Mind Explaining These Things To Me?

Originally posted by Faust
WOW! You know when you watch Conspiracy Theory, Enemy Of THe State and other movies alike, after it's over you need to disconnect from it and continue with an ordinary life. It really isn't healthy on the mind.

Having said that, it really isn't healthy for me to come on this forum every other day to read/post. It's a lost cause to try and help people see the light. This light cannot ever exist for these people because they're paranoid of the unknown and think the government is out to undermine them in the most ludachrist and elaborate ways.

Most psychologists would suggest that people who are lost, alone, sad, frightened,...etc. want to make others feel the same way so they themselves nolonger feel "alone." Conspiracy theorists are known to fit into this category.

Really? And what would a psychologist find worse... psuedo-intellects who constantly judge and try to pass it off as science or someone who's a paranoid?

We're talking about comparing a case of someone who's mind may wander a little to far vs the person with a inferiority complex due to a small penis.

Look DaTerminator, I've had it with you man, I tried reasoning in a civil manner, but as we present you with facts, even americanfreepress and the guardian, you try to tell us they are conspiracy websites.
Basically, you're the typical school example of someone who's in denial.

You believe that 3 pieces of a plane is evidence of a boeing. How much do you know about planes anyway ? Can YOU tell for sure that weelhub is from a 757 ?
I sure can't. Even if I had a boeing 757 weelhub lying right next to me, I could not trace it back to the weelhub on the picture. Same with ALL THE OTHER PIECES.
The only thing you can do is ASK QUESTIONS about those things that are not clear. You fail to do that, you skip that step, you swallow the official story with it's 100 holes in it.
We as "conspiracy theorists" don't know what to believe .. we are still looking for the truth. But you have apparantly made up your mind since 9/11.
Wich shows who's biased here.

I'm done discussing with someone who is too lazy to do any research and bases all his theories on assumptions.

Have fun in the bubble.

There's a difference between facts and coincidences or assertions.

For example:

FACT: A plane flew into the WTC.
COINCIDENCE: The entire building collapsed moments later.
ASSERTION: A bomb blew up the floors of the world trade center.

As you can see 'assertions' carry no weigh as 'proof'. A coincidence should be related to the fact, which is undiniable, a plane did fly into the WTC. Therefore science takes over. Why did the building collapse? Scientists would say and HAVE said the sheer heat of the jet feul caused the support beams to weaken and give way to the weigh of the floors above. After the intial top floors came crashing down the momentum of the fall carried through. Each floor that collapsed gained weigh and speed causing the complete destruction of the WTC.

If you were a judge and allowed assertions and coincidences as fact then everyone in the same city would be found guilty of murder including yourself.

Luckily these people arn't judges and their opinions carry no real weight or significance in the real world anyway. So there is nothing to be really worried about. It's just a shame that time wasted looking for extreme explanations could be better spent on investigating real problems and discrepancies in the circumstances around 9/11 and other recent events.
But then anyone that continues to entertain such wild fantasies does not have the mental stabilty that one would expect from anyone of real standing anyway, so nothing of any real value is lost.

I also loved the hi-res video I got from a conspiracy site that someone linked to in one of the threads on here. In those very videos you can see the section of the building above the impact point collapse onto the remaining tower below, causing a wave of energy to pass down resulting in it's total destruction.
In one video you can even see the building flaying out over a wide area as you would expect.
You can also see in the video of the top of one tower tilt into itself and come crashing down causing the cuilding to collapse, even I thought it was a little odd I admit after posting the picture in another thread. But watching the video made it clear.
You can also see the 'squibs' are just where there is existing damage to the external structure and the compression of the floors above are forcing the smoke filled air out.
Really, some of these ideas are fantastic and I used to swear by them, but after reviewing the video and reading the explanations it's pretty clear what really happened.

At the end of the day if you show a building falling down due to an intentional explosive demolition and the towers then they are bound to look similar due to fact that they both involve collapsing buildings.

