General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat REALLY happened to the plane that didn't hit the Pentagon on 9/11
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)This hardly idiotic, unapologetic, nonobfuscating, unmisdirected, nonconflated, opposite of hoodwinked Facebook rant obviously proves there was no criminal conspiracy involving our always truthful intelligence agencies and transparent government on 911. There was nothing to gain and no one can ever keep a secret in the world of black ops so that settles it. We all know every subversive mission from confessions of economic hit men to assassinations had always been exposed and laid out for all to see. Thank you for helping me see the light. We love Monsanto and know our government can do no wrong now that Obama fronts it. Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength and we repeat there are no lies...there is no cover-up...just look at those loonies who worry that their guns and religion might be taken away...that proves the official 911 conspiracy story was true. Because there are some crazy people who question consensus reality too far or over the top that means everything is fine. Thanks for clearing that up for us. I feel much better that there is a group of commenters who agree with me and it's that idea of agreement itself that comforts me and helps me understand that there is no need for me to question anything anymore. You have performed a valuable service.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Bennyboy
(10,440 posts)Search em!
GP6971
(31,205 posts)
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)
But it sounds about right.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)...
A HERETIC I AM
(24,377 posts)
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)The Campbell Brothers make a crazy, crazy surfboard. 
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I promise to have a good dozen posts about it afterward.
Thank you in advance.
http://www.wccsg.com/
SUMMER CONFERENCE - 5th & 6th July 2014
The Final Event - The Last Crop Circle Conference
EARLY BIRD WEEKEND TICKETS ON SALE NOW!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
dionysus
(26,467 posts) 
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)It says it's a "gangster name for a pink albino," or "Bush Family Evil Empire."
Makes no sense at all.
Another choice is : Bundesstelle für Energieeffizienz
(http://www.bfee-online.de/bfee/)
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Brother, can you spare a dime? This aluminum foil doesn't grow on trees.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)My favorite part of this useless thread is how people who questioned the spoon fed story of 911 where people refused to testify under oath and half the commissioners called it a cover up must be ignorant backwoods republicans. It was the Left who originally exposed the inconsistencies. If we are so shallow to only do that because that criminal Bush was President and now are petting each other because Obama is in charge then we deserve to lose public support. We are just a bunch of snobby, insecure pretenders desperate to be on the winning team so we can fawn all over our own self-importance and fellow "club" members. I had friends family coworkers who died in the Towers. They are still upset, don't believe the official lie and would spit in the face of some of these commenters...whoever you are. Some people think their attempts at being funny supersede the truth or the feelings of those who truly grieve. Hard to believe you are really a Democrat and if you are then there are little concrete differences between whatever you are and Bush defending rethuglicans. Keep on laughing...fools are fearful of standing alone and always feel better with other fools telling them they are all in agreement. Telling people who don't believe the official lie that they must be republicans or believe in lizard overlords is beyond insulting. Go away.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)Examples include bouncing missiles, controlled demolition, superimposed planes on the news, etc. It's good to question everything, but some theories were discredited or are too absurd to take seriously.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)All one had to do is put some wild, crazy theory out there and then all inconsistencies will be discredited by simple minds. And in my opinion controlled demolitions in conjunction with the planes is not "absurd"...but many belief systems here are. I'm used to be an aerospace engineer and I can tell you for a fact that in 1998 boeing 747s were outfitted with control systems to fly the craft unmanned for crash testing. On cspan there was a conferance of pilots and air traffic controllers where some ofthe planes computer codes revealed that the cockpit doors werent breached after takeoff...make of it what you will but I wouldn't be surprised if those pilots didn't have control of the aircraft. There's no way to know because ALL of the audio communications between the pilots and the control tower were destroyed to "protect the families from the horror".
kwassa
(23,340 posts)
GoneOffShore
(17,340 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)disparage them all. IMO some people's upbringing didnt teach them to question authority. Life is so much simpler if we just go along. I would hope an open-minded person would question when an authority tries to button things up without investigations. I believe more money was spent on investigating Clinton's affairs than on 9/11.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)I don't mean to get heated but some people really piss me off on here. Makes me wonder what they really stand for. Our whole world was "forced" to change on 911. As most attorneys will tell you courtrooms have never been the same and all authority has been handed to prosecutors because of this.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)I hang on your every word.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Someone chummed the waters nicely.
Logical
(22,457 posts)For real humor check out George Carlin or Bill Hicks. That's where I go to keep perspective on failings like this.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Your's didn't have enough stuff in it . . .I fed mine to a plant in the living room.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)and punctuation marks where necessary to make sense...
My eyes have a hard time folowing lengthy paragraphs, so I give up before I'm done. It's a shame because some of these long paragraphs have some worthwhile reading...
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)But my mom was an English teacher so you two would get along. Don't lose the message. There is no single event that has warped our society more than 911. Many peoples comments here make me so sick but it's to be expected. Hell, NYT had a few articles exposing military contractors getting paid to post all over left wing sites to promote their agenda and denigrate any questioning of the war machine, 911, the drug war, private prisons or Saudi and Israeli involvement in war profiteering.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)But it seems we don't get to vote for anything that cuts down on the sale of weapons, usually to both sides fighting.
The word "peace" is an anathema to the MIL and some of our allies . . .
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Great input
Logical
(22,457 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Isn't the Truth the essence of Democracy?
That's why, when it comes to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, I would think DUers in particular, would be interested in learning what's new, particularly in light of all that's been learned since the CIA and FBI lied to government investigators about their relationships with Oswald, as well as in regards to their own negligence in protecting the life of the liberal Democratic president.
For those who want to learn, here's what I brought back from ''Passing the Torch'' at Duquesne:
Octafish to attend JFK assassination conference. Do you think JFK still matters?
JFK Conference: Amazing Day of Information and Connecting with Good People
After JFK Conference, when I got home, I felt like RFK.
JFK Conference: Bill Kelly introduced new evidence - adding Air Force One tape recordings
JFK Conference: Rex Bradford detailed the historic importance of the Church Committee
JFK Conference: Lisa Pease Discussed the Real Harm of Corrupt Soft Power
JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963
JFK Conference: Mark Lane Addressed the Secret Government’s Role in the Assassination
JFK Conference: David Talbot named Allen Dulles as 'the Chairman of the Board of the Assassination'
JFK Conference: Dan Hardway Detailed how CIA Obstructed HSCA Investigation
Noah's Ark - Nov. 22, 1963
JFK Remembered: Dan Rather and James Swanson talk at The Henry Ford
Seven Days in May -- tonight on TCM
Machine Gun Mouth
One important thing I learned on DU since Duquesne that I've never seen any of my critics on DU address is that ever since Dulles hired NAZIs and contracted the Mafia for his secret agenda, there's been corruption within the government of the United States.
When Jim Garrison pointed out its relevancy to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, President Lyndon B Johnson said he agreed that there was a conspiracy and CIA had something to do with it (note last paragraph):
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=57085&relPageId=112
I would think this, too, would be on the front page and leading the newscasts every day until the surviving traitors, warmongers and banksters who've benefited were imprisoned. However, those interested in Justice for JFK are told to "Move on" and it's business as usual; meaning the rich get richer, our rights continue to vanish, and democracy falls victim to wars without end.
In my opinion, the biggest cowards are those who go along with that in silence, hoping they will survive another day as the servants of traitors.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I thought the franchise was the essence of democracy. Weird
Octafish
(55,745 posts)If you want a democracy that continually evolves with time, as the one detailed in the Constitution of the United States, you need Truth.
That is why the Press is the only business named in the entire Constitution. A free people need to know the Truth in order to maintain a republic, a nation built on the rule of law, where every citizen is equal to every other.
In many important democratic respects, the nation has fallen a long way over the past 50 years. A large part of it due to ignorance, as propaganda has largely replaced journalism.
