9/11 And the Chain of Conspiracy.

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: biffcartright

Another part that keeps the "Truther" movement going, denying any facts or knowledge that directly debunks their preconceived notions.

I too was once a "truther". I watched Loose Change, and that awful awful Sept. Clues, and other conspiracy sites and I fell for a lot of it. Until I started noticing a lot of bogus deceptions, out of context quotes, cherry-picking of accounts, outright lies, and deliberate manipulation of facts, videos and pictures by the so called "Truth" movement. Once I started to look into them, the whole thing fell apart and I could not take anything from the "Truth" movement seriously. Then I found the debunking sites that pretty much confirmed what I suspected and discovered, and well, here we are.

I started reading the facts and the reports and eyewitness accounts, and I was shocked at how much I had been LIED to by the "Truth" Movement.

By the way, are you ever going to read NIST's final report on WTC7? Or are you going to continue posting questions that have been answered for you earlier? This too turned me off from the "Truth" Movement, when cold hard facts are presented to the "Truthers" it gets ignored and tossed aside. No matter how factual and compelling, it gets kicked aside. Then the lack of reading comprehension skills and lack of critical thinking really took me for a spin and turned off even MORE from the "Truth" Movement. I mean, I was seeing some serious stupid things being said about quotes and comments that I could not fathom how they came to such erroneous conclusions.

intuition verses preconceived notion

One day, you will have intuition too.

Intuition includes the processing of information that we’ve obtained by observing people. When someone says they have a “bad” feeling about someone or they feel “uneasy” or the salesman was “slimy” they are using their intuition. Sometimes though, our intuition becomes clouded by preconceived notions and new information is tainted or distorted.

a reply to: loveguy

actually, my intuition came first that things didnt add up as soon as I started to look into their claims. The truth movement lied to me. horrendously.

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: loveguy

actually, my intuition came first that things didnt add up as soon as I started to look into their claims. The truth movement lied to me. horrendously.

our intuition becomes clouded by preconceived notions and new information is tainted or distorted.

Why would a standing president tell the people who put him in office;

"You're either with us, or against us?" Who is this US he refers to?

I certainly do not advocate any patriot act, ndaa or any such policy following an attack against americans, do you?

originally posted by: loveguy

Intuition includes the processing of information that we’ve obtained by observing people. When someone says they have a “bad” feeling about someone or they feel “uneasy” or the salesman was “slimy” they are using their intuition. Sometimes though, our intuition becomes clouded by preconceived notions and new information is tainted or distorted.

Slimy salesman is my intuitive response whenever i see a video of Richard Gage. I have good intuition.

a reply to: loveguy

"You're either with us, or against us?" Who is this US he refers to?

The United States of America.
Our way of life.
Was it really that hard to figure out?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

If you add up all the "coincidental" evidence, you can see something seriously wrong there.

Can you make up your own chain of debunking so we can see where you stand?

a reply to: loveguy

Well to put it bluntly, I was suckered in, until I did my own research. Once I saw how badly they lied, it was all over for the "Truth" Movement for me

a reply to: GenRadek

Well to put it bluntly, I was suckered in, until I did my own research. Once I saw how badly they lied, it was all over for the "Truth" Movement for me

what LIE?

you support the WTC steel failed from THESE fires to allowe collapse x3......why can't YOU proivide the supporting evidence ofd that.

ONE entity was charged by Congress to investigate in THIS Country......and in 2005, the NIST found NO scientific reason for collapse x3....

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"

"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm

which is the reason YOU nor any other debunker can point to ANY scientific FINDINGS within that 10,000+ page report......but I can.

tell me bout the NEW physics that is OFFICIALLY claimed by the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew they REFUSE to prove through science.....their OWN technical briefing for the STRUCTURAL COMMUNITY and their first-telling of this NEW phenomenon that allows global unified CONTINUOUS acceleration equal to g.....TWO months before the final NIST WTC7 report....

why do they evoke a gag order from proving their BULL# claims?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: loveguy

"You're either with us, or against us?" Who is this US he refers to?

The United States of America.
Our way of life.
Was it really that hard to figure out?

You must be referring to; check the date... www.youtube.com...

As a tax-paying American, I am against waging wars over who controls the world's resources. Ten years to the day of anniversary? Like that is so inconsequential?

tell me bout the NEW physics that is OFFICIALLY claimed

It seems you can't get past that.
Go to any engineering college and ask any professor.
You won't find any answers on a conspiracy website.

a reply to: samkent

It seems you can't get past that.

actually...

it seems you can't......

Go to any engineering college and ask any professor.

and ask them ...what?

You won't find any answers on a conspiracy website.

I'm not looking for answers.....we kind a already know the answers....don't we.

I am asking certain people here why they post what they do, ignoring these facts anyone/everyone can see.

but you do have a point, maybe I should lighten up a bit huh....but that's hard when your trained to look at situations to deduce the best possible way to attack and fix a problem...that is why I am good at my job.
eliminating all non essentials, to fixate on a particular.....

strong paid shill presence

originally posted by: SkuzzleButt
strong paid shill presence

really that's all you've got?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Psychologists Explain 911 Denial

The day it all happened, even Matt Laurer openly questioned why the towers collapsed into their own footprint. Is he a "Truther" too? Watch the coverage. They show it every year. Live Reports of explosions before the planes hit. Words like Demolished (literally), Pulverized (literally), bombs (literally) were used.

The first link in the chain? Try, The towers should not have collapsed. Period.

I don't need a second link to pad my knowledge about the first link.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I believe in 911 conspiracy, but the physical damage and intense fires at WTC 1&2 were more than sufficient to fail those structures.