Conspiracy distractions

[I wrote this article two years ago, on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. It was originally published in The Skeptic magazine.]

On the morning of September 11th, 2011, New York City solemnly remembered the thousands of people who lost their lives in the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks of ten years ago. At the newly completed memorial where the Twin Towers once stood in Lower Manhattan, the names of the 2,977 people who died in the towers, the Pentagon, and on the hijacked airplanes were read by family members and friends. Their voices reverberated for blocks around the subdued streets of the financial district.

But two blocks from the Ground Zero memorial, opposite the peace-ribbon-covered railings of St. Paul’s Chapel at the corner of Broadway and Fulton Street, the victims’ names were drowned out by a general rabble punctuated by chants of “controlled demolition, 9-11” and “three buildings, two planes”. Here dozens of people were gathered wearing identical black t-shirts with the logo ‘9/11 was an inside job!’ and armed with placards, banners, fliers and DVDs to give to strangers. Many passers-by stopped to listen to the chants and rhetoric of the ‘Truthers’, to start conversations or arguments with them, or simply to take pictures and videos of the curious gathering with camera phones.

These street-rallies have become an annual occurrence, an uninvited guest accompanying the official 9/11 memorial events each year, distracting from the real grief and pain still felt by many New Yorkers. This year may have been their strongest showing yet. Many of the ‘Truthers’ had travelled from other parts of the U.S.; some had flown in from overseas just to be part of the demonstration. After ten years the 9/11 conspiracist movement is perhaps stronger than ever. Yet ten years of extensive investigations have not produced a single scrap of credible evidence to back up the conspiracist claims; no verified traces of explosives in either the Twin Towers or WTC 7, no evidence that Bin Laden or other members of al-Qaeda were employees of the C.I.A., no evidence of any member of the U.S. government conspiring to bring about the events which unfolded. By now we can be reasonably sure that the conspiracy theories are not true. Yet the theorists continue to make a lot of noise and garner popular support.

The conspiracist worldview paints the world in black and white terms – the valiant and righteous conspiracy theorists battling against the monolithic and psychotically evil conspiracy. But reality is shades of grey. While the U.S. government is probably not the perpetrator of an evil conspiracy, neither is it blameless. There were things that could and should have been done differently leading up to 9/11. We know, for instance, that the C.I.A. had intelligence that two of the hijackers were living in the U.S for months before the attacks. The F.B.I. would have had the authority to investigate the men if they knew of their presence on U.S. soil. One C.I.A. agent repeatedly emailed his superiors specifically requesting permission to pass this information on to the F.B.I. His emails went unanswered.

The problem was not conspiracy within the government, but incompetence. Endemic lack of inter-agency communication – failure to divulge information to those who most needed it – rendered everyone blind to the clear and present danger right in front of their eyes, and meant that essential actions which could have thwarted the plans were not taken. Mistakes were made, and by calling attention to them we may be able to prevent the same mistakes from being made in the future. However, according to those in the know, the network of U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism agencies is now more complex and convoluted than ever, with ever-increasing levels of bureaucracy and redundancy. These real issues receive much less attention from the public than the conspiracy theories.

By painting over the grey areas of reality and making scapegoats of imagined conspirators, conspiracy theories distract attention from real and potentially rectifiable issues. We can’t combat a conspiracy which doesn’t exist, but we can force those in charge to learn from their mistakes.

Rob Brotherton
NYC
September 12th, 2011

Advertisements

About Rob Brotherton

Rob is a Visiting Research Fellow at Goldsmiths, University of London, and assistant editor of The Skeptic [www.skeptic.org.uk]. Follow Rob on Twitter: @rob_brotherton
This entry was posted in 9/11, World events and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

228 Responses to Conspiracy distractions

  1. David says:

    Is this incompetence?

    • Nothing shady here, orders to shoot down jets and passenger jets exist. There was an order in pace to shoot it down, however there is no evidence it was shot down. Since it hit the Pentagon, so it was obviously not shot out of the sky.