Alex Carey: Corporations and Propaganda
The Attack on Democracy
The 20th century, said Carey, is marked by three historic developments: the growth of democracy via the expansion of the franchise, the growth of corporations, and the growth of propaganda to protect corporations from democracy. Carey wrote that the people of the US have been subjected to an unparalleled, expensive, 3/4 century long propaganda effort designed to expand corporate rights by undermining democracy and destroying the unions. And, in his manuscript, unpublished during his life time, he described that history, going back to World War I and ending with the Reagan era. Carey covers the little known role of the US Chamber of Commerce in the McCarthy witch hunts of post WWII and shows how the continued campaign against "Big Government" plays an important role in bringing Reagan to power.
John Pilger called Carey "a second Orwell", Noam Chomsky dedicated his book, Manufacturing Consent, to him. And even though TUC Radio runs our documentary based on Carey's manuscript at least every two years and draws a huge response each time, Alex Carey is still unknown.
Given today's spotlight on corporations that may change. It is not only the Occupy movement that inspired me to present this program again at this time. By an amazing historic coincidence Bill Moyers and Charlie Cray of Greenpeace have just added the missing chapter to Carey's analysis. Carey's manuscript ends in 1988 when he committed suicide. Moyers and Cray begin with 1971 and bring the corporate propaganda project up to date.
This is a fairly complex production with many voices, historic sound clips, and source material. The program has been used by writers and students of history and propaganda. Alex Carey: Taking the Risk out of Democracy, Corporate Propaganda VS Freedom and Liberty with a foreword by Noam Chomsky was published by the University of Illinois Press in 1995.
SOURCE: http://tucradio.org/new.html
If you find a moment, here's the first part (scroll down at the link for the second part) on Carey.
http://tucradio.org/AlexCarey_ONE.mp3
A guide to understanding what we hear on the television screen and most everywhere else:
The Propaganda System That Has Helped Create a Permanent Overclass Is Over a Century in the Making
Pulling back the curtain on how intent the wealthiest Americans have been on establishing a propaganda tool to subvert democracy.
Wednesday, 17 April 2013 00:00
By Andrew Gavin Marshall, AlterNet | News Analysis
Where there is the possibility of democracy, there is the inevitability of elite insecurity. All through its history, democracy has been under a sustained attack by elite interests, political, economic, and cultural. There is a simple reason for this: democracy – as in true democracy – places power with people. In such circumstances, the few who hold power become threatened. With technological changes in modern history, with literacy and education, mass communication, organization and activism, elites have had to react to the changing nature of society – locally and globally.
From the late 19th century on, the “threats” to elite interests from the possibility of true democracy mobilized institutions, ideologies, and individuals in support of power. What began was a massive social engineering project with one objective: control. Through educational institutions, the social sciences, philanthropic foundations, public relations and advertising agencies, corporations, banks, and states, powerful interests sought to reform and protect their power from the potential of popular democracy.
SNIP...
The development of psychology, psychoanalysis, and other disciplines increasingly portrayed the “public” and the population as irrational beings incapable of making their own decisions. The premise was simple: if the population was driven by dangerous, irrational emotions, they needed to be kept out of power and ruled over by those who were driven by reason and rationality, naturally, those who were already in power.
The Princeton Radio Project, which began in the 1930s with Rockefeller Foundation funding, brought together many psychologists, social scientists, and “experts” armed with an interest in social control, mass communication, and propaganda. The Princeton Radio Project had a profound influence upon the development of a modern "democratic propaganda" in the United States and elsewhere in the industrialized world. It helped in establishing and nurturing the ideas, institutions, and individuals who would come to shape America’s “democratic propaganda” throughout the Cold War, a program fostered between the private corporations which own the media, advertising, marketing, and public relations industries, and the state itself.
CONTINUED...
http://truth-out.org/news/item/15784-the-propaganda-system-that-has-helped-create-a-permanent-overclass-is-over-a-century-in-the-making
Here's an example of what citizens need to know, but they don't view on their Corporate McPravda television screen:
Geithner bailed out Wall Street THIEVES with the US TAXPAYER's money.
The system was pioneered in the Savings & Loan rip-offs of the 1980s and 90s: Crooks working inside the S&L institutions would loot the money, legally, by "lending" it to crooks who applied for loans or offered "investments." When the money couldn't be repaid, the FSLIC would back up the missing funds. It cost a $1 trillion dollars to fix.
Know your BFEE: They Looted Your Nation’s S&Ls for Power and Profit
Fast forward to 2008: Crooks working inside the Banks would loot the money, legally, by "lending" it to crooks who applied for loans or offered "investments." When the money couldn't be repaid, the FDIC would back up the missing funds. It cost a $16 trillion dollars to fix.
Know your BFEE: Goldmine Sacked or The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One
What kept the banks from acting like a drunk in a casino and the crooks from getting all the money sooner? Regulation from the New Deal, the Glass-Steagall Act.
Who protects their get-away? A federal smoke screen.
One guy who tried to do something about it, as he did as a forensic economist prosecuting the S&L crooks in the early 1990s, is William K. Black. For some reason no one mentions on television, Tim Geithner found him a person to be avoided at all costs.
Good luck with the information, AnalystInParadise. Remember: Smart citizens are better than dumb ones.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)There are many reality tunnels and many worlds but some choose to exist where it's safe and the lights are turned on.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Real people usually have better things to say than the 4th grade mentality of people on this thread. Thanks for being real.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Shame on everybody wink-winking in this sick little subthread. We should be better than this. You and your friends should learn how to use the trash thread function instead of ripping others down.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)We incessantly mock creationists, climate change deniers, and birth certificate nonsense, so it's only intellectually honest that we mock unscientific and irrational claims coming from our own ranks as well.
And given certain posters' habits of meeting rational, scientific critiques of their claims as corporate shilling, government propaganda, or being anti-democratic or anti-transparency, it's getting more and more justified.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)progressive message board. As a "champion of science and reason" myself, I am also a champion of treating people with respect. Again, It's shameful as all heck. Yuck. And to defend this juvenile behavior? 
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It forces rational skeptics of nuclear energy and Big Pharma as well as transparency activists to actively disavow the more extreme and irrational parts of the movements. The fear-mongering, poor understanding of science, hosts of logical fallacies, and inability to defend a position without falling back on claims of conspiracy or persecution do absolutely no favors to anyone.
You can't expect to have a rational debate when one side is just committed to ignoring science and logic. And neither can you expect the other side to not take offense when their characters are assassinated.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)defense department.
Oh wait. There isn't a single picture of this plane. Even though everyone that mattered knew it was flying towards DC for at least 1/2 an hour.
And the military jets were 10 minutes flying time away.
Not a single picture. And the Hijacker/Pilot shows off with a 270 degree spiral descent from 7000 feet that ends up perfectly at ground level, instead of flying straight down into the roof. The same pilot that couldn't rent a 2 man Cessna because the instructors said he was incompetent.
There's nothing to raise questions here. Nothing at all.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little…Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world’s most heavily defended building……all without a single shot being fired…. or ruining the nicely mowed lawn… and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video……
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2675073
Sid
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Good catch!
WatermelonRat
(340 posts)That's how it is with conspiracy theorists. It doesn't matter how much evidence is provided, because it's all planted and faked by the all powerful "they".
Like holocaust deniers and creationists, truthers are very good at "raising questions" and insinuations, but when it comes to providing a credible alternative explanation, they're utterly lost.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Now you're calling people holocaust deniers? Really? Who are you. You are the one who should have to present the proof. People like you want us to flee in fear and give up all our rights to the security state. And by the way asking for one of the myriad videos that were quarantined isnt asking for much. You evaded the question well though. Pat yourself on the back.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And the damn truthers label it as government propaganda or allege that "They" got to them, if they even bother to look at it at all.
And again with the damn persecution complex. No one is calling you a holocaust denier, they're pointing out that you use the same degree of fallacious arguments employed by deniers.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)And you are wrong on the facts. Max Cleland a democratic triple amputee war hero senator 911 Commisioner smeared by the Right called the 911 Commision a cover up and a joke. You don't know what you are talking about but probably don't want to either.