We watched a good programme tonight on National Georaphic that showed a very detailed and extensive computer simulation of the Oklhoma bomb and I hope they do the same for 9/11 if they havn't. But it did show how vulnerable a building can be to what seemsl ike minor structural damage which accumulates into something far more major.

I think that people just see what they want to - and contrary to what some of the 'newer' people on here think that don't know me I used to be very open to the idea of a demolition theory. But it really doesn't look like that to me after looking at the footage. I also think that it's ridiculous that people insist on pressing it when the more realistic theories with more evidence backing them of prior knowledge are out there to investigate and pumping these extreme theories simply puts the whole 'Conspiracy scene' into disrepute.

In fact - maybe those that insist on propogating these rather extreme ideas are the real government 'agents' (as they so like to accuse others of being) designed to publish unrealistic, disproven and extreme ideas so the more likely and still damaging theories are lost in a sea of mud.

Look DaTerminator, I've had it with you man, I tried reasoning in a civil manner, but as we present you with facts, even americanfreepress and the guardian, you try to tell us they are conspiracy websites.

I've never heard of americanfreepress or the guardian and for good reason. I just looked them up and they may not be conspiracy sights, but I liken them easily to those tabloids that you see in the grocery check-out line. I went to "americafreepress" and the first headline I see is "Cheney planning to nuke Iran!" If you want to call that a reliable source that provides facts than you are too irrational to debate with. I am the one presenting the facts here. I and some others have debunked pretty much all of your arguements and you still fail to realize this.

Basically, you're the typical school example of someone who's in denial.

As stated above, I'd say you are the one in denial.

You believe that 3 pieces of a plane is evidence of a boeing. How much do you know about planes anyway ? Can YOU tell for sure that weelhub is from a 757 ?
I sure can't. Even if I had a boeing 757 weelhub lying right next to me, I could not trace it back to the weelhub on the picture. Same with ALL THE OTHER PIECES.

The question is can you know for sure that those are NOT 757 peices? No you cannot so you cannot assert that a missle hit the building. That essay shows numerous peices of the plane at the crash sight, not just the wheel hub. I can find a more in depth essay if you would like one. All of the peices fit the description of the type of airplane. First you said it was a smaller aircraft. Then you said it was a missle. Make up your mind. There is no evidence that it was anything other than the 757. Face that FACT.

The only thing you can do is ASK QUESTIONS about those things that are not clear. You fail to do that, you skip that step, you swallow the official story with it's 100 holes in it.

First of all I still haven't be enlightened with knowledge of these 100 holes. So far the arguements you have provided show no evidence for a national conspiracy. Second fo all, since your theory has little to no evidence then I think it is you who have swallowed the conpiracy theory made up by a bunch of nut liberals with a radical hate for Bush.

We as "conspiracy theorists" don't know what to believe .. we are still looking for the truth. But you have apparantly made up your mind since 9/11.
Wich shows who's biased here.

No. You, subconcioussly or conciouslly are only opening your ear to the evidence and arguements that you want to hear. I have listened to all of your arguements and me and the other skeptics debunked them all.

I'm done discussing with someone who is too lazy to do any research and bases all his theories on assumptions.

You are becoming to much. I'd say you are the one basing your claims on assumptions. So far the evidence you provided has not stood up, and the evidence that civilians and the government alike have come up with after five years of intense research has.

Have fun in the bubble.

Have fun in yours.

Originally posted by white4life420
Really? And what would a psychologist find worse... psuedo-intellects who constantly judge and try to pass it off as science or someone who's a paranoid?

We're talking about comparing a case of someone who's mind may wander a little to far vs the person with a inferiority complex due to a small penis.

I'm not too sure how to respond to your rebuttle. A "psuedo-intellect" as you put it, is someone who in general is intelligent in a new wave sort of way - a.k.a. a conspiracy buff. Therefore knowing better than your average person on the street. A paranoid is someone like Hitler, who felt everyone was out to get him and wanted to take over the world.