      • David says:

        MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” Well, at the time I didn’t know what all that meant. And —

        MR. HAMILTON: The flight you’re referring to is the —

        MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

      • So what this guy doesn’t know what the flight plans of a hijacked aircraft are, neither did the air traffic controllers as they had turned off the transponders and deviated from flight paths. You expect everyone to have perfect knowledge of everything under circumstances they didn’t expect and weren’t prepared for don’t you.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Cold War Scenario…

        NORAD is looking outward, happens to catch several blips on the radar…these enter US airspace…”Wooops, we lost them, they are over the continental US now so we can’t see them, so sorry”…

        Hahahahaha, you have to be out of your mind to believe this bullshit.
        \\][//

      • You are repeating an argument that has been addressed elsewhere on this blog, you were informed of the reality of NORADs setup pre 911 and are simply choosing to ignore it. You are quite simply exhibiting the Backfire effect.

  2. David says:

    The plane was known to be heading toward Washington and it was not shot down so what were the orders?

    • Who cares? It’s unimportant.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “Who cares? It’s unimportant.”~conspiracykiller

        Actually it is far from “unimportant” – it is essential. As David says “The plane was known to be heading toward Washington and it was not shot down so what were the orders?”

        What could be more obvious? The orders were to not interfere with the plane that was headed to the Pentagon. As the other planes said to have been hijacked had made impact with the towers in NY already that morning. The most blatantly obvious conclusion is that Cheney wanted the plane to strike the Pentagon. There isn’t the possibility of the slightest ambivalence to this situation.

        Now that I have a comment in progress I will also note that there are several other issues in this article that are simply wrong. One of the most glaring is the assertion that there were “no verified traces of explosives in either the Twin Towers or WTC 7.”
        This is verifiable to be false. There was not only physical presence of the solgel, nanothermate, but signature eutectic corrosion of steel samples from building 7.

        Another thing is, the myth of al Qaeda. I have photos of Brzezinski with Osama bin Laden together in Afghanistan. As National Security Adviser under Jimmy Carter, Brzezinski had organized a resistance to the Soviet supported regime in power in Afghanistan at that time. He has even boasted as to bringing the Soviets their own “Vietnam” with the agenda to draw the Soviet Union into a quagmire. This was successful, and one of the things that led eventually to the demise of the Soviet state.

        Al Qaeda is and has been what is known as ‘the controlled enemy’. They are in fact a subsidiary of western intelligence.
        ~Willy Whitten

      • oh look another conspiracy crank has chimed in. Must be terrible living in that paranoid nightmare you create for yourself.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        conspiracykiller,

        Ad homenim is not an argument, it is an admission of ignorance.
        \\][//

      • Actually that was me laughing at your claims without evidence. Someone making claims such as:
        “The most blatantly obvious conclusion is that Cheney wanted the plane to strike the Pentagon.”
        “There was not only physical presence of the solgel, nanothermate, but signature eutectic corrosion of steel samples from building 7.”

        Yet has zero evidence or abilities to prove such things can be called a crank quite easily, particularly when 13 years after the event you are still harping on with the same tired rhetoric that has long been debunked.

        Confirmation bias?

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “Yet has zero evidence or abilities to prove such things can be called a crank quite easily, particularly when 13 years after the event you are still harping on with the same tired rhetoric that has long been debunked.”~conspiracykiller

        And you are still making the same tired assertions that the evidences provided “has long been debunked,” providing zero evidence of such.

        Are you actually unaware that radar can track aircraft regardless of whether the transponders are on or off? Do you think enemy aircraft have transponders on during an attack?
        NORAD, a joint operation of the US and Canada has full radar coverage of the northern continent. Are you presuming that the radar facilities available to Cheney’s crew in the bunker are blind to the incoming aircraft? Obviously not as the “young man” is making progress reports as the plane is coming in.
        Again, it is rational to posit that since the plane was not shot down, and was allowed to continue on into the airspace of the Pentagon, that it was Cheney’s intent to allow such.
        This is as simple as 1+1=2.

