911 The facts and the proof only.

reply to post by Yankee451

Just try to bring up "no planes", and watch what happens.

Because no planes is patently absurd and 100% pure disinfo to discredit the actual facts being uncovered. GLP will welcome you with open arms.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Just try to bring up "no planes", and watch what happens.

Because no planes is patently absurd and 100% pure disinfo to discredit the actual facts being uncovered. GLP will welcome you with open arms.

Or, Noam was correct and you and other GroupThinkers are simply following your programming.

Alternative hypotheses should be studied, yet anything that doesn't fall into the approved spectrum of acceptable opinion is derided.

Read it again:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate

And Groupthink:

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, structural faults, and situational context play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

The primary socially negative cost of groupthink is the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking. While this often causes groupthink to be portrayed in a negative light, because it can suppress independent thought, groupthink under certain contexts can also help expedite decisions and improve efficiency. As a social science model, groupthink has an enormous reach and influences literature in the fields of communications, political science, social psychology, management, organizational theory, and information technology.[1]

The majority of the initial research on groupthink was performed by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University. His original definition of the term was, “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” (Janis, 1972).[2] Since Janis’s work, other studies have attempted to reformulate his groupthink model. 'T Hart (1998) [3] developed a concept of groupthink as “collective optimism and collective avoidance,” while McCauley (1989) [4] pointed to the impact of conformity and compliance pressures on
.

Sound familiar?

How have the last ten years gone for you in the approved spectrum anyway?

Getting any closer?

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


GLP?

They're more controlled than ATS.

I'm proudly banned from GLP.

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by randyvs

 

The only indisputable facts ( Regarding the W.T.C's anyway...) are that two very tall buildings collapsed on themselves.

The collapse, whether you believe it was what it appeared to be, or, that they were brought down intentionally, was, as far as I'm aware, unprecedented in buildings of this size, and therefore, an event of which we have no genuinely comparable previous experience, so the speculation will go on, ad finitum, and round in circles.

Unless some indisputable, revelatory new evidence comes to light, perhaps it's time to let it rest ?

WOW!
The thing is you know nothing about construction. If you did you wouldn't accept the koolaid drink from our government.

Its impossible that two 116 ton jets(carrying 22k gallons of jet fuel) can pulverize 1,200,000 tons(all three buildings) of concrete and (mild)steel.


Anyone who believes those Gov reports is a complete TOOL. I suggest you educate yourself with about construction. If you dont care to learn dont talk.

reply to post by Yankee451

Alternative hypotheses should be studied, yet anything that doesn't fall into the approved spectrum of acceptable opinion is derided.

I have studied it, and the "pod" theory as well. It's bunk and there is absolutely no evidence, at all, to support any of it. Now I'm talking WTC, not pentagon, there's enough of a grey area there to still cast doubt, but I'm 100% certain two jets slammed into NY and one ended up as a smoking hole in Shanksville.

And the fact remains that the people trying to tell me no planes were used are also telling me it was holograms or some magic space weapon.

If one wants the truth, one must follow the facts.

There is evidence to support an investigation as to if those buildings were brought down with demolition.
There is evidence to support an investigation into what exactly occurred at the pentagon.

There is absolutely NO evidence that there were no planes used on 911. Feel free to provide some, as I have done with all the others, I will read it and judge for myself.

Don't think for a second Jones or anyone else has decided my opinion for me. Just because, after reading the information myself, I come to the same conclusions does not mean I'm partaking in "groupthink".

Hell, I was put on this path in a quest for information to help debunk 911 truth because I thought you were all idiots. I did feel something was wrong with the events, but that was more of the lack of response than the towers coming down. It took research to come to the conclusions I hold as truth now, and no whining from you or Stephen Jones or Noam will change that.

Too many people caught the jets on film. Too many people SAW the jets. Too many people DIED on the jets, for me to waste any more time discussing a completely bogus distraction of a theory.

But that's fine, like most of the trolls, because I have an opinion different than yours, I'm close minded and merely a sheep. Keep telling yourself that, I hope it helps.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


Note your tone.

