done.

Ok thats funny

WarChild · 04-16-2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Dollarmansteve, you're almost at my level when it comes to forum posting and putting thoughts into words. Well done.

I didn't see him repeat "fuck" and "faggot" over and over and over again.

XXXMovie4M · 04-16-2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Retardboy, how exactly did you miss the part that a big ass plane flew into the towers or a 20 floor hole in tower 7? Why are you talking about just a fire took them down? Are you stupid? Yes you are.

how do you know there was a 20 floor hole in WTC 7? were you there to see it or are you going by the NIST report?

WarChild · 04-16-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

how do you know there was a 20 floor hole in WTC 7? were you there to see it or are you going by the NIST report?

Quote:

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn?t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn?t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we?ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Quote:

...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

Dirty F · 04-16-2009, 12:55 PM

Why do you even answer that retard. I know i stopped. He knows everything because he read it on conspiracy sites and everything we know is fake because it's from official reports, even if it's stuff you can see with your own eyes. It's clearly a case of only believing what he wants to believe. Very clearly. No matter what we come up with he won't change. If someone shows up with a new pic which shows in 30 megapixel quality with a 40x zoom lens all the damage (20 floors) he still will call it a fake. There's no point.

WarChild · 04-16-2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Why do you even answer that retard. I know i stopped. He knows everything because he read it on conspiracy sites and everything we know is fake because it's from official reports, even if it's stuff you can see with your own eyes. It's clearly a case of only believing what he wants to believe. Very clearly. No matter what we come up with he won't change. If someone shows up with a new pic which shows in 30 megapixel quality with a 40x zoom lens all the damage (20 floors) he still will call it a fake. There's no point.

You're right, I need to stop getting drawn in to this crap. It's totally pointless to argue with these guys.

Ozarkz · 04-16-2009, 01:00 PM

I don't understand why either of you are posting in this thread if you are soo against any theory that isn't your own.

You think you are going to stop people from discussing it because you are calling them a retard?

Just leave the thread and let people who want to discuss it, discuss it.

Calling someone a retard or dumb isn't going to change their mind and make you right.

Fact is NOBODY but the people involved know what happened.

Dirty F · 04-16-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

You're right, I need to stop getting drawn in to this crap. It's totally pointless to argue with these guys.

With some of them it's ok to argue but the guy above is simply a big waste of time. Seriously, no matter what he won't accept anything he doesn't like. Bin Laden could come knocking on his door and show him tapes from 10 years ago where they were plotting the attack and he would still call it fake or say Bush made him say it. He just HAS to believe in this conspiracy no matter what. It's not even about the subject anymore. He's just defending some delusionals in his head that won't go away.

GothBuXXX · 04-16-2009, 01:04 PM

Interesting shit...but prolly bull

Dirty F · 04-16-2009, 01:14 PM

And we're talking about a person who wonders why middle east terrorists would want to attack America.

XXXMovie4M · 04-16-2009, 01:24 PM

XXXMovie4M · 04-16-2009, 01:47 PM

this is what buildings look like when they collapse...

Pleasurepays · 04-16-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

this is what buildings look like when they collapse...

dude.... seriously... you fucking idiots make me want to lobby for more terrorist attacks. with people like you in our nation, we deserve it... and arguably, the world would be a better place for it.

Ozarkz · 04-16-2009, 01:50 PM

As StickFingers says..

I'm going to 'GaFaw' in 25 years if/when we know 100% what happened and it turns out their was more to it than just a couple of planes hitting a couple buildings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

dude.... seriously... you fucking idiots make me want to lobby for more terrorist attacks. with people like you in our nation, we deserve it... and arguably, the world would be a better place for it.

Omg what you just said totally clears everything up.. I see the light! You are soo right!

You must have been captain of your high school debate team.

XXXMovie4M · 04-16-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

dude.... seriously... you fucking idiots make me want to lobby for more terrorist attacks. with people like you in our nation, we deserve it... and arguably, the world would be a better place for it.

thanks to people like you the government got away with creating it's own weapon of mass destruction! bush was counting on your support so thanks for being so ignorant!

Pleasurepays · 04-16-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

thanks to people like you the government got away with creating it's own weapon of mass destruction! bush was counting on your support so thanks for being so ignorant!

yes. you are 100% correct about everything. and why isn't your view the mainstream view, given how "obvious" it all is?

your answer... "everyone is brainwashed"

brilliant.

everyone is a hapless retard except you and the .01% of society that you represent. that's how you validate your own views. brilliant. nothing arrogant or twisted about that at all.

StickyGreen · 04-16-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...&postcount=159

Ah ok, I think I get you now. You understand that it's possible there might have been some sort of foul play involved, but also understand that people are fucking idiots who say stupid things like "planes never hit the towers" and all that other crap. I agree with you on that.