        So it is very obvious who the crank is here; conspiracykiller
        \\][//

      • “When the hijackers turned off the planes’ transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country’s busiest air corridors. And NORAD’s sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. “It was like a doughnut,” Martin says. “There was no coverage in the middle.” Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn’t prepared to track them. ”

        http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes

        Looks like your 1+ 1 = 3 Biffa

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        So Cheney was tracking … just what? The pizza delivery plane?

        Two planes had hit the Trade Towers in NY. You don’t think they have the capacity to look inward?? Talk about gullible.

        The two chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Hamilton and Kean, both said the military command had lied to the committee, and now you are going to believe the military’s multiple stories that don’t add up, that contradict each version?

        Anything that fits your own confirmation biases, regardless of how obscenely irrational.

        Engaging you is like talking to someone out of Kafka story… you are absurd
        \\][//

      • ” You don’t think they have the capacity to look inward?? ”

        NORAD was not set up to monitor the way you believe it to have been, what else needs to be said. It seems you are looking for monsters under your bed.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        After the NY strikes we aren’t talking about NORAD anymore, we are talking about the US Air Force, including Air National Guard [domestic US coverage], if you are going to try to convince me, and any sane readers here that there is no military radar coverage of the continental US you are wasting your time. The notion is utterly preposterous, I don’t care what bullshit cover stories the military put out after the fact.
        “Incompetence” is standard revetment, or ‘limited hangout’ for military and intelligence services.
        \\][//

      • “I don’t care what bullshit cover stories the military put out after the fact.”

        And that’s why you will always believe the crazy stuff you do.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        You still haven’t answered what Cheney and his boys were tracking while down in the bunker.
        You say that they “can’t look inward”…well then WTF were they tracking? And why did the Pentagon event just happen to coincide with the timing of the planes arrival in that airspace?
        You want to handwave all this because some magazine article has an interview with some hack military spokesman – has no verification as to the truth of it, and simply doesn’t make any sense whatsoever…

        And you call me crazy. Lol
        \\][//

      • “And you call me crazy. Lol”

        That’s because you very likely are based on the claims and belief structures you have stated throughout this blog. I completely stopped taking you serious the moment you laid out your hairbrained plan for how you claim the government carried out 9911 itself.

        Crazy would be a polite way of putting it.

  3. Hi, I ran across this piece looking for something else, looked through it and thought I’d make a comment or two. (Or three.)

    I will not make any bones about the fact that I have a very very low opinion of this article I am responding to. When I see stuff like this, I initially react by questioning the intellectual honesty of the author. Then, finally, I tend towards the belief that the author is not being consciously dishonest (though I’m not 100% sure either, but it my hunch) but then this implies some colossal level of historical ignorance.

    The historical ignorance is so massive here that one does not know exactly where to begin to remedy it. But let me try and it’s a bit long, but bear with me…

    Broadly speaking, over the last hundred or couple of hundred years, you have these key incidents that are used to drag nations into a war. These casus belli incidents are invariably pretty dodgy. In some extreme cases, the event simply didn’t happen, such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident that was used to get the U.S. neck deep in the Vietnam war. The atrocities of the Germans in Belgium in 1914 used to get Britain (and the rest of the Commonwealth) into the first world war also simply did not happen. More recently, Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that were used to start the war there in 2003 clearly did not exist. In other cases, the event did happen, but was invariably misrepresented to support the prowar agenda.

    Going way back, in the run-up to the Mexican-American war, 1848, Abraham Lincoln got his nickname of old “Spotty” because they were claiming that certain incidents had happened on U.S. territory and Lincoln demanded to see the _spot_ on the map where said incidents had occurred. Yes, the incidents may have occurred, but if they occurred on Mexican territory then they were not a valid casus belli.

