Truther Thread

a reply to: Informer1958

Study shows conspiracy theorists are smarter

Let's take a look at reality.

Disinformation Killed 9/11 “Truth”

By 2009, the 9/11 “Truth” Movement was so inundated with disinformation that it had become a laughingstock.

The easily-discredited claims (lies) contaminated the greater issue and soiled dissenters across the board. “Turd blossom” was a Karl Rove phrase that could describe what the movement had devolved into.

The media, whether corporate or foundation-funded, could find people ranting about “the Jews” or the Illuminati, the Lizard People, the missiles, holograms, mini-nukes or space beam weapons vaporizing the Twin Towers.

www.911truth.org...

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: wildb

He is just looking to discredit me, let him try, I was at ground zero, I saw things with my own eyes and have studied the events of 911 every since.. most people who think they know what happened know very little. Including truthers..

The planes and the three buildings is about 2% of the story..

Thank you.

I had no idea that you were there. This is good for us wanting to know the truth. I am aware there was a lot of damage control going on at the same time 911 was unfolding and most of us who have done plenty of research into 911 know there was a criminal cover up.

It is refreshing to speak to someone on ATS who has some first hand knowledge on this topic.

Your welcome...

So you were there when they came down etc? Or after? That must be something that's etched into your memory every day is it not?

I arrived the next day, but yes..

Must have been pretty horrific. I've been places and seen places (mostly because of that day ironically) but never anything like that. I hope you haven't had any of the health problems etc that effected a lot of people. That right there is a crime in itself if you ask me. Did you notice or see anything while you were there that made you think 'hold on a second..' It would be interesting to hear more from people who were there and aren't just speculating.

a reply to: sg1642

Not yet, but I can tell you , you could feel these particles hitting your face, like grains of sand. I was also amazed to see these giant steel beams jammed into the other buildings like they were javelins, some over 600 feet away.


It was a huge wasteland , crap everywhere and wide spread...

a reply to: whatsup86

Show the spikes where demolitions were detected. Now, for the rest of the story. Time for another update.

9/11 Seismic Recordings

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries.

Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears.

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse. In his words:

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

www.jnani.org...

So once again, no case for demolition explosions in the seismic data.

.

a reply to: skyeagle409

www.911truth.org...

Who believes this crap, where is the corpse?

Exaggerating much?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Informer1958

Disinformation Killed 9/11 “Truth”

You do know what disinformation is, eh?

dis·in·for·ma·tion
false information that is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media.

So...essentially it's the OS. Which you have fallen for hook, line, and sinker.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: skyeagle409

www.911truth.org...

Who believes this crap, where is the corpse?

Exaggerating much?

Some people just spew out the same old propaganda, they can't think for themselves , one guy keeps posting the same 15 pieces of BS over and over, it is so very sad...

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: whatsup86

Show the spikes where demolitions were detected. Now, for the rest of the story. Time for another update.

9/11 Seismic Recordings

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries.

Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears.

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse. In his words:

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

www.jnani.org...

So once again, no case for demolition explosions in the seismic data.

.

Once again? Except:

originally posted by: whatsup86
And dont come with your Blanchard bs please. He has been discredited on this very forum by Labtop. Or if you are going to: please give his seismic charts then? Instead of his words. Oh no you cant because they are lost!! How convenient. So its his words vs a peer reviewed paper. And his words vs actual seismograms recorded by the Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Hmmm wonder who is the liar here.... A guy who says their seismograms didnt show anything but cant prove it because how convenient! his company lost them! OR a geologist and seismology expert with a peer reviewed paper who uses legit seismograms that are publicly available.... Pick your guy.

So where are the charts? Because im just seeing his words here. His words vs a peer reviewed paper by a seismology expert. I dont know what youre not getting about this, but why do I need to quote myself from a page earlier? So again no case for you. Just garbage. 3-0 here and were back at the start.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

To put it simply, there is no evidence that supports your claim.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

It's not my "opinion;" it is an excerpt from a paper on the psychology of those who like conspiracy theories. Don't be so defensive. It is not demonization, as you put it.