Note you bringing up "pods" and "holograms" and "space weapons".

Are you being dismissive and derisive, or are you actually treating alternative hypotheses with the same respect you give the more accepted hypotheses within the approved spectrum?

I don't bring up pods, holograms or space weapons...why did you?

reply to post by Yankee451

Are you being dismissive and derisive, or are you actually treating alternative hypotheses with the same respect you give the more accepted hypotheses within the approved spectrum?

Read the post and context again if it's unclear my friend. As I clearly stated, I gave those theories the same respect and time as the others, and came up with ZERO evidence to support them, so I dismiss them as pure disinformation.

approved spectrum

What approved spectrum. No one has laid out boundaries for my opinions but myself. You still haven't provided a single hint of proof or evidence to support the no plane theory, so why even bring it up in a "truth based debate"?

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


I sincerely doubt you have, or you'd be able to provide some sort of detailed reason rather than dismissing it with a wave of your hand.

The truth will be derided in a world of Groupthink; you're actions are textbook examples.

Whether it's by design or by indoctrination is not important, the chilling effect on alternative hypotheses is the same, and will guarantee less-curious researchers another 10 years of wandering in the wilderness.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters

“nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine power.”[29] That observation was also made by Colonel John O’Dowd of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “At the World Trade Center sites,” he told the History Channel, “it seemed like everything was pulverized” (History Channel, 2002).

So your "proof" for this "fact" is someone stating that it seemed like everything was pulverized. Don't you think that some person saying that it seemed pulverized is a bit marginal as proof? When I look at photos of the rubble it seems to me there are pieces of concrete of a wide range of sizes.

In the case of the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that “[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers” (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7). But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections.

So where does it say that core beams were ejected? The perimeter columns were also made of steel. (just saying)

you can also read this post from a member here at ATS for more information, including images, of the ejected beams, one of which ended up sticking out of the from of a bank.

ATS post

Do you want me to explain to you the difference between core an perimeter columns (or beams)?

Listen friend, I'm not going to ignore basic physics because your argument requires it, try that on some other forum.

Providing actual proof for your claims is indeed not the most desired activity of truthers.

Gravity is a vertical force, it can not account for horizontal ejections. Gravity, and the weight of the buildings, also can't account for the pulverization of concrete. Ask the guys who where on top of the piles looking for survivors (the ones still alive) as they said then, on tape, they will still say now. Pulverized isn't even the term for it. Nothing bigger than a few inches was left.

Thats funny. In a different thread a truther was claiming that most of the mass would be ejected horizontally. Of course that truther could not explain how that would happen.

There are mechanisms that eject steel (some, not all). There has to be else it would not have happened. Explosives can not eject steel columns 500 feet away without enormous blasts. There were no enormous blasts, so explosives are not responsible.

Gravity and weight of the building can account for the pulverization of the concrete. In fact, it is the only sensible explanation. Explosives blowing up the concrete to dust makes no sense what so ever. There is neither a need for it when demolishing a building, nor is there any evidence it happened (like blasts).

Besides the pancake collapse theory being debunked, and not applying at all to the construction of the WTC towers, for a collapse, a GRAVITY fueled collapse, to accelerate, it must meet LESS resistance. And for it to happen at the speeds recorded (a matter of a few seconds) it had to meet almost NO resistance.

Less resistance than what exactly? How did you come to this value? You do realize that when momentum increases and resistance stays constant, the collapse accelerates? You do realize that when momentum increases and resistance also increases but at a lower rate, the collapse also accelerates?

Tower 1 should have fallen like this:

Top twists and leans, slides off, falling over and down. Most of the base should have remained intact as evidenced from the videos, the top section turns to dust as it comes down, so where exactly is all the weight, and force, that is crushing the base to nothing coming from?

Who are you to decide what should have happened? Care to back it up with actual physics?