    Moving forward to the Spanish American war, the U.S.S. Maine was sunk in Havana Harbor, but historians do not currently believe that Spain had anything to do with it. Nonetheless, the incident was used to start a war with Spain.

    The U.S. got into the first world war over the sinking of the Lusitania, except that they concealed that the Lusitania was chock full of armaments, and hence was a legitimate target.

    Then we move forward to the Reichstag fire of 1933 where the Nazis seized control of the State as a reaction. Current historians tend to believe that the Nazis themselves set the fire. In September of 1939, the Poles attacked a German radio station at a place called Gleiwitz and the German army invaded Poland as a response. Except that the Gleiwitz incident was a staged false flag attack. A similar terrorist incident was staged by the Japanese in Manchuria, in 1934 or 36, I think, and was used as a pretext to get more involved militarily there. A train was blown up, and it was actually the Japanese themselves that did it. But then the Japanese army needed to come in to restore order, or something like that.

    Pearl Harbor definitely happened, but was probably misrepresented also. At least one serious history book makes the case that the U.S. had already cracked the Japanese codes and knew about the attack before it took place. I think there is still lively debate over this, but the “conspiracist” version of the event is quite plausible. U.S. public opinion was at least 80% against getting involved in WW II and they needed such an incident to change the mass psychology.

    Then moving forward we could look at operation Gladio, principally in Italy, where the Right, along with Italian intelligence, and the CIA no doubt, were behind a campaign of violence in Italy and framed the left as having done it to discredit them.

    And then we move forward to the events of 9/11, used to start a war in Afghanistan, but, of course, without that, no war in Iraq. Rather curious that the Pentagon had been planning the invasion of Afghanistan in the Summer of 2001, before the terrorist attacks took place…

    The basic argument being made in a piece like this is that people who doubt the official story on an event like 9/11 must be crazy. The only way you can make this argument is if you are utterly ignorant of the history of the last couple of centuries. Basically, every time you have this kind of incident that takes a country to war, the truth about the incident is never told. Sometimes the incident simply did not happen, like the Gulf of Tonkin or Saddam’s WMD. Other times, it’s misrepresented like the sinking of the Lusitania.

    If the government was telling the full truth about 9/11, that would be very very surprising, because, broadly speaking, when you have an incident like this, they are NEVER telling the truth about it. Never Go look at the history and verify this.

    So here we are. You are arguing that people who do not believe the government account about an event like this must disbelieve it because there is something wrong upstairs. Bats in the belfry.

    Well, there is another bit of history of the 20th century that you may or may not be aware of. This is the co-opting of the psychiatric profession in the USSR to commit political dissidents to mental asylums. Obviously, the people who were protesting the wonderful government there must have been doing so because they were mentally ill. Right. Obviously. Yes, obviously, if you are the product of this kind of indoctrination where you believe that you live in the most wonderful society on the face of the earth, and anybody who doubts this must be crazy.

    Now, tell me, Mr. “Conspiracy Killer”, what is basically the difference between you and those Soviet era psychiatrists who committed political dissidents to mental asylums on the grounds that they must be crazy? Frankly, I see you as being cut from the same cloth.

    • The difference between me and them is I am correct with my assessment that you guys are plain delusional, where as the Russians did it for political motivations. I have no political affiliations or ties, I just want the human gene pool safe from crack pots who believe society is out to get them. This kind of people are a time bomb ticking waiting to walk out into the open air with a gun/bomb and blow up innocent people for an imaginary cause.

      Conspiracy theorists are a danger to themselves and the people around them.

      • Jonathan Revusky says:

        Hi, I ran across this piece looking for something else, looked through it and thought I’d make a comment or two. (Or three.)

        I will not make any bones about the fact that I have a very very low opinion of this article I am responding to. When I see stuff like this, I initially react by questioning the intellectual honesty of the author. Then, finally, I tend towards the belief that the author is not being consciously dishonest (though I’m not 100% sure either, but it my hunch) but then this implies some colossal level of historical ignorance.

