See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Be a Proud Conspiracy Theorist, You're in the Majority
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01 ... spiracy-theorist-youre-in.html
Published: Jan 21, 2013
Author: Eric Blair
Post Date: 2013-01-21 22:30:43 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 404
Comments: 26
It seems that the establishment media has intensified their attack on "conspiracy theorists". It's long been their feeble attempt to discredit anyone who dares question the "official" narrative of events. But why the sudden deluge of attacks? First, what does conspiracy theory even mean? con·spir·a·cy - An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. the·o·ry - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry - The belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained. In short, a conspiracy theorist seeks the full facts about covert subversive acts, and unusual or unexplained events. Put another way, when the story of an event doesn't add up, theories arise to explain what really happened. Given the abominable track record of the establishment media, it's become more common to question everything we hear rather than blindly swallowing their script. As the initial reporting of the Sandy Hook school massacre was so scattered, and policymakers immediately seized the crisis to promote a long desired agenda of strict gun control, it's no wonder that some have questioned the authenticity of the "official" version of events. What is the official version, anyway? It's changed a thousand times. They want us to believe a lone-wolf psycho used an assault rifle to kill 26 innocent children and teachers. Never mind that it has come out that a "rifle" never entered the school and what they found in the trunk of Lanza's car was actually a shotgun. Never mind how he got through the new $300,000 surveillance/security system while wearing a mask and armed to the teeth. Never mind the reports of multiple shooters and camouflage-clad strangers arrested in the woods. Don't worry about the Emergency Response Team (ERT) that was simulating this exact same school shooter scenario on the same day in a nearby town. And, don't ask why there's a strange lack of injured survivors, credible witnesses, or anyone who even knew Adam Lanza. And, finally, how would gun control have prevented this event? I must be an evil, heartless conspiracy theorist who pisses on the graves of those killed that day because I'd like answers to these questions. At least that's what the establishment media wants you to believe about me and others who desire better explanations than what we've been given. Media figures, particularly CIA intern Anderson Cooper of CNN, is using his bully pulpit to demonize anyone who questions the Sandy Hook event and lump them all into the most radical theory that says no one was murdered that day. The fact that he dedicated nearly an entire show to disputing a conspiracy theory, in and of itself is telling. Meanwhile, AC was caught pulling a 360 on viewers by showing “active-shooter drill footage” from another school as if it was the breaking news feed of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. But, as Cooper struggles to attract 200K viewers per night to his pulpit, an amateur video questioning the anomalies of Sandy Hook received an astonishing 10 million views in one week. Therein lies the primary reason the establishment can no longer ignore conspiracy theorists, because they're now the majority. According to a recent Fairleigh Dickinson University poll a majority of Americans (63%) believe at least one political conspiracy theory. Dan Cassino, a professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University who helped conduct the poll said "People tend to believe that where there’s smoke, there’s fire – so the more smoke they see, the more likely they are to believe that something is going on." Regarding 9/11, Cassino says; "It’s easy to discount conspiracy theories about 9/11, but this isn’t some fringe belief. Trutherism is alive and well in America, and is only going to get stronger as memories of the actual event fade." Another likely motivation for the recent attacks on conspiracy theorists is because a staggering majority no longer trusts the corporate media or the government. Recent polling showed record level (60%) of distrust for the media, and Congress is less popular than cockroaches with a dismal 9% favorable rating. It's clear that the dying corporate media wants their viewers to despise anyone who questions the official narrative of any "event that is unusual or unexplained" in a desperate attempt to keep viewers locked to their "trusted" news channel. I, for one, am proud to question everything I hear in the so-called news. And the bigger they hype a story, the more I question it. As professor Cassino said, "where there's smoke, there's fire." Usually someone, or a group of someones, clearly benefits from a certain subversive act. As such, they seem to have much more of a motivation than some lone wolf who kills himself after committing unexplainable atrocities or some cave dweller claiming to hate our freedom. Is this always the case? Of course not. But the more hype the establishment puts behind a questionable event, the more reason there is to find out cui bono -- who benefits? Below is a great video dissertation by James Corbett about conspiracies and the media response to them:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