I disagree.


Study shows conspiracy theorists are smarter

Are conspiracy theorists really the sane ones?
University study shows they are more well-grounded than others

author-image Gina Loudon
Gina Loudon, Ph.D., is host of "The Dr. Gina Show" and a national speaker, analyst and author. She has appeared or been cited by the BBC, ABC, Vanity Fair, Al Jazeera, Huffington Post, CNN, New York Times, Time magazine, Fox News, Fox Business, The Hill, "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart and many others. Loudon is credited as one of the "100 founding members" of the tea-party movement, founder of Arizona BUYcott and originator of the field of policology – the nexus of politics and psychology. She is the co-author of "Ladies and Gentlemen: Why the Survival of Our Republic Depends on the Revival of Honor." Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.
rss feed Subscribe to feed


It really was the CIA, John Edwards and Richard Nixon who were involved!

It turns out the conspiracy theorists are right sometimes and maybe more often than thought.

For example, in the recent Navy Yard shooting attack by Aaron Alexis that killed 12 and injured eight, theories have been abundant, especially after Alexis reportedly heard voices.

Alexis apparently believed he was being harassed through microwave mind control, an assertion that in the mind of most would render him crazy.

But Wired.com pointed to a 2008 story on a declassified Pentagon report disclosing research on using microwave voice projection technology as weaponry.

The researchers at the Pentagon were reportedly looking for nonlethal weapons.

They concluded: “Application of the microwave hearing technology could facilitate a private message transmission. It may be useful to provide a disruptive condition to a person not aware of the technology. Not only might it be disruptive to the sense of hearing, it could be psychologically devastating if one suddenly heard ‘voices within one’s head.’”

Was it likely that Alexis was a target? No. Impossible? Also, apparently, no.

Skeptics have developed conspiracy theories regarding the Sandy Hook attack, space shuttle Columbia, 9/11 and many other major news events.

There even have been studies on the theorists and their theories.

Empirical data, without a doubt, affirms that the theorists are right, sometimes.

The Daily Caller reported two years ago that Watergate theorists were correct to suspect Richard Nixon. And yes, John Edwards was running around with Rielle Hunter. And it was the CIA working on an undersea project in the 1970s near Hawaii, not Howard Hughes, who only provided cover.

Challenging beliefs

According to studies, those who subscribe to conspiracy theories are less “married” to their theories than those who accept conventional wisdom.

One study showed that people who believe strongly in something are greatly offended when proven wrong, causing emotional stress that and in some cases can threaten self-image.

Pacific Standard magazine reported on such a study. It said that “because political beliefs are connected to deeply held values, information about politics can be very threatening to your self-image.”

www.trapshooters.com...

I'll have to read that paper as it is the only one I've ever seen that extolls the intellectual virtues of the truthers. Of course, as you reported, the author,Gina Loudon "is credited as one of the "100 founding members" of the tea-party movement, founder of Arizona BUYcott and originator of the field of policology – the nexus of politics and psychology. She is the co-author of "Ladies and Gentlemen: Why the Survival of Our Republic Depends on the Revival of Honor."
It sounds as though she may be a conspiracy theorist herself, so she may not be a disinterested party.

a reply to: whatsup86

So where are the charts? Because im just seeing his words here.

Seismic Chart

To put it simply, it was his seismic machines that were in use at ground zero.

Brent Blanchard: Leading Demolition Expert

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

www.jnani.org...

And he is correct and Protec is his company, and if you look at the seismic charts, there are no demolition spikes in the seismic data just prior to the collapse of the WTC buildings and if you disagree, point out those seismic spikes for everyone to see.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: whatsup86

So where are the charts? Because im just seeing his words here.

To put it simply, it was his seismic machines that were in use at ground zero.

Brent Blanchard: Leading Demolition Expert

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

www.jnani.org...

And he is correct and Protec is his company, and if you look at the seismic charts, there are no demolition spikes in the seismic data just prior to the collapse of the WTC buildings and if you disagree, point out those seismic spikes for everyone to see.

