Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as 'denialism'

reply to post by Rafe_


You have just validated the Wikipedia explanation, by showing the "denial" clearly.

The entire post you made reeks of a complete lack of the facts, instead replaced with a ranting ridicule that is symptomatic of the problem with ALL of these silly "9/11 conspiracy theories".

Once anyone takes the time to really learn about reality, they will see how utterly ridiculous the "hoax" claims are.

reply to post by Rafe_


Oh, sigh......

They have been lying about WTC 7 even before it collapsed,go figure.

Once again, this is more absurdity. IF you think that somehow the BBC was "tipped off" ahead of time? That is the epitome of ignorance and a disconnect with the reality of what actually occurred. Because, if you stop and think logically, then ALL of the news organizations, everywhere on the planet, would have been reporting the same thing as the BBC did. At the same time.

It is very simple: BBC mucked it up.....they heard reports from the NYFD that the building was going to collapse....it was known, and they were certain of its fate, by at least 2 PM in NYC. They were clearing the area, this is well documented, in anticipation of the collapse, so no one would get hurt. WTC 7 was a lost cause, and they knew it hours ahead of time.

BBC tried to "scoop" everyone else, and they stepped on their wieners in the process....getting it wrong. But NO ONE ELSE did!! NO one else reported it early.....therefore, the allegations that the BBC "knew" ahead of time are ridiculous.

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Because it doesn't add up. Planes disintegrate, buildings fall into a pile of dust, but! Miraculously the perpetrator's passport floats down perfectly intact, like a butterfly to the top of the rubble heap, and is conveniently found within hours, telling the world who the hijackers were... God, so obviously bull#.

And then, watching building 7 collapse effortlessly in a free fall, demolition style drop! It's just astounding that anyone in their right mind couldn't realize that the official story is as fishy as sea world.

edit on 25-1-2012 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)

(a) there is nothing particularly unusual in flimsy documents surviving horrendous crashes as you can see in this clip taken at an Iramian crash site :-

news.bbc.co.uk...

(b) WTC 7 didn't collapse in free fall. Are you one of those who has been suckered by watching the endless clips which don't show the penthouse falling in first ?

Originally posted by Rafe_
reply to post by binkbonk

 

They also successfully hijacked 4 planes on the same day at the same time (with box-cutters) followed by successfully flying all 3 boeings into restriced air space in different locations and have the world first steel sky scraper collapse because of fire for the first time in human history (as reported 'NIST").

Followed by a second one shortly after which makes that the second example in human history,Then have one of the other planes crash and disapear into the ground burying itself and one other boeing nose diving to the ground ,pulling up and flying a couple of feet above the ground into the pentagon (recorded by more then 80 $20K security cameras and yet never shown.)

All in one day


...no ,nothing strange going on there.
The U.S ,A force security ,Airforce,Police,FBI,CIA just made few mistakes

edit on 25-1-2012 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)

9/11 wasn't the first time Arabs carried out multiple airliner hijacks on one day :-

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Wikipedia is not free. There is a person assigned to every conspiracy theory or any other important article to keep things in order in the way to support official position. Yes some enthusiasts may change an article, but eventually their enthusiasm will wear off, while the official position people do it as a daily job.
Another problem is that Wikipedia must contain information from reliable official sources, that naturally support official position. They can put whatever they want in Wikipedia and it will be reliable and official.

Originally posted by Rafe_
One year later that same news reporter would come out and say that is was a "really small and honest mistake"

Yes ..it is very insignificant......

edit on 25-1-2012 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)

And what exactly is the significance of the BBC reporting prematurely the collapse of WTC 7, which had been anticipated for hours ?

Please don't say the wicked perps thought it was a good idea to give a foreign news outlet a script or that the BBC are "in on it" because that is insane.

reply to post by Alfie1


How did they anticipate this?

reply to post by Alfie1

9/11 wasn't the first time Arabs carried out multiple airliner hijacks on one day :-

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Excellent post!

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

The ATS posters here who say that missiles cannot get near a CBG fail to recognize that dumb planes got past the most sophisticated air defense system of USA and was able to take down a high value target.

Your assumptions are wrong.
We don't have any air defense for planes from within.

If bad guys were to get past the cockpit door 911 could happen all over again.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Alfie1

 

9/11 wasn't the first time Arabs carried out multiple airliner hijacks on one day :-

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Excellent post!

You what ?
You're comparing this to the hijackings of 9/11 ?

reply to post by Starchild23

None of you have any conclusive, irrefutable proof that 9/11 was anything other than what the officials say.

That fact alone, makes me believe that something smells. The fact that normal and standard procedures in place to study the event have been discarded and the most of the evidence destroyed speaks volumes by itself. Heck it is like the magic bullet that killed JFK.

Government is the topmost institution of any nation and a fundamental part of the state, that is to say, a state is not defined only by its government and a nation is not indistinct from the state.