Florida professor won’t back down from Newtown massacre conspiracy theory when confronted by news cameras | The Florida college professor who is promoting conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook shooting refuses to stand down from his outrageous statements. 'I think that the entire country mourned about Sandy Hook and yet, once again, the investigation that journalistic institutions should have actually carried out never took place as far as I'm concerned,' James Tracy told a local television reporter on Wednesday. The 47-year-old professor bases his outrageous allegations largely on the flurry of conflicting media reports that were made as news of the shooting was released throughout the tragic day. SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO Still at work: James Tracy, 47, has been teaching at Florida Atlantic University for 10 years and refuses to lessen his stance against the official version of events regarding the Sandy Hook shooting 'While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place -- at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation's news media have described,' he wrote in his blog post. Now he adds that the confusion and so-called acceptance of the main stream version of events is telling of a larger problem. 'Well, I think that we need to as a society look at things more carefully. Perhaps we as a society have been conditioned to be duped,' he told Boca Raton's CBS 12. This interview comes just one day after a Newtown official called for the professor to be fired his incendiary statements. Patricia Llodra, the town selectwoman who has been helping Newtown deal with the logistics of the aftermath from the shooting, slammed Florida Atlantic University professor James Tracy after he made outrageous claims about the December 14 massacre. Placing blame: Tracy says that the national media has not done enough to unearth the 'truth' Outrages: Patricia Llodra (center), the town selectman for Newtown, says that Professor Tracy should be fired for his outlandish and insensitive claims 'Shame on you, FAU, to even have someone like this on your payroll,' she said of the tenured communications professor. 'It is outrageous and an insult to all caring people to think that this man would chose this event as a stage for his outlandish conspiracy theories,' she told FoxNews.com. Outrageous: James Tracy claims that the timeline of the Sandy Hook tragedy shows that there was a coordinated effort to hide the 'real' story 'Professor Tracy is an embarrassment to me as an educator and should be to you as well,' Ms Llodra said. 'I can assure you, sadly, that the events here in Newtown unfolded exactly as are being reported, with the horrible outcome of the violent death of 26 innocent people, including 20 children.' Mr Tracy, however, appears to think that what he was saying was in keeping with his role as an educator and asking both his students and the general public at large to review the events critically. 'I describe myself as a scholar and public intellectual interested in going more deeply into controversial public events. Although some may see (my theories) as beyond the pale, I am doing what we should be doing as academics,' he told the Sun Sentinel. As with many conspiracy theorists who find darker linings in even the most horrific tragedies, this is far from his first foray into the world of the unproven. Mr Tracy has written a number of book chapters about media coverage of wars, economic overhauls and union negotiations. On his blog, however, he has hit a number of the classic conspiracy theories: the September 11 attacks, the purview of the Department of Homeland Security, the PATRIOT Act, the death of Osama bin Laden and Fukishima have all been topics of interest. Shut down: Sandy Hook Elementary School is now closed, seen here on January 3, but a professor in Florida argues that the shooting that took place in the school may not have happened as is conventionally believed Tragic: One of the points of professor James Tracy's argument is the fact that there have been no photos of the bodies of the 20 child victims or the six teachers Even though he is paid to teach a class called Culture of Conspiracy which will undoubtedly produce outrageous ideas, Florida Atlantic University appears to feel that the questioning of the murder of first graders was a bridge too far. 'James Tracy does not speak for the university. The website on which his post appeared is not affiliated with FAU in any way. As for any previous disciplinary actions at FAU, we do not comment on personnel matters,' school spokesman Lisa Metcalf said to the Sun Sentinel. Though his ultimate end goal is unclear, he says that the end goal of the 'supposed' shooting was political in nature. Political ends: He argues that the shooting was enabled in order to speed up legislation against guns Predictably, his statements have sparked outrage from people across the country and not just in the still-grieving Connecticut town where much of the last three weeks has been spent picking up the pieces. 'Is there something in the water in Florida that makes for idiocy,' commented Ray Gillies on the story by the local ABC affiliate WPBF. 'How dare you suggest this was a hoax and entertain that this didn't happen,' said a Sun Sentinel reader with the username JimNasium1. 'I'm afraid that you do not seem to be worthy of the teaching credentials that you hold and were any of my kids students of yours, I'd withdraw them from your roster within the hour.You are NOT good at what you do and you suck as a human being.' The moment he heard: Mr Tracy believes that there were government forces at work in the shooting at Sandy Hook, and theoretically then this may not be the moment President Obama was told Instead, he is speaking plenty for himself and other believers by posting repeatedly on his blog, memoryholeblog.com, and appearing on talk radio shows to promote the theory. 'As documents relating to the Sandy Hook shooting continue to be assessed and interpreted by independent researchers, there is a growing awareness that the media coverage of the massacre of 26 children and adults was intended primarily for public consumption to further larger political ends,' he wrote. He argues that Senator Dianne Feinstein was already in the midst of trying to rework the assault weapons ban that she co-sponsored back in the 1990s, and that the shooting gave her leverage to move it through the legislative process quicker. It is unclear if Mr Tracy has any vested interest in the gun control debate or if he himself owns any guns. Calls to Mr Tracy were not immediately returned.