WatermelonRat
(340 posts)[img]
[/img]
[img]
[/img]
[img]
[/img]
But I'm sure you'll just say that it's all planted. You can tell from the pixels it's photoshopped. It's just some non-plane debris they're trying to fool you with. These pictures were created in a hollywoodd studio. Anything to avoid acknowledging this as evidence.
There's also the dozens of witnesses who say a plane hit, but they were obviously bought off, weren't they? The air traffic controllers? Why they probably thought up the conspiracy to begin with! There were a pair of light poles 20 feet apart knocked down, but they were planted too!
I've been subjected to this same conspiracy theorist pig slop in a dozen flavors, but they all have the same taste. There's always massive evidence to the contrary of their claims, yet it will uniformly be dismissed while far flimsier material is heralded as the smoking gun. That's because for all their claims of wanting to know "the truth" conspiracy theorists are only interested in conclusions that are convenient to their worldview.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Exactly. Where's the video...the hundreds of cameras whose footage was seized???? We don't get to see any of it? National security ? People will believe Anything it's true...including the official 911 narrative conspiracy theory.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Because you lump all conspiracies together you dismiss real crimes. You probably don't think we were lied into war. I would call you a coincidence theorist. I'm sorry your mind is too lazy to challenge your belief systems or that you would have to rearrange your well established way of perceiving the world but you may not comprehend the evil men are capable of. Three thousand lives mean very little to them.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Yes, I know we were lied into war in Iraq. You know how I know that? Because the evidence shows that.
The evidence does not show controlled demolitions, an air defense stand down, missiles hitting the Pentagon, or magnetic bombs destroying the WTC.
And then more of that "you're just not comfortable in your beliefs" nonsense. I'm fully comfortable with where the evidence has led me WRT 9/11. Other people are apparently not, since all they have to fall back on are a persecution complex, conspiracy allegations, cherry picking stats, and using a poor understanding of the natural sciences to do no more than attempt to poke holes.
Which describes both creationists and truthers to a tee.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)You did not convince me and I stand by what I said. The evidence is there whether it's in your hands or not. Try and remember 500,000 people are in prison on conspiracy charges. It's not a dirty word and you are doing what has been done to us in the past. It took decades to undo what was done to the word liberal.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Being called out for being so obviously wrong on the facts is not the same as a byproduct of Cold War red scare propaganda.
Nice completely irrelevant statistic you threw in there as well. "There are crimes with the word 'conspiracy' in them. Therefore, it's completely logical to assume 9/11 was a conspiracy."
Unbelievable.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)You demonized the word conspiracy. And I hope you utilize all the energy you expend attacking those who call out the whitewash and want a real investigation towards fighting the real criminals in power.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)So, an Afghanistan vet with PTSD who attempted suicide three times, saw half a dozen friends come home from Iraq in coffins, saw his entire generation's future stolen by the capitalists on Wall Street, stood on the frontlines of NoNATO, and routinely criticized Obama for not prosecuting war criminals and banksters has no interest in seeing the criminals in power held accountable...just because he doesn't buy your unscientific paranoid crap.
I guess I'm either with you or against you. I give this whole trolltastic subthread a B+.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)If that's what you are doing then I commend you on it. I disagree with you on 911 as do many others. Believe what you want. I know people who believe in God and others who do not and the same vitriol and BS gets spouted in those debates. And I welcome debate not bullying as this thread started off as a sarcastic, polemic aspersion complete with feigned hyperbole to mislabel anyone who dares question the official 911 narrative that has nothing to do with paranoia and everything to do with name calling and fear of honest debate. People know lies when they see them and we have been lied to about 911 whether you care to believe it or not. It has nothing to do with moon landings, lizards or birth certificates and everything to do with money and power like The Project For A New American Century outlined when Cheney, Pearle, Wolfiwitz etc said they needed a pearl harbor like event to achieve their ends. We were warned, knew ahead of time, had ample prepping after our embassies blown up and our multi-billion spy nd defense establisment were not asleep at the wheel as fools believe...it was allowed to occur and probably facilitated to enrich the war pigs in office. Misdirection, obfuscation, hoodwinking, bamboozlement, conflation and blaming the wrong people cannot win in the end as people turn off their tvs and start to see what's real and whats not. 911 is our Reichstag fire.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Except in this case it's "us" who are denying science and facts soley because some people belief systems are too entrenched and cannot withstand the challenge. I actually see it as intellectual laziness. And Birthers and that other crap are allowed to propagate to the extreme in right wing media so that people in general conflate real crimes with fake ones and can't tell the difference. People's solution here? Dismiss all conspiracies and crimes altogether then. Mission accomplished wouldn't you say?
madokie
(51,076 posts)And that he is going to heaven. If there is a heaven and the teachings of Christ is the way to get there he won't even get a smell let alone a glimpse of what it looks like. I keep telling him we'll reunite in hell, scares the hell out of him too. 
anneboleyn
(5,611 posts)
Initech
(100,102 posts)
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)He only missed Bigfoot and the faked moon landing.
I'll admit the latter would be tough to work in, but well done nonetheless.
HarveyDarkey
(9,077 posts)That helps, but I'm sure there are others...
Marie Marie
(9,999 posts)fake snow Obama dropped onto Georgia.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)hunter
(38,326 posts)Telepathically.
That's why no one has ever captured him.
lastlib
(23,286 posts)from the NSA???!? 
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)lastlib
(23,286 posts)All the rest was to prevent us from learning that Flight 800 was shot down to prevent a leak about the moon landing being fake........
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)and blame it on the BFEE.
Sid
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Funny, I don't see any thing in your journal talking about how awful the BFEE is and how they are responsible for every thing that has ever happened.
Why is that, Sid Dithers?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)As for the banksters and warmongers of the BFEE, yeah. It's been going on since Gen. Smedley Butler brought up Brown Brothers Harriman in 1933.
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10023849451#post35
Why you don't like people to know about that is your business, not mine. I just find it odd for a DUer.
zappaman
(20,606 posts) Octafish
(55,745 posts)Who can forget that? Other than warmongers and banksters.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)For someone with absolutely zero sense of humor, you sure do make me laugh!
At you....not with you.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Octafish
(55,745 posts)And you never have shown where you criticized the BFEE, the warmongers and banksters who've done so much to injure the United States and the planet, even once.
It's odd, you making fun of me for caring about that.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)(CNN) -- If you've ever complained that the trolls junking up online comment sections are a bunch of sadistic psychopaths, you might be onto something.
An online survey by a group of Canadian researchers suggests that Internet trolls are more likely than others to show signs of sadism, psychopathy and "Machiavellianism": a disregard for morality and tendency to manipulate or exploit others.
"It was sadism, however, that had the most robust associations with trolling of any of the personality measures," says an article by psychologists from the University of Manitoba, University of Winnipeg and University of British Columbia. "In fact, the associations between sadism and ... scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists."
Sadism is a tendency to take pleasure in other people's pain or discomfort.
(snip)
Trolls are offensive for the sheer enjoyment of it. Or, in Internet parlance, "for the lulz."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/11/tech/web/online-trolls-sadists/index.html
lpbk2713
(42,766 posts)
Rex
(65,616 posts)
hatrack
(59,592 posts)I don't think so . . .
TheMathieu
(456 posts)This is an obvious deflection to hide the fact that the World Trade Center never really existed and what we saw was a computer-generated disaster scene, directed by Woody Allen using Zeta Reticuli technology.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That is a cookbook I tell ya. Pass the onions.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
Brother Buzz
(36,463 posts) 
anti partisan
(429 posts)Just saying. Why couldn't trutherism be put to rest legitimately?
REP
(21,691 posts)
for the graphic. I didn't know that Brian liked catnip though.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)reusrename
(1,716 posts)
Solly Mack
(90,785 posts)I can sleep at night now.