So, if i'm a paranoid then i MUST be trying to take over the world! Which isn't happening. For Example: War for oil - yet we're paying even more at the pumps and the price hasn't fallen. And Iraq has it's own Government - so it belongs to Iraq and not to the U.S. So, this in turn makes you "psuedo-intellects" not intelligent at all.

So in short, i think a psychologist would find the psuedo-intellects much more worse. I'm "PARANOID" that if you had it your way we would all be worshiping Greek Gods by force.

I've never heard of americanfreepress or the guardian and for good reason. I just looked them up and they may not be conspiracy sights, but I liken them easily to those tabloids that you see in the grocery check-out line.

hahahaha-ha, I don't think anyone needs to comment on this one.
I'm not even gonna bother with the rest of your post, I wish you good luck in life.

Here's a link for you guys that has to do with a REAL possiblity.

Hijacking Recovery Systems Alleged on 757s and 767s
One theory of the electronic takeover of the jetliners on 9/11/01 alleges that 757s and 767s were equipped with a flight termination system, by which a plane's control would be transferred from the cockpit controls to a remote control station or pre-programmed flight plan.

According to British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls, the flight control computers of all 757s and 767s have a feature that enables them to be remotely controlled, for the purpose of aborting hijackings. Former German secretary of defense, Von Buelow, mentioned this theory in passing in a January, 2002 interview. The technology required for such systems has existed for decades. If such systems were operative on 9-11, they should have been used to take control of and land the hijacked jets.

the rest of the article can be found at 911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by Shroomery
hahahaha-ha, I don't think anyone needs to comment on this one.
I'm not even gonna bother with the rest of your post, I wish you good luck in life.

No. If you present the guardian or Americanfreepress as proof/evidence of a conspiracy YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND. Everything that comes out of those websites is complete bull# and to take any of it as factual evidence IS INSANE. HOw many times have those tabloids been right? I don't think even once.

And I'm pretty sure the reason why you don't want to bother with the rest of my post is because YOU ARE BEATEN!! You know it but you continue to deny it. If you had watched Behind 9/11 on national Geographic you would know how much evidence there is for Al-Queada planning and executing the attacks. The evidence is overwhelming down to the smallest details. This shows that nobody in the entire world accept for a few internet freaks takes any of this conspiracy stuff seriously.

I wish you good luck in life...

According to British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls, the flight control computers of all 757s and 767s have a feature that enables them to be remotely controlled, for the purpose of aborting hijackings. Former German secretary of defense, Von Buelow, mentioned this theory in passing in a January, 2002 interview. The technology required for such systems has existed for decades. If such systems were operative on 9-11, they should have been used to take control of and land the hijacked jets.

I don't believe that. If that was true then we ought to be capable of remote controlling most every type of aircraft scratching the need for fighter jet and commercial airline pilots alike. Would you mind providing a source more credible than research911?



[edit on 22-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

[edit on 22-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

Originally posted by Faust

Originally posted by white4life420
Really? And what would a psychologist find worse... psuedo-intellects who constantly judge and try to pass it off as science or someone who's a paranoid?

We're talking about comparing a case of someone who's mind may wander a little to far vs the person with a inferiority complex due to a small penis.

I'm not too sure how to respond to your rebuttle. A "psuedo-intellect" as you put it, is someone who in general is intelligent in a new wave sort of way - a.k.a. a conspiracy buff. Therefore knowing better than your average person on the street. A paranoid is someone like Hitler, who felt everyone was out to get him and wanted to take over the world.

So, if i'm a paranoid then i MUST be trying to take over the world! Which isn't happening. For Example: War for oil - yet we're paying even more at the pumps and the price hasn't fallen. And Iraq has it's own Government - so it belongs to Iraq and not to the U.S. So, this in turn makes you "psuedo-intellects" not intelligent at all.