Your argument is worthless, I'm sure what they were using is not the same as LEDO. It sounds good on paper but don't mean crap in the real world..

a reply to: wildb

That won't fly and those video time lines prove my case, which is why you have failed to post the video time line references where he've claimed, explosions were heard.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: whatsup86

So where are the charts? Because im just seeing his words here.

To put it simply, it was his seismic machines that were in use at ground zero.

Brent Blanchard: Leading Demolition Expert

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

www.jnani.org...

And he is correct, because if you look at the seismic charts, there are no demolition spikes in the seismic data just prior to the collapse of the WTC buildings and if you disagree, point out those seismic spikes for everyone to see.

Yes it were his machines, but the charts are gone so he can say anything he wants, doesnt make it true or evidence now does it. Plus his machines werent the only machines picking up signals that day. And of the other ones that picked up signals we do have the charts... Who do you pick?

And what do you mean show the spikes? Theyre in the paper I linked: www.journalof911studies.com...

Explain to me what other spikes you are looking for?

a reply to: skyeagle409

Nobody explained LabTops threads or just Lee Groups findings to you by now? Pity.
Well... I'm not impressed. But consider me entertained.

I want to add a hypothesis that may yet explain the high temperatures, and would need to be disproved by the CD theorists: that some of the aluminium in the planes was ignited on impact.

3...2...1... ignition! A visual artists who obviously doesn't have a clue what they actually found in the dust, hence which temps we're talking about.
That's what you just brought up to refute LabTops thread in another. Totally awesome! You know the procedure by now:



Carry on!

originally posted by: Informer1958

Study shows conspiracy theorists are smarter

No, the study did not show that at all..

Our recently published Frontiers study on online communication, “What about Building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, has been the subject of some chatter on the Internet – but not quite in the way I had hoped. A story by Kevin Barrett on PressTV.ir has interpreted the study as showing that conspiracists are “more sane” than conventionalists, and, given that this is an appealing headline for long-suffering conspiracists, has been copy-pasted around the Internet in a highly uncritical fashion.

conspiracypsychology.com...

The fact that so many conspiracy theorists gobbled up the story about them being "smarter" with zero fact checking, zero critical thinking and a whole lot of confirmation bias kinda proves they...and you...are not in fact smarter.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Nobody explained LabTops threads...

Just to give you an update, his seismic interpretations have been debunked by the very folks who were operating their seismic machines. How did the 9/11 conspiracy community somehow overlook that fact?

...or just Lee Groups findings to you by now? Pity.

Let's take a look at the RJ Lee Group.

RJ Lee Group Confirms: No Evidence of Explosives and Thermite in its Dust Samples

No Thermite Found

The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn't find thermitic material. Other sampling of the pulverized dust by United States Geological Survey and RJ Lee did not report any evidence of thermite or explosives. It has been theorized the "thermite material" found was primer paint.

No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges and there are no recordings of a series of very loud explosions that would have been expected with controlled demolition. Furthermore, there is an alternative explanation for the "thermitic material" the sceptical scientists found in the dust - it is just a type of primer paint. It's calculated 1,200,000 tonnes of building materials were pulverised at the World Trade Center and most minerals are present in the dust (not necessarily in a large quantity).

More extensive sampling of the dust has not found any evidence of thermite or explosives, says a report from the US Geological Survey.

The RJ Group

The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

911research.wtc7.net...

www.wtcreflections.rjlg.com...

www.metabunk.org...

pubs.usgs.gov...

.

a reply to: Chadwickus

The fact that so many conspiracy theorists gobbled up the story about them being "smarter" with zero fact checking, zero critical thinking and a whole lot of confirmation bias kinda proves they...and you...are not in fact smarter.

More damage control from the other side, nothing new here. Thanks for your "opinion".

a reply to: Informer1958

It seems that over the years, the 9/11 conspiracy side of the house has been very active in damage control now that Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Judy Wood, David Chandler, "VA Today" and 'AE911 Trurth,' Gordon Duff, Jeff Prager, and others, have been at each other's throats, not to mention the confrontations between 9/11 conspiracy theorist and Richard Gage.