The looniest of all 9/11 conspiracy theories “Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories,” President Bush stated amid increasingly loud accusations that his administration may have allowed the tragic events of 9/11 to occur as a pretext justifying U.S. expansion of armed conflict around the world to allegedly wage war on terrorism. Curiously, most of the “outrageous conspiracy theories” to which he refers incorporate some extremely sound science, logic and witness testimony where the official version is lacking in those critical areas. The following is a rather clever and immensely sarcastic approach to the government's explanation of 9/11 -- which follows a pattern established by the “magic bullet theory” to explain the assassination of JFK and a Ryder truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil to explain the damage at the Murrah federal building in OK City. by Gerard Holmgren Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one ,often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. “The CIA killed Hendrix”; “the Pope had John Lennon murdered”; “Hitler was half Werewolf”; “Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone,” etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it. So its hardly surprising that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is -- sadly -- a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis. One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11 (and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs) is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they “hate our freedoms.” Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the Internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell. Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories. These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the U.S. Air Force, the insider trading on airline stocks (linked to the CIA), the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer four planes simultaneously and fly them around U.S. airspace for nearly two hours, crashing them into important buildings, without the U.S. intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do. The daunting task of analysis The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more preposterous stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus the tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions. It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it and deny that the first ever existed. Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog , they then reinvent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as “the fruit loop” and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (ill)logical conclusions. The fruit loop According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over the four planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns, knives, box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets. The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard core conspiracy theorist. For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes. If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists. But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist. Who's on first? With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID (but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious. However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have gotten on board with all that stuff if they were searched? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage. “Excuse me sir, why do you have a boxcutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?” “A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get.” “Very strange,” thinks the security officer. “That's the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or boxcutter and gas mask. And why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess...” Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So, if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane? But by this time, the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis. They will allege that the hijackers' passports were found at the crash scenes. “So there!” they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just experienced a revelation of questionable sanity. Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated, and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently, “Who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented!” And so the whole loop starts again. “Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?” “You numbskull! They assumed the identities of other passengers!” And so on... Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid story. “Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers?” The answer of course is that its just one of those strange coincidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen... This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The “improbability drive,” in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable coincidences to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens (just about all the time in their world). There is a principle called “Occam's razor” which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor. Hijacking 101 Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with the silly story of the 19 invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes. Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot being able to alert ground control is nearly impossible. The pilot has only to punch in a four digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that Sept 11, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the rather crude method of threatening people with boxcutters and knives, and spraying gas (after they had attached their masks, obviously), but somehow took control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive. So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breathtaking skill and certainty to their fiery end -- all four unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of “our freedoms,” it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will to do this. Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar -- really impeccable Islamic behavior -- and then got up at 5 a.m. the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find. It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skillfully guided them to their doom. If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools, which would be available just about anywhere in the world, its not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to U.S. intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the conspiracy theorist, too trapped in the constant rotation of the mental fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even semi-believable. A Ryder truck with wings? Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there's nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the endlessly replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will realize that the plane was packed with explosives. Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash. Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and manage to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vapourizing the plane? This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point decides that its easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep the delusion rolling along. There weren't any explosives. It wasn't an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load! Remarkable! Sluggishly combustible jet fuel, which is basically kerosene and which burns at a maximum temperature of around 800 C, has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vapourizing 65 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around 15 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about double that of the maximum combustion temperature of kerosene -- let alone the boiling point -- which is what would be required to vapourize a plane. And then there's about 50 tons of aluminium to be accounted for. In excess of 15 pounds of metal was vapourized for each gallon of kerosene. For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed as “mumbo jumbo.” This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of kerosene, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered by them, at that very moment. Blissfully ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vapourized into nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon Hollywood images, where the effects are always larger than life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins. “Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact,” they state with pompous certainty. “Watch any Bruce Willis movie.” “Care to provide any documented examples? If it's a well known fact, then presumably this well known fact springs from some kind of documentation -- other than Bruce Willis movies?” At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner that they have backed themselves into, and plan their escape by means of another stunning backflip. “Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there's no way of telling,” they counter with a sly grin. Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before (and since). None of them vapourized into almost nothing. “But not big planes, with that much fuel,” they shriek in hysterical denial. Or that much metal to vapourize. “Yes but not hijacked planes!” “Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?” “Now you're just being silly.” Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground, or have bombs planted aboard them, and don't vapourize into nothing. What's so special about a tower that's mostly glass? But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. “Its a well documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact.” Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that its a “well known fact” and that “its never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to,” the conspiracy theorist has now convinced themselves (if not too many other people) that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vapourization of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round the fruit loop... The “new math” But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even more creative uses for the newly discovered shockingly destructive qualities of kerosene. They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant vertical collapse of both the WTC towers, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning kerosene. For this, its necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose kerosene, which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball, vapourizing a 65-ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000 degrees C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And, while it was doing all this, it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosene is enough to: 1. completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft; 2. have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel ( melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel ); 3. still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all throughout the building. This kerosene really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those kerosene heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vapourized. And never again will I take kerosene lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp, the next moment -- kapow! Vapourized into nothing along with the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire. These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosene melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire and, therefore, not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics. Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways. Laws be damned Since they've already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and redefined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way? The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free-falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that it's physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But, according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of Sept 11. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind -- as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course. Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why they couldn't complete their assignments. “Muslim terrorists stole my notes, sir” “No miss, the kerosene heater blew up and vapourized everything in the street, except for my passport.” “You see sir, the school bus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms.” Or perhaps they misunderstood the term “creative science” and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science homework. The ferocious heat generated by this ghastly kerosene was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by heat. (Although 2000 C isn't really required, 100 degrees C will generally do the job). This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city. Not all DNA created equal That's right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in NY, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vapourize a 65-ton aircraft. You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. “The plane was vapourized by the fuel tank explosion,” maintain these space loonies, but only one of the people inside it were not identified by DNA testing. So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time. Missiles have wings, too This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of five rings of building, each with a space in between. Each ring of building is about 30 to 35 feet deep, with a similar amount of open space between it and the next ring. The object which penetrated the Pentagon went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat, circular hole about 12 feet in diameter through three rings (six walls). A little later a section of wall about 65 feet wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane, which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact, had a wing span of 125 feet and a length of 155 feet and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly a physical impossibility. But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of jet fuel, the normal properties of common building materials, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, so what the hell -- why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well? I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy theorist, this is “mumbo jumbo.” It conflicts with the delusion that they're hooked on, so it “must be wrong” although trying to get them to explain exactly how it could be wrong is a futile endeavour. Conspiracy theorists fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned. They nervously maintain that the plane was vapourized by it's exploding fuel load and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behavior (That is a wonderful fruit loop). Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that the plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly backflip to explain the 250 feet deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building (even though the building shows no sign of such damage). As for what happened to the wings, here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat. When it suits them, they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly, (ignoring the undamaged lawn) while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from an “irrecoverable angle.” How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in applied stupidity. Epilogue Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks. As the nation gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his perpetual oil war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime. At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was perpetrated on Sept. 11, and the subsequent war crimes committed in “retaliation” are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged. Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia. Its time to stop loony conspiracy theories about Sept 11. Copyright Gerard Holmgren. Jan 2003 debunker@hotmail.com How is it possible that "the events (t)here in Newtown unfolded exactly as are being reported" when the events are being reported 25 different ways? Published on Jan 10, 2013 The following timeline of the December 14 mass killing of 20 children and 8 adults in Newtown Connecticut attempts to demonstrate how the event was presented to the public by corporate news media. The chronological assemblage of coverage is not comprehensive of all reports published on the incident but rather seeks to verify how the storyline was to a substantial degree constructed by federal and state law enforcement authorities and major media around the theory that 20-year-old Adam Lanza was the sole agent in the massacre. http://memoryholeblog.com/
Good video, thanks for the ping.
It looks like questioning this event is now similar to questioning the Holocaust. We know the people responsible for that lie, probably the same people that want to stop people from questioning what really happened at Sandy Hook. God is always good!
that's really good.