        The historical ignorance is so massive here that one does not know exactly where to begin to remedy it. But let me try and it’s a bit long, but bear with me…

        Broadly speaking, over the last hundred or couple of hundred years, you have these key incidents that are used to drag nations into a war. These casus belli incidents are invariably pretty dodgy. In some extreme cases, the event simply didn’t happen, such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident that was used to get the U.S. neck deep in the Vietnam war. The atrocities of the Germans in Belgium in 1914 used to get Britain (and the rest of the Commonwealth) into the first world war also simply did not happen. More recently, Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that were used to start the war there in 2003 clearly did not exist. In other cases, the event did happen, but was invariably misrepresented to support the prowar agenda.

        Going way back, in the run-up to the Mexican-American war, 1848, Abraham Lincoln got his nickname of old “Spotty” because they were claiming that certain incidents had happened on U.S. territory and Lincoln demanded to see the _spot_ on the map where said incidents had occurred. Yes, the incidents may have occurred, but if they occurred on Mexican territory then they were not a valid casus belli.

        Moving forward to the Spanish American war, the U.S.S. Maine was sunk in Havana Harbor, but historians do not currently believe that Spain had anything to do with it. Nonetheless, the incident was used to start a war with Spain.

        The U.S. got into the first world war over the sinking of the Lusitania, except that they concealed that the Lusitania was chock full of armaments, and hence was a legitimate target.

        Then we move forward to the Reichstag fire of 1933 where the Nazis seized control of the State as a reaction. Current historians tend to believe that the Nazis themselves set the fire. In September of 1939, the Poles attacked a German radio station at a place called Gleiwitz and the German army invaded Poland as a response. Except that the Gleiwitz incident was a staged false flag attack. A similar terrorist incident was staged by the Japanese in Manchuria, in 1934 or 36, I think, and was used as a pretext to get more involved militarily there. A train was blown up, and it was actually the Japanese themselves that did it. But then the Japanese army needed to come in to restore order, or something like that.

        Pearl Harbor definitely happened, but was probably misrepresented also. At least one serious history book makes the case that the U.S. had already cracked the Japanese codes and knew about the attack before it took place. I think there is still lively debate over this, but the “conspiracist” version of the event is quite plausible. U.S. public opinion was at least 80% against getting involved in WW II and they needed such an incident to change the mass psychology.

        Then moving forward we could look at operation Gladio, principally in Italy, where the Right, along with Italian intelligence, and the CIA no doubt, were behind a campaign of violence in Italy and framed the left as having done it to discredit them.

        And then we move forward to the events of 9/11, used to start a war in Afghanistan, but, of course, without that, no war in Iraq. Rather curious that the Pentagon had been planning the invasion of Afghanistan in the Summer of 2001, before the terrorist attacks took place…

        The basic argument being made in a piece like this is that people who doubt the official story on an event like 9/11 must be crazy. The only way you can make this argument is if you are utterly ignorant of the history of the last couple of centuries. Basically, every time you have this kind of incident that takes a country to war, the truth about the incident is never told. Sometimes the incident simply did not happen, like the Gulf of Tonkin or Saddam’s WMD. Other times, it’s misrepresented like the sinking of the Lusitania.

        If the government was telling the full truth about 9/11, that would be very very surprising, because, broadly speaking, when you have an incident like this, they are NEVER telling the truth about it. Never Go look at the history and verify this.

        So here we are. You are arguing that people who do not believe the government account about an event like this must disbelieve it because there is something wrong upstairs. Bats in the belfry.

        Well, there is another bit of history of the 20th century that you may or may not be aware of. This is the co-opting of the psychiatric profession in the USSR to commit political dissidents to mental asylums. Obviously, the people who were protesting the wonderful government there must have been doing so because they were mentally ill. Right. Obviously. Yes, obviously, if you are the product of this kind of indoctrination where you believe that you live in the most wonderful society on the face of the earth, and anybody who doubts this must be crazy.