2naSalit
(86,775 posts)You weren't supposed to TELL anyone!!
iwillalwayswonderwhy
(2,603 posts)
spanone
(135,874 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)No sale.
eggplant
(3,913 posts)All the rest of it makes perfect sense, though.
marble falls
(57,204 posts)
Grassy Knoll
(10,118 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)And establishing that anything but the official story is crazy talk...because if you doubt any official story you believe all the nonsense too.
But that is how it is done...silence any questions with fear of ridicule.
I sense another "truther" witch hunt in DUs future.
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)The official story has more holes in it than Swiss cheese-- starting with bu$h's claim that he witnessed the first WTC attack live on a TV in an elementary school hallway that was "obviously on", when in fact, it occurred while he was on his way to the school-- and the second attack occurred after he had entered a classroom.
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)anyone questioning government narrative should be rounded up or targeted for drone strikes. Spied upon they already are.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)If you actually have evidence to bring to the table, we'd be more than happy to see that.
But since the entire basis of MIHOP and the other 9/11 conspiracies revolves around either simply attempting to poke holes in it (usually coming from a poor understanding of physics and other scientific disciplines) and recycling PRATT (like all the other CTs listed there), all that's justified is mockery.
Frankly, it's warranted for wasting our collective time on nonsense some CT pushers are too dense to accept isn't true.
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)
alittlelark
(18,890 posts).....but I woke up..... Freaky Zeaky the similarities !!! Mine was more detailed w/the vaccines.
But I had that dream 12 years ago....
TygrBright
(20,763 posts)KinMd
(966 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 11, 2014, 11:21 AM - Edit history (1)
This is a method used to smear and discredit anyone who questions the official story of the events that happened on 9/11.
Here are some videos that offer alternative stories of 9/11
and a trailer for a film being released this spring on someone who asked questions
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)or full of shit?
It's one of the two. Maybe both?
Occam's Razor and all.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Are you the Gatekeeper?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)I have a scientific mind. I look at things from a fact and evidence based rationale, and make my conclusions from there.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Do you accept the official story of the events of 9/11 provided by the Bush administration without reservation?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)And save it for some gullible fanatic. Science, evidence, and facts have proven your "alternative theories" wrong.
There is a difference between BELIEF and FACTS. They are easily confused by those who don't understand FACTS.
Belief applies to faith. I have no faith. I have facts.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)One doesn't have to be a "true believer" in the official story to believe there was/is categorically no conspiracy and that all the conspiracy theories are bullshit dreamed up by people with stronger imaginations than understanding of science.
I believe that Islamic terrorists flew planes into the Pentagon, World Trade Center and a field in PA; also that the United States government had no part of it or of an after-the-fact cover-up. Beyond that, I neither believe or particularly care what the story, official or otherwise, is.
Coincidentally, both my first-hand experience and understanding of science reinforce and support that belief while serving to largely obliterate your own.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Do you accept the official story of the events of 9/11 provided by the Bush administration without reservation?
Forgot about conspiracy theories and outlandish explanations you've heard, and simply answer yes or no.
Reasonable people are able to raise questions about the events of 9/11 without having to believe in conspiracies.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I don't ascribe that to malice. I ascribe that to the fog of uncertainty...we will never know in 100% detail what happened. Crash reconstruction is an inexact science.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)The problem is, you're not understanding the English language. The word BELIEF is not to be confused with the word FACT. I ACCEPT the facts, as presented not only by the 9/11 Commission, but as presented by what actually happened on that fateful day. There is no BELIEF. There is just acceptance of fact and evidence.
Belief requires faith. And it seems that you have faith in someone else to come up with a theory, then make the facts fit their narrative, vs examining the facts and coming to a LOGICAL conclusion (which is why I invoked Occam's Razor earlier).
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)According to a new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11:
"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?
Telling the truth 16%
Hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure 3%"
The 16% are probably a waste of energy: if they still believe the official story, then they are unlikely to change their minds based on facts.
http://911blogger.com/node/3720
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)This Wikipedia article says your facts are twisted. And for the record, a LARGE percentage of Americans believe in angels. Doesn't make angels real.
Ron White is right... You can't fix stupid.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Do you accept the official story of the events of 9/11 provided by the Bush administration without reservation?
Forgot about conspiracy theories and outlandish explanations you've heard, and simply answer yes or no.
Reasonable people are able to raise questions about the events of 9/11 without having to believe in conspiracies.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)And now that you've finally dropped your belief bullshit, and bother to look upthread, you will see an answer that plainly spells it out in ENGLISH. I used some big words, so read carefully.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Use this link if you need help.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)I have to assume you're a true believer and a waste of time. Beside the fact that you're now resorting to insults shows you have no argument.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Post #114:
" I ACCEPT the facts, as presented not only by the 9/11 Commission, but as presented by what actually happened on that fateful day. There is no BELIEF. There is just acceptance of fact and evidence."
PLAIN. FUCKING. ENGLISH.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Do you accept the official story of the events of 9/11 provided by the Bush administration without reservation?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Framing it as such is dishonest and creating a loaded question. If the poster answers yes, they're gullible and believe the Bush administration. If they answer no, you assume they're in your camp.
Sorry if the nuanced explanation the poster's given you up to this point is too difficult for you to understand.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)It bothers me too. We can remove that fact for the sake of discussion.
Do you accept the official story of the events of 9/11 without reservation?
Now, can you answer the question? Yes or No?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The answer I'll give you is this:
I don't have good reason to doubt that four aircraft were hijacked by terrorists. Two were flown into the WTC towers, one into the Pentagon, and another was brought down into a field in PA. The impacts on the WTC towers caused their collapse.
If that happens to be in line with the official story, then fine. The facts and the evidence support it.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)I'd just point out here that true believers of the official story are a minority in the US and around the world. Most reasonable people have questions or are simply unsatisfied with the explanations of the events. The effort to smear and discredit any one who questions the official story as a crackpot or believer of the most outlandish conspiracies comes from a fringe group in this country.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The facts and evidence support it. The facts and evidence also suggest there's no such thing as angels and that natural selection is responsible for the current state of biodiversity, but see how those are polling with the American populace.
All you're doing is an appeal to popularity. No actual evidence whatsoever.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)The majority have questions. The majority are not true believers.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Are you going to stop making fallacious arguments at any point, or are you just determined to waste everybody's time?
How many people can say the same thing about evolution?
The facts don't support the conspiracy theories. The facts support the hijackings. That people don't have a decent scientific education to grasp that the crashes alone could bring down the towers and shred a 757 impacting reinforced concrete or that there's a distrust of the government for partisan reasons or lingering from Vietnam, Watergate, and Iran-Contra doesn't change that.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Have you watched 9/11: Press For Truth?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)How did you watch it so quickly?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I'm not going to devote an hour and a half to responding to a conversation I'm quickly growing frustrated with.
From what I can tell from the synopsis, there are things I agree with (the administration's blatant disregard for warnings and the bungled response) and things I don't ("controversy" over how the buildings fell).
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)then there's no need for further discussion. I feel the video raises valid questions without straying into conspiracies.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)It's very interesting. It's entirely factual.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)You got no argument and you got no game.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)With your high and mighty "true believer" bullshit? Or is that how you talk to people when they answer your question and give an answer that doesn't fit your tiny narrative?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)They smear anyone who raises questions as a crackpot and believer of outlandish conspiracies. It just shows that they are insecure in their beliefs and afraid of open, honest discussion.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)If you wanted to argue that 2+3=4, just because someone tells you you're wrong doesn't mean they're "insecure in their beliefs and afraid of open, honest discussion". It means you're wrong.
Remember as I said before, BELIEF vs FACT. There is a difference. I'm not arguing my beliefs with you. I'm arguing facts. Science minded. A good example would be the Bill Nye vs Christian douchebag debate. Facts vs Belief.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 11, 2014, 07:50 PM - Edit history (1)
The majority have questions. The majority are not true believers.