“But not big planes, with that much fuel,” they shriek in hysterical denial. Or that much metal to vapourize. “Yes but not hijacked planes!” “Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?” “Now you're just being silly.” It is funny how the conspiracy theorists claim such stupid stuff. An even bigger plane (an El Al 747) crashed into an apartment building in the Bijimermeer section of Amsterdam (in October of 1992). And strangely enough it did not vaporize into nothing! There was wreckage! I guess that one wasn't carrying any Magickal Jet Fuel™. Part 2 of 5 Thanks for the chuckle, since even questioning the weather conditions that day has been similar to Holocaust denial among your reactionary circle in the issue. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Thanks for the chuckle, since even questioning the weather conditions that day has been similar to Holocaust denial among your reactionary circle in the issue. How could you question the weather that day? Do you think weather reports are being manipulated? It is a big town, I bet a few people there had thermometers and remember what its reading was that day. Surely you aren't suggesting that it was really much warmer than it was, are you? For precisely this reason I have serious reservations about your intent here. You are not making much sense at all. God is always good!
No, I never suggested that at all -- which shows that you haven't really paid any attention to that issue except (like your last 2 sentences) to inject baseless denigrations that I posted anything. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Really? So are you suggesting it was colder than it was? Which is it? If neither why do you even question the weather that day? I see many pictures there of cold kids with their arms inside their shirts to stay warm. God is always good!
No. I've posted extensively on that issue and am not going to rehash it here for you. The issue here is that even though you apparently have no idea of what my views and compiled evidence are about it and even though your last sentence indicates that you aren't under the impression either that it was warm that day, as I'm not, still that hasn't deterred your trollish, personal besmirchings regarding my posts on that subject and whatever else. Your animosity stems from my opinions about 9/11 being different than yours. Try to get over it. I'm just one of many who sees that otherwise. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Translation: "I screwed up talking about the weather that day and I would rather just forget about it." Unless you have your posts deleted, the record is there for anyone that wants to see of your attempt to make a big deal about the weather that day. God is always good!
You're the one making a big deal about it, half-wit half-truther. Rhetorical question: How can one deny something that didn't happen? or, How can one deny something that isn't defined? It is defined, "6 million dead Jews." However the evidence is sorely lacking. They want us to trust them. God is always good!
Source? The Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C.. You should check it out if you can keep from saying "SURE!" every 10 seconds! People start looking at you funny after the 10th time or so.
God is always good!
Someone should post a vid of that here, please ;) If you go deep into my own posting history you will find where I recorded the heat of 2011. Several days went over 120. According to my thermometer... but never to the news...or weather wunderground... and their is a station with in a half mile of me... so I have no clue what up with that dude... Different sites give different results but one thing is true... Up north in the evenings and mornings, it is cold enough to get steam breath. Cold enough for coffee to steam,. Car exhaust steam... just saying. _______ Their are only two kinds of americans left in the USA those opposed to the tyranny and those that are wrong. Resist propaganda, Support strict constitutional adherence!
.......... Your words read like silk on my eyes and I am left in awe and admiration of your wit and banter. You're awesome. _______ Their are only two kinds of americans left in the USA those opposed to the tyranny and those that are wrong. Resist propaganda, Support strict constitutional adherence!
Okay, but if someone is taken to court for denying the holocaust, what source do they use as a reference for the 6 million number? Surely it's not the museum. Wow. That was so nice. Thanks for the lift. :)
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Sylvia Stolz - Reply to Holocaust Denial Accusations Jan-2013 - 'Eng Subs' (full) Published on Jan 30, 2013 by IMMORTALTRUTHZ0 German lawyer Sylvia Stolz replies to her critics as rumors swirl that she will be charged (again) with 'Holocaust Denial' for a speech she gave at an anti- censorship conference in November 2012. Sylvia remains unbowed, as ever, firm in her insistence on transparency in the law, justice for Germany and freedom of conscience for all. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Translation: "I screwed up talking about the weather that day and I would rather just forget about it." Wrong. The Official Story Of The Sandy Hook School Shooting Is Riddled With Holes The record is there for anyone who wants to see your derisions about the weather evidence I posted in that thread, for example, and compare those remarks to your seeming oblivion about all that here while evidently being in agreement with me that it wasn't warm that day, yet still posting derogatorily out of habit. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
VIDEO News reporter confronts Tracy on his conspiracy theory
#2. To: christine (#0)
"It is the habit of unhappiness to rewrite our lives and from a different beginning come to a different ending. We cling to the past and what it could have been; what we wanted, or thought we wanted, before we were taught by a broken heart that our own good intentions have little effect on the way things are."