        Now, tell me, Mr. “Conspiracy Killer”, what is basically the difference between you and those Soviet era psychiatrists who committed political dissidents to mental asylums on the grounds that they must be crazy? Frankly, I see you as being cut from the same cloth.

        ———

        “The difference between me and them is I am correct…”

        Well, I’m sorry. This is not much of an argument. “You are correct”, i.e. you believe you are correct. This does not at all differentiate you from the Soviet era psychiatrists I was referring to. They also doubtless believed they were correct.

        “…you guys are plain delusional…”

        Presumably the Soviet era psychiatrists also believed that the political dissidents they hospitalized in mental institutions suffered from delusions.

        “…whereas the Russians did it for political motivations.”

        Well, you and others who take this approach are basically arguing that the people who claim that the government is not telling the truth about an event like 9/11 are claiming this because they are crackpots. You say there is no political motivation behind this. The Soviet era psychiatrists diagnosed political dissidents as suffering mental illness and that presumably had political motivations but when you claim that people who cast doubt on our governments’ claims are mentally ill, there is no political motivation behind this.

        Really?

        When I went through the history of these kinds of war instigating events and the fact that the governments of the time were never telling the truth about them, was this new information to you? It surely must have been, because if you knew all that, how could you assume that people who question the government story must be crazy? It makes no sense.

        So could you clarify this for me? The various history I outlined above, were you already aware of it or not?

      • Jonathan Revusky says:

        Sorry. I didn’t mean to repost the previous material. That was a screwup. I had it in a text file above the response I was editing. If you have the power to delete the above comment, please do so. Here is just the response to the above:

        “The difference between me and them is I am correct…”

        Well, I’m sorry. This is not much of an argument. “You are correct”, i.e. you believe you are correct. This does not at all differentiate you from the Soviet era psychiatrists I was referring to. They also doubtless believed they were correct.

        “…you guys are plain delusional…”

        Presumably the Soviet era psychiatrists also believed that the political dissidents they hospitalized in mental institutions suffered from delusions.

        “…whereas the Russians did it for political motivations.”

        Well, you and others who take this approach are basically arguing that the people who claim that the government is not telling the truth about an event like 9/11 are claiming this because they are crackpots. You say there is no political motivation behind this. The Soviet era psychiatrists diagnosed political dissidents as suffering mental illness and that presumably had political motivations but when you claim that people who cast doubt on our governments’ claims are mentally ill, there is no political motivation behind this.

        Really?

        When I went through the history of these kinds of war instigating events and the fact that the governments of the time were never telling the truth about them, was this new information to you? It surely must have been, because if you knew all that, how could you assume that people who question the government story must be crazy? It makes no sense.

        So could you clarify this for me? The various history I outlined above, were you already aware of it or not?

      • I posted two links that have not appeared on the blog as of yet, so in order for you to improve your knowledge of historical events I suggest you d the following.

        1: open google.
        2: Type “debunking false flags” and hit return.
        3: Click on the skeptoid link and read it fully.
        4: Click on the thrive debunked article link, and read it fully.
        5: Accept your ignorance to historical events by either staying silent or posting an admission of your lack of knowledge.

        As far as any false flags you mentioned not being covered, there is evidence for rational reasons as to why invasions and wars were conducted. Although I don’t hold out much hope for your cognitive bias to be dropped.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Okay “killer-guy” I read the very brief article there on Skeptoid, which is naught but a flimsy digest of the topic of False Flags.
        Having studied the topic more thoroughly I will simply say that it is more complex and contains many more vivid historical examples.

        But the bottom line of the story on Skeptoid is this; “unless and until definitive proof of the government’s involvement in 9/11 ever surfaces, the attacks can’t be called a false flag.”

        I will accept the logic of this. However as far as I am concerned the definite proof of the government’s involvement has clearly and unequivocally been proven, therefore I will say that 9/11 was a False Flag. It was also a larger and more profound PSYOP {psychological operation} many deep aspects to discuss and provide evidences of.