True believers are a minority fringe group who try to suppress open, honest discussion of the events of 9/11.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)What the fuck does the "majority" have to do with whether or not something is true?
Is this some shit like Tinkerbell in Peter Pan?
If a majority chant, "I do believe in troofers!" does it make it so?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If not, what do you have against the fairy-industrial-complex?
Are you a part of the anti-fairy industrialist claque?
*tsk tsk tsk*
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)One is the support of a certain policy. In the case of a democracy, that's how laws are supposed to be written and passed.
The other is a matter of fact and accuracy. There are specific laws of physics and specific events that happen at certain times. There are right answers and wrong answers. Overwhelming support for the wrong answer doesn't make it the right answer.
If someone makes a claim like "the sun did not come up today", that can be checked and verified. No matter how many people are convinced through that first person's arguments, it is wrong, and subsequently, those people are wrong.
Now, if they wanted to pass the "Sun Didn't Come Up Today Act of 2014" and got overwhelming support, there's nothing wrong with that.
Science is not a democracy.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)I find it interesting that you think there has been suppression of discussion of September 11th theories, because that isn't historically true. It might seem that there is little patience for crackpot theories on DU today, but that's because of the extensive, oft repeated discussions of pretty much every available September 11th theory that didn't blatantly violate DU's principles.
These arguments don't come off as raising questions when they're raised for the twentieth time by the same person(s), with little to no recognition of the opposing arguments made the last nineteen times these were raised - instead they look more like crackpot beliefs in outlandish theories. Unfortunately it appears that calling out such repetitious behavior makes one a troll, at least in the eyes of certain posters.
I'd rather we be able to move beyond the trash that has become the lifeblood of the September 11th conspiracy community, but there seems to be little anyone can do to stem the trickle of recycled crap from returning over and over again. Seriously - can't we all agree that ludicrous claims like those of the "no planers" deserve no attention whatsoever?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)I saw a forum of healthy discussion and exchange of information on the events of 9/11 become overrun by fringe elements. The true believers and the "no-planers" grew in number until their arguing drowned out all reasonable discussion. Members of both sides of the issue with extreme beliefs are guilty of trollish behavior.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)...you'd probably have saved yourself some aggro if you did that after about 3 responses.
But this was the perfect reply 
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)And I was on fire. I have a problem walking away from a good argument
Oh, and... I... Love... You.. Too?
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)I usually throw my arms up in the air and walk away. Especially as my dear big brother is a CT devotee and I'm worn out by this, but he just thinks I'm his "crazy liberal sister". Whatever the fuck that means.
I'm glad our romance is off to a good start. 
eta: as a thanks for your Trololo song, I'm leaving you with a song dedicated to people who also think they speak english but don't:
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Boston was a false flag, Aurora was a false flag... Young dude. I'm 34 (33 at the time), he was 20. My bassist (staunch Republican) and I got into so many arguments with him. Just way out on the fringe... Eventually, he flaked out on us 3/4 through recording our album. Glad he's gone. New drummer is so much better, and adds so much to the sound.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Brother and I got into it bad after Sandy Hook. Worst part is he was a police officer...you know, the guys that are supposed to be swayed by....wait for it....evidence.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Sandy Hook was a false flag, too... Crazy CTists.
Thanks for the well wishes on the album. After playing out for 2 years as a 3 piece (guitar/vox, bass, drums), we decided to bring in a vocalist (I grew bored with writing vocals and melodies, and really wanted to concentrate on my guitar work). She's sounding great, so far. We've got 99% of the instruments recorded, just gotta get her solidified on the vocals, and we're done.
youtube.com/madmartigan321 if you want to check us out...
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)There is evidence for and evidence against everything. A lot of times it's tough to make any conclusions without sacrificing something you know is true would have to be false, or having to believe something you just can't wrap your arms around...
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)It's not a "smear" against him at all.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Hi Sid!
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Are you!
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I watch the alien stuff on History 2 and the SCI Channel.
New program starts Tues. Mar 4 on SCI Channel called "Close Encounters."
Anybody else as sick as I am of current news cycle has an alternative. And a lot of the cycle as has much news as the op as far as truth goes.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)You can clearly see the plane in one frame, then the explosion from the crash in the next.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)what it is?
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)And there's one frame of it, but it's definitely a plane.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Top speed of over 600 MPH, heading at a downward crash trajectory would probably be at damn near top speed. But there's this thing called "perspective".
You see, the police car you see early on is probably only a few feet from the camera, while the plane is MUCH further away. This makes it appear smaller. Perspective.
Oh, and you know. The 300 or so eyewitnesses. For this to be ANY sort of conspiracy would require HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of people to be in on it. If a sitting President can't get a BLOW JOB without the whole world knowing it, how in the FUCK could a couple thousand keep this sort of secret.
Protip: There is no conspiracy.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the plane flew over an freeway during rush hour.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)would you please?
hack89
(39,171 posts)it has been a long time since we have had a good Truther thread.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Does not say he saw it!
Ted Anderson....nope!
Benedetto, Richard..." I didn't see the impact..."
Judy Biggert.... nope!
Brian Birdwell....nope! And listed twice so....
John Bowman... nope!
Chris Braman....again no!
Mark Bright...no...
Ervin Brown...no again...
should I go on?
Evey, Walker Lee...listed three times at least but it's only one person!
hack89
(39,171 posts)I notice you are ignoring them - why?
And while we are at it, how about you provide some accounts of people that saw something different? What do you think hit the Pentagon?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)But doesn't matter to me if some people did see a plane hit the pentagon. It doesn't rule out a conspiracy or a false flag op. Please watch the video I posted here near end of the thread and let me know where you find errors.
hack89
(39,171 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts) 
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)please open it with the pic you use to claim there's a plane and outline said plane for us to see. Or circle it? I can't see it and my eye doc says I have good vision. Thank you in advance!
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)The fuselage and tail are clearly visible just prior to impact in the several frames provided.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)September 11--The New Pearl Harbor
You cannot tell what kind of plane it is. I do wish you'd give the video a chance and watch it. Please. Don't have to watch it all at one sitting.
here's a short clip about your little "proof".
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)At 4:14, the video shows cam 2 with a yellow circle and a question mark in the middle. The narrator argues that the video fails to show the entire aircraft despite an unobstructed view.
The entire aircraft is shown. The nose of the plane is just to the right of the question mark. The fuselage runs from that point to the tail, just to the right of the outside of the circle.
I'm not going to watch 5 hours of the same contrived bullshit that is so easily refutable I can answer "unsolved" questions while sitting on my toilet.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)To the taller tail. All easily visible (albeit not particularly crisp) in that still.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)you said a mouth full there! But I guess it could be a plane. Especially if you really want to see one you'll see one. I see something. not sure what.
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)The tail is blue and/or silver. The trees behind it are green. You circled both. Which gives a false appearance of roundness. The tail is straight edged. You can actually see the precise shadow of the tail cutting through the sky and tree line.
I understand your hesitancy in admitting that you are wrong. You have a purported 5 hour long video making all sorts of claims and I came along and debunked the very first one you presented.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)you've debunked nothing. Sorry. If you do, I'll definitely say so.
But do watch the part about the cell phone calls and see if you can try to debunk that part.
Meanwhile, like I said. If you want to see things that aren't there just because you need to see them, that's fine by me. Still though, even if it was a plane, it's unidentifiable. The video doesn't deny that something hit the pentagon.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)So both you and the video are wrong. Not only is the video wrong, it's blatantly obvious that it's wrong. The plane is decipherable from the rest of the image. It isn't just a blur, despite the poor quality image. You can actually make out the shape and livery of the aircraft.
That's not just a small oversight. You can keep arguing that it isn't an oversight at all and that I'm seeing things that I want to see. But you're pretty soundly incorrect. Maybe you should sleep on it. The prospect of having the basis of your argument crushed so readily will probably become easier to swallow with a good night's rest.