D. W. Buffa, Breach of Trust
#3. To: Itistoolate (#1)
'I can assure you, sadly, that the events here in Newtown unfolded exactly as are being reported, with the horrible outcome of the violent death of 26 innocent people, including 20 children.'
"It is the habit of unhappiness to rewrite our lives and from a different beginning come to a different ending. We cling to the past and what it could have been; what we wanted, or thought we wanted, before we were taught by a broken heart that our own good intentions have little effect on the way things are."
D. W. Buffa, Breach of Trust
#4. To: James Deffenbach (#3)
#5. To: Itistoolate (#4)
"It is the habit of unhappiness to rewrite our lives and from a different beginning come to a different ending. We cling to the past and what it could have been; what we wanted, or thought we wanted, before we were taught by a broken heart that our own good intentions have little effect on the way things are."
D. W. Buffa, Breach of Trust
#6. To: Itistoolate (#1)
(Edited)
'How dare you suggest this was a hoax and entertain that this didn't happen,' said a Sun Sentinel reader with the username JimNasium1.
#7. To: James Deffenbach (#2)
#8. To: christine (#7)
Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before (and since). None of them vapourized into almost nothing.
"It is the habit of unhappiness to rewrite our lives and from a different beginning come to a different ending. We cling to the past and what it could have been; what we wanted, or thought we wanted, before we were taught by a broken heart that our own good intentions have little effect on the way things are."
D. W. Buffa, Breach of Trust
#9. To: RickyJ (#6)
It looks like questioning this event is now similar to questioning the Holocaust. We know the people responsible for that lie, probably the same people that want to stop people from questioning what really happened at Sandy Hook.
#10. To: GreyLmist (#9)
#11. To: RickyJ (#10)
How could you question the weather that day? Do you think weather reports are being manipulated? It is a big town, I bet a few people there had thermometers and remember what its reading was that day. Surely you aren't suggesting that it was really much warmer than it was, are you? For precisely this reason I have serious reservations about your intent here. You are not making much sense at all.
#12. To: GreyLmist (#11)
(Edited)
No, I never suggested that at all.
#13. To: RickyJ (#12)
So are you suggesting it was colder than it was?
Which is it? If neither why do you even question the weather that day? I see many pictures there of cold kids with their arms inside their shirts to stay warm.
#14. To: GreyLmist (#13)
I've posted extensively on that issue and am not going to rehash it here for you.
#15. To: RickyJ, GreyLmist (#14)
the record is there for anyone that wants to see of your attempt to make a big deal about the weather that day
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless." ~ Leo Tolstoy
#16. To: GreyLmist (#9)
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless." ~ Leo Tolstoy
#17. To: wudidiz (#16)
How can one deny something that isn't defined?
#18. To: RickyJ (#17)
It is defined, "6 million dead Jews."
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless." ~ Leo Tolstoy
#19. To: wudidiz (#18)
#20. To: RickyJ (#19)
You should check it out if you can keep from saying "SURE!" every 10 seconds! People start looking at you funny after the 10th time or so.
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless." ~ Leo Tolstoy
#21. To: RickyJ (#10)
How could you question the weather that day? Do you think weather reports are being manipulated? It is a big town, I bet a few people there had thermometers
#22. To: GreyLmist (#13)
I've posted extensively on that issue and am not going to rehash it here for you. The issue here is that even though you apparently have no idea of what my views and compiled evidence are about it and even though your last sentence indicates that you aren't under the impression either that it was warm that day, as I'm not, still that hasn't deterred your trollish, personal besmirchings regarding my posts on that subject and whatever else. Your animosity stems from my opinions about 9/11 being different than yours. Try to get over it. I'm just one of many who sees that otherwise.
#23. To: RickyJ (#17)
It is defined, "6 million dead Jews." However the evidence is sorely lacking. They want us to trust them.
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless." ~ Leo Tolstoy
#24. To: titorite (#22)
#25. To: wudidiz (#16)
#26. To: RickyJ (#14)
Me: I've posted extensively on that issue and am not going to rehash it here for you.
Unless you have your posts deleted, the record is there for anyone that wants to see of your attempt to make a big deal about the weather that day.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