So in short, i think a psychologist would find the psuedo-intellects much more worse. I'm "PARANOID" that if you had it your way we would all be worshiping Greek Gods by force.

Actually, pseudo means false.

Originally posted by DaTerminator
And I'm pretty sure the reason why you don't want to bother with the rest of my post is because YOU ARE BEATEN!!

Yep I bow for thee, your detachement from reality and ignorance far outweigh my motivation to "win" any debate.
Congratulations.

Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11.


The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.

found at www.sianews.com...
Still don't believe me?
Then look what NASA did with a Boeing 720 back in December of 1984 for a test!

www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
www.sianews.com...

Fiction. Read the comments after the article for some of the reasons why.

[edit on 22-8-2005 by ashmok]

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by DaTerminator
And I'm pretty sure the reason why you don't want to bother with the rest of my post is because YOU ARE BEATEN!!

Yep I bow for thee, your detachement from reality and ignorance far outweigh my motivation to "win" any debate.
Congratulations.

I'm afraid you are the one who has detached from reality. Did you watch Inside 9/11? If you didn't then you have no right to claim that my side of the arguement has little evidence. The Al-Queda 9/11 attacks have so much evidence, overwhelming evidence, it is none other than FACT. We have studies conducted on the collapse of the towers done by professional architects and engineers. Cell-phone recordings. Personal testimony of hundreds of individuals. Radar reports and recordings. Video and audio of Bin Laden and his top officials claiming responsibility for the attacks. And you, you have nothing.

[edit on 23-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

Originally posted by DaTerminator
I'm afraid you are the one who has detached from reality. Did you watch Inside 9/11? If you didn't then you have no right to claim that my side of the arguement has little evidence. The Al-Queda 9/11 attacks have so much evidence, overwhelming evidence, it is none other than FACT. We have studies conducted on the collapse of the towers done by professional architects and engineers. Cell-phone recordings. Personal testimony of hundreds of individuals. Radar reports and recordings. Video and audio of Bin Laden and his top officials claiming responsibility for the attacks. And you, you have nothing.
[edit on 23-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

Yep we have nothing, you're on a board that has a subforum called 9/11 conspiracies full with evidence, but you, as all superheroes, debunk these in mere seconds.
That's a good one, all of sudden, everyone who hasn't seen a national geographic documentary is uninformed about the subject.
If you make such statements you make it obviously clear who's detached here and who's not.
And then you, for the umphteen time, shout we don't have any evidence, and when we do you claim to have debunked it, or our sources ain't good.

Well mr T. I've came to a conclusion, you sir, are superman.
And I've lost the link, but if you're so certain about your case, there's a $100.000 to be made by proving Bin Laden was behind all this. I suggest you get on with it before someone else finds out about your brilliant NG docu and beats you to it.

Yep we have nothing, you're on a board that has a subforum called 9/11 conspiracies full with evidence, but you, as all superheroes, debunk these in mere seconds.

More like mere hours, yes.

That's a good one, all of sudden, everyone who hasn't seen a national geographic documentary is uninformed about the subject.

Pretty much. You were claiming that we had no evidence for the official story and the Documentary providing overwhelming evidence from phone calls to documents, to video and audio recordings, to personal testimony of eyewitnesses proving Bin Laden was behind it all.

If you make such statements you make it obviously clear who's detached here and who's not.

Well technically that statement was true, so once again you conspiracy theoriests are the ones who are most likely detached from reality if you must say that anyone is.

And then you, for the umphteen time, shout we don't have any evidence, and when we do you claim to have debunked it, or our sources ain't good.

Once again you have not provided any evidence that has withstood scrutiny, although you continue to deny this. I and others in this thread HAVE debunked many of your arguements. And some of them don't need to be bothered with debunking because the sources aren't reliable. As I said many of your sources come from biased conspiracy websites. If research was done into the subject by qualified individuals and they turn something up and hand it to news organizations to form articles that is one thing; but to use flawed articles written by biased liberals and tabloid writers who know little about the subject they are writing about as evidence for your little national conspiracy, and then go on to say that the official story has no evidence is MADNESS.