Here's some nice bedtime reading:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
I'm not here to have my mind changed on the subject. I've done extensive research over the years and, at this point, my participation in these discussions only happens to prove the general physical principles of the attacks.
Aircraft, distinct aircraft with actual human beings on board, slammed into the WTC and the Pentagon (and a field in Pennsylvania). Many people saw this and many people died. These facts are irrefutable.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)I believe you there. You are one of very few who actually claim to see a plane. That I've run across at least.
I am here hoping someone does change my mind and proves to me that Sept. 11 was not a false flag op! I'm convinced it was.
For the record I believe actual planes hit the towers with actual people. They should not have collapsed however the way they did. Especially #7!
The pentagon has always been unclear. Especially since they won't release the other videos of the event that they confiscated shortly after the event.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)So that people will stop passionately pulling complete and total fantasy directly out of their hindquarters.
"You are one of very few who actually claim to see a plane"
Again, total fantasy. The sheer number of first hand accounts, video and photographic evidence and literal physical evidence (plane parts and dead bodies) demonstrate the truth of the plane impact at the Pentagon. Those who choose not to believe in reality, despite mountains of evidence, do so to support their own delusion.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)some even say there was more than one...We should assume first hand accounts are not always correct.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The evidence is out there and you've just chosen to disregard it.
There's absolutely no point to anyone continuing this argument. You believe it was a false flag, so any evidence that comes up showing your hypothesis wrong will only get denounced by you as propaganda or "They got to them."
There are entirely rational explanations for how the crashes brought down the WTC buildings (including 7), and your piss poor understanding of the natural sciences doesn't invalidate them.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)you're such a brave poster on a message board!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)you started by being insulting so get over it. Pot meet kettle.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The complete rejection of reality and evidence and butchering of the natural sciences combined with a constant persecution complex and allegations of conspiracy deserves nothing less than full mockery.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)it figures!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You keep pushing PRATT and ignoring evidence that doesn't fit with your preconceptions.
Why this crap is still tolerated here I have no idea.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts) NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And doesn't think two airliners slamming into buildings can cause them to collapse.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)ok.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)9/11 was not a false flag operation. It was a terrorist attack that could have been stopped were it not for the utter incompetence of the administration.
There wasn't a controlled demolition in any of the buildings. A plane hit the Pentagon. Military aircraft are forbidden by law to fly supersonic over the states. The WTC owner "pulled" the firefighters from 7 when they weren't making headway fighting the fires. The response was bungled because the administration was fucking incompetent.
Anything else?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)you've convinced yourself nothing was questionable about 9/11. Good for you.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Graham's just a fruity CTer huh?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Knew they were coming and did nothing to stop them, sure. Knew they could use them for their own ends, absolutely.
But there were no controlled demolitions of the towers or a missile shot at the Pentagon.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)US carried out the attacks nor did I say a missile hit the pentagon.
Anything else you want to make up?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts) wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)towers were possibly rigged with explosives and the PNAC ers wanted it to happen.
I really don't know how it all happened but I do know the Bush admin lied to us. I also know a thorough investigation wasn't done.
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)are burnt up and then collapse...ya know where they recreate the experiment and get the same results...
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Here is the report for WTC 7.
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)does not go past what they call the "initiation of collapse"! It does not explain what happened after and why they ignore the law of conservation of momentum. perhaps this link can help you.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)In what way does the NIST report ignore laws of momentum?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I can teach a parrot to repeat certain phrases. That's not what I'm asking you to do. I'm asking you how the NIST report ignores laws related to momentum. You have yet to provide an answer.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Not here to try to teach you anything. If you don't realize how the laws of physics apply to the towers & building 7 please don't waste my time and yours.
When a moving object collides with a stationary object the momentum is transferred. Therefore the moving object looses momentum and is slowed down. In the towers there was no slowing down. It was as if all the support structure in the towers below the impacted(damaged) sections wasn't even there.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)With a more complex and more correct explanation.
When two bodies collide, there is a transfer of energy and the kinetic energy inherent in motion is transformed into other forms of energy. Among many things, such as heat, this produces negative acceleration; an object or, objects moving, will slow down. How much each object slows down is relative to its mass and the mass of the object being impacted as well as the velocity of both objects.
When a massive object traveling at high speed impacts an object of standardized size, it will be subject to a lesser force of negative acceleration when compared to a less massive object at a slower speed. Although, this is subject to the compressive characteristics of each object. A massive object that is highly compressible can more easily shed momentum by deforming.
Now, when immensely massive objects, the size of a sky scraper, for instance, have high velocity they will be subject to a lesser force of negative acceleration than a car or a boulder. This is functionally called momentum and is the product of mass and velocity.
Now, the collapse of the towers produced an important effect. The mass of the tower collapsing gained momentum not only by acceleration but also by the added weight of each floor as it pancaked (accelerating the acceleration). The cascading failure exerted the force of the collapsed upper floors on each floor below, buckling it and then that buckled floor is added to the mass of collapsing building that then acts upon the next floor that also buckles.
Such a failure is called a cascade.
The initial collapse of the upper floors of the towers would not have been enough to bring down the lower floors if they were totally rigid (incapable of compressing and buckling). But a building is not an incompressible object. It is a massive series of supporting structures. Each one is independently capable of failure that can initiate the failure of the next supporting structure in the series.
So you ask, or at least imply, how is it possible that the collapse of the upper floors was sufficient to bring down the entire building. Well, I've provided you with the answer. How is it possible that the collapsing portion of the building could build such momentum? I've also given you the answer.
At a certain point, having dozens of stories of collapsing building impacting a single floor is like stepping on an eggshell. The shell, while relatively strong in certain contexts, is not even remotely capable of supporting the weight of my body. Even if attempts are made to reinforce the metal beams to protect against a cascade failure of the upper floors, there are physical limitations that have to be taken into consideration.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)you remind me of someone's long ago sledge hammer meets Steuben glass bullshit!
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)For instance, your argument. Maybe now you better understand the concept.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)examples of this so called "cascade failure" actually happening in other historical accounts?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Most large scale power outages are the product of cascade failures.
Most industrial accidents that involve any level of complexity are the product of cascading. Building and bridge collapses are often the product of a single initial failure that causes the entire system to fail.
Along similar lines, there's a very prominent discussion revolving around what is called "normal accidents." Which is the tendency for complex systems to suffer total failure from unforeseen sources producing cascade effects precisely because complex systems have an immensely large number of possible combinations of minute failures that can result in systemic failure.
Some argue that, with normal accidents, we can exceed the limit of system reliability because of limitations in human intelligence. We produce systems that are too complex for us to fully understand. Thus, we cannot know some modes of systemic failure until we observe them. Normal accidents give the perception of an easily foreseen series of failures because they seem obvious in hindsight.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)I'm just going to leave that bullshit out there for all to see.
Have a good night.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)And the best you can muster is to call it bullshit. What complete and total let down.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)that does seem surprising if you don't know about conservation of momentum.
http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/momentum-and-impulse/revise-it/principle-of-the-conservation-of-momentum-0
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)seems simple that since people do not agree on the nist simulation....all they have to do is recreate everything (in miniature) and show us how they get the same result they are stating
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Is this some sort of luddite argument?
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)others do not agree
if this new steel structure collapsing because of fire thing is gonna be accepted then all the govt has to do is reproduce the original experiment
isn't that how science works....first you have a idea, then you do experiments that either support or disprove that idea....other scientists reproduce and get same result and then we have settled fact
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)They can recreate the original simulation as many times as they please. Although one has to wonder what advantage exists to producing the exact same simulation over and over again with the same result.
If such a thing helps you sleep at night, maybe you don't fully understand what it means to produce a computer simulation.