04-15-2009, 07:59 PM	#301
OY Industry Pioneer Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA/EU/ASIA Posts: 5,401	What did i miss????!!!! Did a mad Danish scientist blow up the towers using angel dust?!?!?! __________________ Around since 1997, and the company that introduced "Cascading Billing" in MPA3® Affiliate Management and Tracking Software Outsourcing With A Norwegian Twist - NordBits - Inquire within!

04-16-2009, 04:33 AM	#314
Deputy Chief Command Deputy Chief Command Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 4,482	__________________

04-16-2009, 04:39 AM	#315
biskoppen Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Very small penis Posts: 5,809	I wonder why demolition teams put dynamite in every single beam and floor when taking down a house when just taking out a few floors of a building makes it go down the exact same way like a pancake.. as we saw stunning 3 times in row on the exact same day with 3 different buildings on 9/11.. People paying a million for months of pre-work to take down a building by a demolition team must feel quite cheated when it's clearly not necessary to weaken the whole structure in order to make it come down safely as a pancake.. and no, it wasnt a coincidence that it happen on 9/11 .. 3 times in a row isnt a coincidence.. especially not happening on the same day, the same place.. __________________ Submit my videos to make bank, tons of 5 minute videos offered right here

04-16-2009, 05:10 AM	#320
MIS Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 127	__________________ Do You Have USA Traffic? I want to buy ad space on your site(s). Get paid fair market value. Serious sellers with a minimum of 20K daily USA visitors. ICQ: 616-155-033 - Email: [email protected] - AIM: SellMeSpace

04-16-2009, 05:26 AM	#322
butcherboy Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Planet E. Posts: 183	Theory of conspiracy.... But no matter what they found nothing will change __________________ ---some wise words goes here--

04-15-2009, 08:01 PM	#302
Ozarkz So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,377	Look at the position of Building #7 in relation to 1 and 2 It's sketchy. Admit it. Did #6 fall? It's directly next to Building 1

04-16-2009, 04:43 AM	#316
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	If it was bombed they were able to exactly detonate from the floors starting under the where the plane entered. And the plane didn't damage the bombs or wires which were obviously also on those levels because they didn't know exactly where the plane would enter. Just adding all these things up it's simply impossible... The people who believe in this shit are simply very, very simply minded. No other possible solution.

04-16-2009, 05:11 AM	#321
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	And i have no clue why you people keep posting vids of other buildings and keep comparing the wtc towers to other buildings. Please compare it to similar structures that had a big ass plane landing in it. If those buildings acted totally different then i will listen to you.

04-16-2009, 07:56 AM	#325
TyroneGoldberg Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,081	idiots and sane people not hard to know which is which

04-16-2009, 10:11 AM	#329
biskoppen Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Very small penis Posts: 5,809	We are all going to die __________________ Submit my videos to make bank, tons of 5 minute videos offered right here

04-16-2009, 10:22 AM	#331
hershie Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,642	Awesome post Dollarmansteve.

04-16-2009, 10:40 AM	#333
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Dollarmansteve, you're almost at my level when it comes to forum posting and putting thoughts into words. Well done.

04-16-2009, 12:55 PM	#338
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Why do you even answer that retard. I know i stopped. He knows everything because he read it on conspiracy sites and everything we know is fake because it's from official reports, even if it's stuff you can see with your own eyes. It's clearly a case of only believing what he wants to believe. Very clearly. No matter what we come up with he won't change. If someone shows up with a new pic which shows in 30 megapixel quality with a 40x zoom lens all the damage (20 floors) he still will call it a fake. There's no point.

04-16-2009, 01:00 PM	#340
Ozarkz So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,377	I don't understand why either of you are posting in this thread if you are soo against any theory that isn't your own. You think you are going to stop people from discussing it because you are calling them a retard? Just leave the thread and let people who want to discuss it, discuss it. Calling someone a retard or dumb isn't going to change their mind and make you right. Fact is NOBODY but the people involved know what happened.

04-16-2009, 01:04 PM	#342
GothBuXXX Registered User Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 54	Interesting shit...but prolly bull __________________ Morphing RSS Feeds / Download Video Content Zipped galleries / FHG's with different templates / much more Epoch Affiliate Program List - Do it all from one site.

04-16-2009, 01:14 PM	#343
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	And we're talking about a person who wonders why middle east terrorists would want to attack America.

04-16-2009, 01:24 PM	#344
XXXMovie4M Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Hell Posts: 359

04-16-2009, 01:47 PM	#345
XXXMovie4M Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Hell Posts: 359	this is what buildings look like when they collapse...