I've backed up MY position with facts, sources, and if you bother to follow the links, images. What have you done? go back under your bridge and wait for the billy goats to try to cross

You backed your position with truther facts and truther sources, which have absolutely no value in the real world.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

The fallacy you are making is called a hasty generalization. It is not proof, and hardly evidence. I have yet to state any fact so I don't need to come with any evidence or proof. Why don't you prove that those jets can't possibly happen without the use of explosives?

edit on 15-8-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

Because planes ,cars (objects that freaken move)are made from aluminum(lighter) and buildings(objects that are fixed) are made from concrete and/or steel.

The planes were small in mass carrying small amounts of fuel when comparing the size of the 3 building combined.


A) 2 planes = 232tons/44,000gallons of fuel

B) 3 WTC buildings = 1,200,000tons



How (A) trumps (B) is moronic. Its as simple as that.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters

You still haven't provided a single hint of proof or evidence to support the no plane theory, so why even bring it up in a "truth based debate"?

Golly, all no planes threads are banished to HOAX land...that's not limiting the spectrum of approved topics? There's plenty of proof, why did you think they're banned from a site that loves to talk about UFOs and Bigfoot?

reply to post by dilly1


You are correct, Dilly 1. I know very little about construction. ( I never claimed to, the O.P. asked what facts we had.) I'm obviously out of my depth here, as some contributors seem to be experts in various aspects of the 9/11 event.

But after ten years, we still have no conclusive proof that the W.T.C. buildings were brought down as the result of a massive conspiracy by persons unnamed, or that the whole event was what it appeared to be...

If you want my opinion, I tend to look for the likeliest answer to an event like this, though it's not popular, I admit, it's just the way I think.

Just my views, which I am entitled to state, as you are yours, Peace and respect, man...

reply to post by MrJohnSmith

If you want my opinion, I tend to look for the likeliest answer to an event like this, though it's not popular, I admit, it's just the way I think.

Turning to the most likely suspects for answers to questions about the crime they perpetrated is alot like expecting the Nazis to give an honest answer and provide a real investigation into the Reichstag fire, no?

reply to post by Yankee451


Mmmm. Noted. I just find it harder to believe in a water tight conspiracy though, which would, I think, have had to involve a lot of people, timing and logistics, and rely on them all keeping their mouths shut all this time ? Again, just my humble opinion.

reply to post by MrJohnSmith


I feel you, and thanks for your reply.

It's refreshing to not have someone go right for my throat.

I started in the same boat, believe me. Speaking for me, I had to let go of all my preconceived notions and start from scratch, ignoring all the accusations of "disinfo", and jumped in with an open mind to let the evidence lead me where it would.

If you can suffer through my cruddy prose, 911 for Psychos has a much different perspective, backed by plenty of good sources.

reply to post by Yankee451


It's always going to get harder before we break through, Yank. Every one of these people that argue against your theories are phonies. Every one. What kind of person gets out of bed each day and gets on the computer, goes thru the same silly script, and then sleeps like a baby? My guess is, nobody does. To have to continually push their phony agenda must eventually take it's toll. What a sad life. What a waste of energy, May God have mercy on their souls.

reply to post by Yankee451


Thanks for your politeness and honesty, two rare commodities when discussing a topic as emotive as 9/11.

All I would add is that if everyone on here were to believe the conspiracy theory, unchallenged, then the discussion would be no more than a back slappers club, and no one ( Me included..) would learn anything.

reply to post by dillweed


I'm thinking we're duking it out with pieces of software mostly...I like to think there are plenty more real people out there reading in silence, who are starting to "come around".

I'm very hopeful though, more than ever before, that we'll see the truth exposed in our lifetimes (I'm 50).

reply to post by MrJohnSmith


Hear, hear...

I have been guilty of being pretty prickly myself, I'm only human, but when treated with respect I try to return it in kind.

It's a pleasure.

reply to post by Yankee451


I hope you're right about the truth coming out in our lifetime ! No one would be more pleased than me.
I'm 56, and still waiting to hear the truth about Marilyn Monroe and J.F.K. ( Not holding my breath ! ) Regards.