They use physics engines and then apply the relevant data to render a proper simulation.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)don't you?
reddread
(6,896 posts)one thing is for sure.
not one of you hyenas lost someone.
gerogie2
(450 posts)They are not in touch with reality and if a person challenges them they will strike out.
WatermelonRat
(340 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
Berlum
(7,044 posts)
Paladin
(28,272 posts)Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)
Recursion This message was self-deleted by its author.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)could not have happened like they said!
zappaman
(20,606 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)sakabatou
(42,174 posts)
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)I was getting worried. Glad you're OK.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Have you?
hack89
(39,171 posts)of course all the Truthers say it was faked.
hack89
(39,171 posts)It flew over a crowded highway during rush hour.
This is the part where Truthers get stupid. Hundreds saw a plane. No one saw a missile, global hawk, hologram, etc etc etc.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Including its wheels, various pieces from inside the cabin, identifying equipment and hardened shafts from the jet engines.
Even if no video evidence existed showing the aircraft impacting the building, and there is video, that investigators found pieces, small and large, from a commercial airliner inside the crash site is definitive evidence that it did occur.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)Any explanation that refuses to acknowledge what really happened at Benghazi is just a clumsy attempt at a cover up, and the American people aren't buying it. This all began with Whitewater and the only reason why it's taken this long for the public to see any of the Diary written by Hilary's friend is because it took this long for the techniques used by Dawn Zimmer to seamlessly inject false entries after the fact into a daily journal to be developed. If we ever get to see the ACTUAL Diary entries describing what Hillary Clinton was up to in Arkansas and in the White House, all will be revealed; including the real Davinci Code and the role the Clintons played in past lives with the Knights of Templar when the Holy Grail was secretly smuggled into Benghazi where it remains today.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)The truth in this case is a lot scarier than sci fi.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)
joeybee12
(56,177 posts) 
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Even able to turn on cell phones and use them to spy on those within ear-shot, camera-shot.
Oh, wait, that isn't CT anymore, is it?
sagat
(241 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)It was the North Pole not Antarctica.
Sheesh. Everyone knows that
Ohio Joe
(21,761 posts)Believing in pure stupidity with a willful disregard of reality. It probably should no longer surprise me that anyone could be that foolish yet... It still does.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)maybe you will feel differently! It is long but well worth the time.
Boomerproud
(7,964 posts)n/t
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)wow. you just mean you can't I must assume. but ok then.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)and maybe some David Icke.
C'mon, truthers, you're letting us down!
Sid
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)... and Robert Anton Wilson have never died.
Come to think of it, they were probably involved in this, too. How did Mr Power miss that?
-- Mal
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts) mike_c
(36,281 posts) 
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)Either that or the Bumble Plane theory.
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)She says Judy Wood is wrong.
Tall buildings can burn for a week and not fall down.
And the WTC 7 fell down, having not been hit by an aircraft, and the Beeb announced it before it happened.
Tracy's theory: Magnetic bomb??
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Magnetic bomb? Pulled straight out of someone's rectum.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)You don't know if the military has magnetic bombs that can pull ferrous metals apart. They do not tell civilians what they know.
Stuff to think about.
http://anonymousphysicist.com/combating-the-fetzer-prager-jones-op-plan-of-denying-the-massive-evidence-of-emp-during-wtc-destruction/
Tracy is willing to debate thermite.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Let alone that a deeply secret magnetic weapon brought down multiple sky scrapers.
This is the strange world within which conspiracy theory exists. It is analogous to the god of the gaps fallacy.
"You don't know for certain. Therefore my speculation is valid."
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)The greatest physicists of the time were working on the atomic bomb during the 1940s. But the rest of America didn't know about it.
My dad was in the Air Force and was told he could not fly over the Hanford facility on the Columbia River in Washington State. He would get shot down. Obviously this was a matter of the highest national security.
After we dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan, he thought, "So that's what they were working on!" And he was right.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Which was only a few years after conception.
What you are arguing is that nearly a decade and a half later, we still don't know anything about such a weapon existing (there was never any public demonstration of such a weapon existing. No information leaked). Despite the supposed claim that such a weapon brought down the two tallest sky scrapers in the Western hemisphere. Which is a claim only very weakly supported by any physical evidence and totally unsupported by everything else.
That's a laughable argument. You realize that, right?
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)That looks like a big flat black wing and is invisible to radar?
The government denied they existed, people had seen them flying out in the desert, and you could buy a plastic scale model of them in the toy store.
All while the government denied they existed.
Why do you say "weakly supported"???
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)...versus a weapon that apparently destroyed two massive skyscrapers that many people in one of the most populous cities in the world saw get hit by two airliners.
And it's the B-2, by the way.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)The B-2 being a government weapon carrying airplane that they denied existed. Even when you could buy a model of it at a toy store.
I wasn't talking about the planes that hit the WTC.
I was talking about technology the government has and does not tell the public about. Simple concept.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)What The conspiracy theory, the archetype, demands is a belief in supernatural authority. Nothing is left open to chance. Nothing is an accident.
A cascade failure is no longer a process of physical constructs but the product of intelligent will. Thus, the conspiracy theorists will ignore the unromantic real story behind the collapse of WTC 7. The true story is the collapse was incremental and slow. The "final act," the final failure of the external structure, gave the appearance that the building was at one point in time structurally sound and, just a few moments later, completely destroyed.
The romantic, uninformed perspective is to ignore the conclusions made by the NIST because it doesn't conform to the demands of The conspiracy.
To establish the "improbability" of the official series of events, conspiracy theorists construct even more elaborate alternatives. All the while ignoring the irony.
By the way, you've still missed the point. You've failed to realize that, despite the best efforts of the government, the B-1 bomber was popularly known long before it was officially declared to exist. That's because, in the real world, conspiracy often fails.
To say that a magnetic bomb exists because of bent metal at the WTC site is to say that the B-1 bomber exists because you saw con trails. Which is a very different story altogether. If the only evidence for the existence of the B-1 was con trails and theory, I'd be just as skeptical. But that isn't all that exists.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Why are so many people in this thread saying, "DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS! DO AS YOU ARE TOLD, CITIZEN! ASKING QUESTIONS IS BAD!" ?
I feel like we're living in the novel 1984. Winston Smith: "He loved Big Brother." His will has been crushed and he is a robot.
Why do we have so many authoritarians here? We should ask questions of our government and demand answers. The answers to what happened on 9-11 are not clear.
Politicians always tell us to "turn away" because they don't want us to know what they did and investigate it properly. Nixon said "Turn away from Watergate" because he didn't want his criminal deeds to be investigated.
What is the difference between a bunch of rich and powerful people working together to make money and get power and a conspiracy?
I don't know.
Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster
https://www.facebook.com/notes/tracy-lowtemp-blevins/this-might-be-it-folks-the-casimir-effect-is-now-recognized-as-a-usable-force/10152200579639419
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I despise the idea of accepting a reality not properly understood. I see the NIST reports as the culmination of in depth analysis by skilled experts. I trust the conclusions made not because it is the state sponsored but because it is a thorough scientific analysis of what actually happened.
Beyond the NIST reports, there is an abundance of corroborative evidence for the physical happenings of the disasters.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)I see it as fraud as do many others!
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)The simulated collapse is showing the interior failure first, per what happened, and then the final collapse of the exterior.
The failure of one beam created a cascade failure that brought down already heat weakened beams on multiple floors, per the report. In other words, the structural integrity of the interior structure was already on the edge of failure and beam 79 was the straw that broke the camels back.
There's also the matter of a distinct lack of blast noise coming from the explosives supposedly used. 130 dB as far away as half a mile. That is not something that could be mistaken for background noise.
But this isn't the explanation you want. Because it doesn't support the claim that the building was blown up.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)But this isn't the reply you want. Because it doesn't support the claim that the building was not blown up.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Granted, neither your evidence nor the refutation I found is particularly strong. I don't consider many anonymous internet sources to be particularly reliable.
http://911myths.com/index.php/A_WTC7_explosion_video
The explosions heard occurred sometime between the collapse of the first and second towers. Hours before WTC 7 collapsed. There's no reason to believe the sound had anything to do with WTC 7.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Try again. This person's job is to prove this thing exists; it's not up to me to prove it doesn't exist.