At the end of the day, all stories are biased towards who wrote them.
Unless you are a fully qualified expert in the fields being discussed (which I am not) then how the hell can anyone say one argument is wrong and one is right for sure, other than going by the word of the people involved, who as I said have their own agendas and will only seek to prove theirs.

The conspiracy seekers will obviously lean things towards their cause and the 'normal' people will lean it towards their 'official' explanation, no suprise there.
As the official people are the one's put in place by democratic election, our tax funded education system and years of hard dedicated work paid for by us! (see tax funded education) - you would think people would have more faith in them.
I guess if you don't like what you hear you turn to self-proclaimed experts, who are admittedly intelligent in their manipulation of people to follow their personal agenda, and get suckered in by their 'evidence'.

Without a thorough understanding of the subject in intricate detail, how can anyone argue that the offical explanation is wrong and some other guys is right? You can't, it's an opinion and that's all.
And the only reason the official explantion takes more standing is because it IS made by proven and educated experts with full access to information.

If the detailed information of the construction of the towers for instance is not available to the public, how do these theorists manage to get hold of them to come to conclusions that no-one else does?

People keep saying we're ignoring the demolition theory evidence, but they seem to ignore the evidence that explains everything, including the 'demolition evidence'.

A conspiracy THEORY is a THEORY, not a FACT.

An OFFICAL explanation IS generally accepted FACT.

If you don't like it, vote for someone else or live somewhere else, but you have to have some trust in people, and we're not talking about just one person being bent to pull something like this off, we're talking about 100's, and all without not a single thing being leaked out.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
A conspiracy THEORY is a THEORY, not a FACT.

An OFFICAL explanation IS generally accepted FACT.

If you don't like it, vote for someone else

So who we vote for determines the laws of physics?

People keep saying we're ignoring the demolition theory evidence, but they seem to ignore the evidence that explains everything, including the 'demolition evidence'.

Actually, you can't leave out evidence and come to a safe conclusion. Ignoring evidence (ie, squibs) prohibits an all-encompassing explanation.

There is nothing about the collapses that a demolition can not explain. Yet, there are many things about the collapses for which a gravity-driven collapse cannot account. Go figure.

For example:



Squibs, squibs, squibs...

Totally ignored by the official story. Impossible without an explosion. You are looking at a massive explosion that is totally separate from the collapse. That much is totally obvious just from looking at the pic.

What have the experts said about these explosions, which were caught time and time again on video footage by major media? Nothing. Where are their expert opinions? Out to lunch?

They leave it out because it totally contradicts their theory. As you said yourself, work will be biased, and when there is evidence that totally blows their theory out of the water, of course they'll try to slight it.

And their explanation of the collapses is just as much a theory as our own. The only difference is that their theory is endorsed by those who commissioned it: our "elected" leaders.

It all comes down to a matter of which is a better explanation scientifically, and this is what all of these threads on the WTC are revolving around. If you want to debate the evidence itself, feel free. There are plenty of threads around here where you can read up on all the evidence yourself, and get a head start on researching it further if you'd like. Then you can actually address the heart of the matter instead of glancing it with disinfo tactics (which is more or less what you're doing when you say we're not qualified to try to find out what happened, etc.).

[edit on 23-8-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by DaTerminator
Once again you have not provided any evidence that has withstood scrutiny

I can't argue about facts with someone who thinks National geographic is a more reliable source then the guardian or american free press.

So as of now, not your theory, but you, are plain moot.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
A conspiracy THEORY is a THEORY, not a FACT.

An OFFICAL explanation IS generally accepted FACT.

That is the best joke ever. You really didn't think that one through did you?
Who decides what's a conspiracy theory ? Who decides what's fact ? You ? The government ?