The thing about any institution that one needs to always keep in mind is that their biggest and most important asset, is trust. The trust that people place on institutions is what enables them to function and is what prevents them from being substituted. A government, like any other institution, is also dependent on this rule.

Trust is a characteristic of social relations, there may be trust between people (or animals) but trust can not mean the same when used in context of a relation with a entity that does not share a sense of self, since the implications and requirements would not be the same. Thrust is a two way relationship, you may respect an institution but you should not trust it. If we look around the world we can safely state that all citizens are in a submissive situation in regards to their government, whatever type of government they have. This simple fact arises for the imparity in the relation, a citizen is a person while the government is not only several persons, but a collective formed around the purpose of guaranteeing the implementation of policies and laws, and so most of the governmental structures tend to form a hierarchy.

Due to our level of interconnection of knowledge, news and economic resources any significant event that seems random or unpredictable is no longer incidental but circumstantial and so predictable to a certain degree, if not outrightly planed to occur by some players on the power networks.

From a projected Wikibook "Should we trust Government"

Well now I can understand why Mitt & Newt are the gop favorites...We really have some dumb m*th#rf*k@rs floating around this country.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Starchild23

 

None of you have any conclusive, irrefutable proof that 9/11 was anything other than what the officials say.

That fact alone, makes me believe that something smells. The fact that normal and standard procedures in place to study the event have been discarded and the most of the evidence destroyed speaks volumes by itself. Heck it is like the magic bullet that killed JFK.

I love it, I love it. Keep up the good posts.

One does not need to read the Wiki article to see the Denialism, it's evident right here.... Example after example....

There is no evidence, therefore there is a conspiracy....

9/11 Commissioners say "Official Story" a Lie



Hey Anok!

Great post and link. I noticed how the naysayers refused to even acknowledge your link to quotes from actual commission members.....Yet they say WE are in denial. I bet these same naysayers actually believe Iranians are sitting at their kitchen tables, hating our freedoom Opps! I meant freedom

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33

9/11 Commissioners say "Official Story" a Lie



Hey Anok!

Great post and link. I noticed how the naysayers refused to even acknowledge your link to quotes from actual commission members.....Yet they say WE are in denial. I bet these same naysayers actually believe Iranians are sitting at their kitchen tables, hating our freedoom Opps! I meant freedom

edit on 25-1-2012 by intelligenthoodlum33 because: nada

WRONG!
What you mean to say is that this stuff from a scam conspiracy site are "quote mines" and half truths perhaps caused by reading comprehension problem or even perhaps because of intention lies to misinterpret what was said.and why. How many commission member or staff on the commission are "truthers"? Name them by name and show the proof not some crap from "truther" sites...

reply to post by Reheat


REHEAT, I have no intention of showing you anything. You are free to believe any and everything you like. Have a good one.

Only primitive monkeys and retards believe there's no demolition planted inside WTC towers.

The Zionist PTB Elites have insulted the intelligence of every human being in the world.

Originally posted by ProudBird

 

Once again, this is more absurdity. IF you think that somehow the BBC was "tipped off" ahead of time? That is the epitome of ignorance and a disconnect with the reality of what actually occurred. Because, if you stop and think logically, then ALL of the news organizations, everywhere on the planet, would have been reporting the same thing as the BBC did. At the same time.

It is very simple: BBC mucked it up.....they heard reports from the NYFD that the building was going to collapse....it was known, and they were certain of its fate, by at least 2 PM in NYC. They were clearing the area, this is well documented, in anticipation of the collapse, so no one would get hurt. WTC 7 was a lost cause, and they knew it hours ahead of time.

Not only that, but true to form the truthers are grotesquely embellishing their "evidence" to create false support for their claims. The BBC never said the WTC 7 collapsed before it did. They said it was the SALOMON BROTHERS BUILDING that collapsed, not knowing it was the name for WTC 7 rather than the south(?) tower. Before these conspriacy theorists started wallowing in this baloney, *I* didn't know the name for WTC 7 was the Salomon Brother's building. At best, all the truthers can say is that the BBC didn't research their copy sufficiently before putting it on the air.

Why do the truthers consistantly ignore that tiny little detail in their rush to spread abject paranoia? Could it be "denialism"?

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by Reheat

 

REHEAT, I have no intention of showing you anything. You are free to believe any and everything you like. Have a good one.

Sure, I understand that you know and acknowledge that what you've posted is pure crap and you can't defend it. It's very typical and is precisely why garbage like this gets repeated over and over again.

Denialism at it's finest....

Originally posted by ICanThink
reply to post by Alfie1

 

How did they anticipate this?

edit on 25-1-2012 by ICanThink because: gramma

FDNY pulled their men back long before the actual collapse. Here is a firefighter explaining the position :-

www.youtube.com...