MFM008
(19,818 posts)I would like to hug them.
oh and we have been all other over this on Ancient Aliens....
reddread
(6,896 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)commission had for their investigation.
But for idiots who can't connect two dots with a paint roller, I guess that seems normal.
Evidently they ran out of ink before they were able to report on Building 7. What a coincidence, because that building is the slam dunk undoing of the entire story.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Which has been written about in detail for years.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)which used the wrong figures and won't release the data they used for their computer model?
Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/
By the way, do you know what temperature a self cleaning oven reaches, and what temperature the steel in WTC7 is supposed to have reached?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)The towers did not collapse at the same speed as free fall. That argument was debunked years ago.
Read the report and get back to me. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Nist finally did admit # 7 fell for 2 seconds at free fall...
&list=PLtB5FUaW8Oo6l1Vj30rIhsbrf-gGFTKeY
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Just after the final collapse of the outside structure (after all structural integrity was lost) and just prior to the materials beginning to compress after collapse.
The collapse time of the building was not at equal rate to free fall. Those who argue otherwise have absolutely zero idea what they're talking about.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)I posted.
"Just after the final collapse of the outside structure ..."
Look at the graph. The movement was graphed starting from the first observable movement of the roof line. The onset of free fall was at the beginning.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Page 45 of the 2008 NIST report:
I trust the NIST report more than a bunch of anonymous conspiracy theorists. If you don't, you have your priorities backwards.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)The fact that the building owner is on video admitting that he discussed "pulling" the building with the fire department means nothing to you, whereas it is highly significant to me.
It explains why they didn't write about the building in the 9/11 report. It explains why a building which suffered damage from a different root cause than the other two buildings fell in an identical manner. It explains why a building with an entirely different architecture than the other two buildings still fell in an identical manner. And it explains why news reporters were reporting that the building had collapsed 20 minutes before it actually collapsed.
But you interpret the information in whatever way makes you feel better.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)There is no excuse for not reading the NIST report. If you want to play conspiracy theorist, you need to know what it is you're arguing against.
Does it surprise me you haven't read the report? Not in the slightest. Most CTers don't bother to research claims counter to their own preconceived narrative.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)incorrect measurements
http://www.metabunk.org/threads/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/
AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ae911-letter-to-inspector-general-claims-nist-wtc7-report-is-provably-false.2888/
Letter (PDF) http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf
You didn't answer this: What temperature does a self cleaning oven reach and what temperature did the steel in WTC7 reach?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)The reported temperatures reached were about 400 degrees celsius, per the report.
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
You want more information? Read the report. How many times do I have to tell you guys to read the report? If you want to prove something false, you first have to know what it is you're attempting to refute.
As far as a self cleaning oven, you would have to provide a map for the thermal expansion of materials in the oven over time. Then you would have to provide the length of time for thermal expansion and compare that to the length of time for thermal expansion in WTC 7. Only then would you be able to argue any relevancy between a self cleaning oven and the metal girders in WTC 7.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Maybe this will help...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)At least not often demonstrated by someone who claims to be refuting the claims of a small army of skilled engineers.
For instance,What is the composition of the chicken wire?
What is the scale compressive strength of the chicken wire?
What is the scale tensile strength of the chicken wire?
What is the scale shear strength of the chicken wire
At what temperature are these strengths halved?
Can you provide a mathematical function that allows us to calculate these strengths at various temperatures?
What was the scale weight of the block?
What is the scale weight of the chicken wire?
What was the scale weight being placed on each point of the chicken wire structure?
At what weight would the chicken wire failure?
How would certain specific temperatures alter the supportive capacity of the chicken wire?
How exactly did the damage to the chicken wire compromise the integrity of the structure?
What is the scale distance between each metal support structure?
Is the pattern of the chicken wire structure comparable to the pattern of the steel structure of WTC 7?
How does a scaled model react differently to unscaled temperature inputs? What about scaled temperature inputs?
Once all of these questions are answered, can the effects of the fire and damage on the chicken wire be scaled up to full size?
These are fundamental questions that must be answered. My guess is you have a precise answer for none of them. Again, not at all surprising.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)Why so testy? Can't you just debate the facts and theories without the snark?
Thanks.
Self-cleaning pyrolytic ground coat [1]
Non-self-cleaning ground coat
Catalytic continuous clean enamels
The first reduces foodstuffs to ash with
exposure to temperature around 500 °C (932 °F)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-cleaning_oven
NIST Says WTC7 steel didn't heat up as high as a self cleaning oven.
Better call for warnings on Self Cleaning Ovens, yeah?
Because the sides might melt next time it cycles into self clean mode.
And, one final time, the NIST report is flawed. Might not want to rely on it till it gets sorted out.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)To argue that because a self cleaning oven reaches a higher temperature that it demonstrates metal support beams cannot fatigue when subject to extended periods of heating by fire.
The two circumstances are so different that what I really want to know is how they are in any way related. First off, the materials used in an oven are different from the materials used in construction of a building. One is designed to operate normally after many exposures to high temperatures and extreme temperature differentials. The walls of ovens are specially coated for that purpose.
There is also a difference in how the fire resistant materials are exposed to heat and how uniform the heating is in a fire fed by office supplies as opposed to electrical coils or uniform flame spread by gas burners.
But, most importantly, there is a massive difference between how steel beams (especially in long-span designs) are integral to supporting immense weight in buildings (and thus are subject to cascading failures) and the lack of necessary support in an oven (there is a larger support structure outside the heated area of an oven).
To say it's an uninformed, stupid comparison is to be nicer than the claim actually deserves. It's an embarrassment to reason.
johnnyreb
(915 posts)In a significant reversal, a federal appeals panel Thursday restored Saudi Arabia as a defendant in a lawsuit alleging that the desert kingdom financed and provided logistical support to members of al-Qaeda in the years before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, facilitating the terrorist group's emergence as a global threat.
http://articles.philly.com/2013-12-21/news/45419848_1_saudi-high-commission-saudi-arabia-stephen-cozen
6,600 9/11 Families: "Until we get everyone who financed and supported 9/11, including the Saudis, we are not going to stop."
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/on-behalf-of-the-911-families-united-to-bankrupt-terrorism-170555486.html
The 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism civil action, Thomas Burnett Sr., et. al. vs. Al Baraka Banking and Investment, et. al, was filed on August 15, 2002, on behalf of 500 pioneer survivors and victims' family members after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The plaintiffs grew to much larger numbers, and today the legal action includes more than 6,500 survivors and family members. The litigation focuses on individuals, banks, corporations and Islamic charities historically implicated in the sponsoring al Qaeda's terrorist activities.
http://www.motleyrice.com/anti-terrorism-and-human-rights/9-11-families-united-to-bankrupt-terrorism
December 16, 2013
Former Democratic Senator and co-chair of Congress' 9/11 Joint Inquiry Bob Graham at 18:35 into video: "Is the US now such a servile nation...that we must capitulate.. that we can't react in a way that a person of honor would do?"
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/senator-bob-graham-on-bush-saudi-911-coverup/52a88eaa78c90a42b700023e
Bob Graham speaking out about 9/11 again.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024186203
Debunker-wannabes: establish your credibility for once by promoting the investigations above at every opportunity, and the efforts to release the Bush-redacted 28 pages of the 9/11 Joint Commission report.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)they don't get paid for that.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)If Nader hadnt run, Jeb would have let his brother lose.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)GW and Jeb did call me a conspiracy theorist on Larry King the night before the 92 Republican Convention.
Of course they were probably pretty high on coke.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)They should have been fired for missing the intell. that was given to them at the time. They chose to do nothing.
Agree.
