ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Oh, and there is this too.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jixU7JG4pg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 This, for the lulz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murderland_bgk Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 i love how the F.B.I covered up the pentagon attack... I was watching something today about this they said it was impossible for just ONE PLANE to take down A tower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 http://americanfreepress.net/?p=693 No comments on anything posted in here recently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Psychologists help 9/11 truth deniers http://youtu.be/mEGgAk1AbA4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuntflaps Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Psychologists help 9/11 truth deniers http://youtu.be/mEGgAk1AbA4 That whole video is worth watching, seals the deal for anyone with a brain... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Not really cunt, there are people with brains that still scoff at that video. Unfortunately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieFiver5000 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 See I watched most of this video and unfortunately I don't see it as offering any evidence for anything particularly. It can be understood as making psychology based arguments for why people don't accept alternate narratives of the 9-11 event, but not a lot more. Equally I could present a collection of psychologists who all claim some degree of scientific objectivity in stating that people desire a grand narrative surrounding events of this magnitude that gives over-arching meaning to each aspect of the event. I posted an article or two in a thread here a while back to this effect. If anything this video illustrates the fallibility of psychology as a 'scientific' profession. For example, one lady says there is ample evidence to suggest an alternative narrative, so given this evidence the question should be 'why do people not accept it?'. What she has done is begin from the assumption that her reading of the evidence is correct and constructed a theory to explain why people don't agree with her. Sure, her theory is interesting, but it is hardly based on objectivity. It's totally valid to construct speculative theories, I do it quite a often in trying to understand why people are so complicit with horrific state actions, but you also must accept that you, or I, could be completely wrong in our assessment. The realm of the social is a strange, shifting, reality. It is hard, if not impossible, to quantify given that we are all so deeply embedded within it. Objective social 'truths' are, over time, understood to be nonsensical. Less than 100 years ago we understood women and darker skinned people to be inferior, and constructed 'objective' theories to substantiate this. All of which has since been revealed to be a farce. So, the nature of truth in a social context is deeply subjective. Psychology, as a profession, tries to build objective truths on top of a largely subjective field of behaviour. In this way it is prone to make highly disputable claims to 'truth'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I agree, it's all perspective if you ask me. I do think they bring up some points on people whom just won't even look at the evidence. However I'm sure they can get some other psychologist's to throw the opposite perspective and it would make sense as well. Personally the video I posted with the Architect's and Engineers is more damning, but that's me. Not to mention the cop who arrested the Israeli's, there is more information out there about that as well, which would make you realize it's significance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieFiver5000 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 For sure. I should just qualify my previous posts by saying that there is no doubt more to the story than was presented in the commissions report. Though, how much more, or to what end I don't know and am not interested enough in this event particularly to investigate thoroughly. Moreover, I think it is important to recognise the limits of internet based 'research', as the best you can really do is collate a range of other peoples opinions unless you go out and conduct empirical evidence yourself. I am generally of the opinion that if there was a grand conspiracy in the way the 'truthers' generally portray, there would be a shit-tonne of people selling their stories to various media orgs, govs and anyone else who would listen by now. Yet, having some knowledge of the way historical narratives are constructed I can certainly see how certain aspects of the story are enhanced while others are played down or discarded for the sake of political ends. This process can be deliberate from a central org, like government, or can be coincidence based on groups of people all seeking to maximise their own particular interests. I would generally suggest the latter option is much more common. tldr; Official story is probably a highly selective presentation of factual events, whereby inconvenient truths are discarded for the sake of political (in the broad sense of the word) ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuntflaps Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Not really cunt, there are people with brains that still scoff at that video. Unfortunately. Yeah, one can only hope I guess. My personal opinion is that this is the 00's JFK, it will go on for years with no definitive outcome other than the garbage of the official version. Some great insights by others on the topic in this thread though, I'd write more but am 911 worn out after 10 years of debates on other forums... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountain dew Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Anyone read the 9/11 Commission Report? Thoughts? Finally getting around to reading it now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 It's very thorough and informative. CT's will often point at Building 7 not being mentioned in the report, but the Commission Report's purpose is to talk about what led up to the attacks, the attacks themselves, the immediate aftermath, and what went wrong & how we can prevent it in the future. It's not about structural engineering. Building 7 wasn't the target, nor was the Marriott and other buildings in the complex, although they were all destroyed. The NIST Report talks about what caused the collapse of Building 7 in painstaking detail, so there's no need for it to be mentioned in the Commission Report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Also, I suggest this channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4 61 videos uploaded solely dedicated to debunking every conspiracy theorist claim. Here's a quick video debunking 7 conspiracy theories in under a minute: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Funny how you'd rather watch a shitty 1 minute youtube video that "debunks" theories rather than getting into the extensive research, articles, documents, information, DOCUMENTARIES that are way longer than ONE minute long, peer-reviewed research, etc. The 1 minute youtube sums up your denial and conforms with your own personal beliefs to make you feel comfortable enough to say "Nothing suspicious here, move along." HA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Maybe you didn't read the whole post, but I said the guy has 61 videos uploaded total, most of which are 5-10 minutes long each. I only provided one quick video since it was a short summary. So, averaged out, that's around 450 minutes of footage on his channel dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Painstaking detail? Wow. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIl4ySTfX8g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Maybe you didn't read the whole post, but I said the guy has 61 videos uploaded total, most of which are 5-10 minutes long each. I only provided one quick video since it was a short summary. So, averaged out, that's around 450 minutes of footage on his channel dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories. yea 450 minutes of spiteful bullshit. like i said, this is a 10 year old argument beaten into the ground. if you want to believe this dude and his youtube videos you can do that, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Painstaking detail? Wow. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIl4ySTfX8g That's not the report, that's a Q&A "FAQ" that pertains to the report. The entire report on WTC 7 is 130 pages, which can be read here: http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 I wasn't implying that the website link was the entire report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuntflaps Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 It's very thorough and informative. CT's will often point at Building 7 not being mentioned in the report, but the Commission Report's purpose is to talk about what led up to the attacks, the attacks themselves, the immediate aftermath, and what went wrong & how we can prevent it in the future. It's not about structural engineering. Building 7 wasn't the target, nor was the Marriott and other buildings in the complex, although they were all destroyed. The NIST Report talks about what caused the collapse of Building 7 in painstaking detail, so there's no need for it to be mentioned in the Commission Report. The NIST report is a joke, it ignores any evidence that doesn't fit with the official story and members of the panel that drew it up have since come out and said it was a whitewash. The FBI conducted no investigation, all of the physical evidence was taken away by controlled demolition inc after the collapse under FBI guard, never examined and destroyed. The FBI never offered any evidence that Bin Laden was involved, the only evidence they did release was the paper passport that somehow survived the fireball, they later retracted that with the statement that the passport was 'a rumour that might or might not have been true' There was no insurance company investigation, Lloyds of london insured the towers, they were contacted with evidence that the official story was dubious but refused to do an investigation. The FAA didn't release any evidence, in fact the one piece of evidence they held, recordings of the air traffic controllers, was destroyed. The passenger manifests show no arabic names at all on any of the flights. The video footage from check in had two different timestamps on them, one up in the top right corner as is normal and another showing a completely different time right across the middle of the screen where a timestamp is never used because it obscures the picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Just wondering what Truthers think about Dylan Avery no longer being a Truther. He now refuses to refer to 9/11 as an "inside job", but now claims that the government "let it happen" and was criminally negligent. What's sad is that former Truthers who had recanted their beliefs were vilified by other Truthers as being "CIA agents" and whatnot. This probably explains why Avery is apprehensive about being upfront about his change of heart in this short interview: Article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/youre_not_paranoid_if_its_true.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I really wasn't going to bite on this, but....fuck it. The term "truther" is kind of crazy, and it lumps up any and everybody who thinks something MORE went on then what we know, and this encompasses a wide variety of beliefs from holograms being uses, missiles being fired and who knows what else. Because of this it allows for all people who want answers to being dismissed as some kind of lunatic. Let me ask you a question now, honestly how would you feel if the government came out and said that "Yeah, we didn't help the Saudi's take over those planes and fly them into those tower's, but we just let it happen". Is this any different at all from actually being involved? In any capacity? Because I don't think it is, and personally feel it's just as bad. It would also explain the illegal and unjustifiable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the tarnishing of our civil rights for the passed 11 years. One thing is clear, the official report has holes in it. Those holes should be filled with undeniable answers. Video footage needs to be released that hasn't been, and the questions that real professionals that have brought up should be properly explained. Until this happens I can't imagine how even the most stark government supporter could even brush this off as if it's alright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_blank_ Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 just watched loose change. gave me cold chills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massgraff Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 short answer: cause stone cold said so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I really wasn't going to bite on this, but....fuck it. The term "truther" is kind of crazy, and it lumps up any and everybody who thinks something MORE went on then what we know, and this encompasses a wide variety of beliefs from holograms being uses, missiles being fired and who knows what else. Because of this it allows for all people who want answers to being dismissed as some kind of lunatic. Let me ask you a question now, honestly how would you feel if the government came out and said that "Yeah, we didn't help the Saudi's take over those planes and fly them into those tower's, but we just let it happen". Is this any different at all from actually being involved? In any capacity? Because I don't think it is, and personally feel it's just as bad. It would also explain the illegal and unjustifiable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the tarnishing of our civil rights for the passed 11 years. One thing is clear, the official report has holes in it. Those holes should be filled with undeniable answers. Video footage needs to be released that hasn't been, and the questions that real professionals that have brought up should be properly explained. Until this happens I can't imagine how even the most stark government supporter could even brush this off as if it's alright. I agree that criminal negligence should also warrant prosecutions; i.e. the government knowing about Al Qaeda's 9/11 operation full-well but doing nothing to stop it. But that's a huge leap from saying that 9/11 was plotted & carried out by the government with the planted explosives in the buildings, the remote-controlled cargo planes, the missile being fired at the Pentagon, and paid actors pretending to be victims leaving voicemails to families, and all that other stuff. I think the government didn't act on evidence that they could have, like the judge not allowing the FBI to search Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop which very well could have had evidence on the operation, or Bush not really taking the CIA memo seriously about Bin Laden's determinations to attack within the US and doing no actions to investigate further... But IMHO I don't feel it was criminal negligence. Just the nature of the beast at the time which was the huge bureaucracy and outdated methods of US intelligence. Then the US was just asleep at the wheel and didn't think such a grand-scale attack could happen. But I just was shocked that Dylan Avery, one of the pioneers of the 9/11 truth movement, if not THE founder of the movement, had a change of heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyWishes Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 HE WAS FORCED TO.... joking. But that is what they'll say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 They'll accuse Dylan Avery of being a CIA agent trying to discredit the movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Yeah, he doesn't use the phrase "inside job." So what? But then went on to name most of the flaws in the report. Basically stating that he believes almost everything he did before you claim he has had a "change of heart". I don't remember the documentary to be honest. I don't remember what he claimed he thought happened. However it is over 10 years later, I'm sure he has evolved his though process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.