        There are Signature Characteristics of a Controlled Demolition:
        1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free fall speed;

        2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part onto its own footprint;

        3. Virtually all the concrete was turned into particulates and dust;

        4. In the case of the Twin Towers, heavy material was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more;

        5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air;

        6. Videos of the collapses reveal “demolition waves”, meaning “confluent rows of small explosions”;

        7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long;

        8. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings;

        9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions);

        10. Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in “hot spots” that remained for months.

        The video and other imagery of the destruction of the World Trade Towers is the best evidence that they were blown up by controlled demolition. Videos of the collapses reveal “demolition waves”, meaning confluent rows of small explosions. Squibs are seen blowing out below the demolition waves. Explosive events, such as blast waves, energetic jets of dust, exploding clouds of dust, steel assemblies flying hundreds of feet in all directions, and thorough pulverization of debris are all direct evidence of explosives and controlled demolition.

        See: FEMA Debris Field Map:
        http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101231073424/wtcdemolition/images/8/8a/FEMAdebrimap.j

        There are hundreds of videos and images of these ‘collapses’ on the Internet. There is no excuse after all these years to have not seen them, and still attempt to rebuke this evidence.
        Note: The government of course will NEVER ADMIT that it is the perpetrator. So waiting around for a new official investigation of 9/11 is naive daydreaming. Open source private investigation by independent researchers has already made an open and shut case as to government and the PR regime as the culprits that pulled off this PSYOP.
        Those who won’t do the hard work of following this research have no valid voice to speak to this topic.
        \\][//

    • All your 10 points have been successfully explained on various non conspiracy theorising websites.

      Those who won’t do the hard work of following this research have no valid voice to speak to this topic.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “All your 10 points have been successfully explained on various non conspiracy theorising websites.”~KillerGuy

        Yea so you say. Which isn’t saying much.
        \\][//

  4. What specifically is the proof that this group called Al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks? (Obviously, I mean, other than the fact that the government claims this to be the case.)

    • You wouldn’t accept it if it was presented to you anyway, we all know you are a social deviant fighting the imaginary bad guy from your couch.

      • Jonathan Revusky says:

        “we all know you are a social deviant fighting the imaginary bad guy from your couch.”

        Sigh…. Would any third party observer lurking in this conversation take you seriously? If you were observing this, would you take you seriously? The two of us are not acquainted. I pose the most basic question and your immediate knee jerk response is simply to insult me.

        I have looked into this and concluded that there is no evidence to accept basically. Much of the narrative was patched together from testimony that was extracted by torture in places like Guantanamo and other black sites. It is well known that people will say anything under torture. This has no credibility. Also, one of the key people who provided the testimony, one Al Zubaydah, it now appears, was not even an Al Qaeda member. I refer you to this article.

        http://www.voltairenet.org/article177178.html

        To anybody paying attention, who is aware of these things, the government story has thus basically unravelled.

        The whole thing is fascinating really. The Soviet era analogies are quite valid. You claim they are invalid because “you are right”. As if that is an argument. People presumably think they are right.

        But the other striking thing is that when you look at stuff that happened in Soviet era, like the Moscow show trials, where people like Bukharin were tortured into confessing that they were involved in anti-Soviet conspiracies, we look at these things with wonder. Like, how could anybody take seriously stories where all the testimony was extracted via torture? But surely there must have been people who believed that these Moscow show trials were real, fair trials.

        Though the other aspect of it is that at least these people got a trial of some sort. That they have all this evidence but never had a trial. I mean, Bin Laden was never tried in abstentia for the crimes of 9/11. He was not even officially charged with them! Why? Apparently lack of evidence.

        So, to everybody paying attention, it is well known that there is no real evidence. So, I ask you what the evidence is. Your response: you insult me.

        So, is there any evidence or isn’t there? Also, I would like the clarification whether the various history of these staged and misrepresented events that were used to get wars going was new information to you or not.

      • Just because bad things happen elsewhere does not mean everything you suspect to be suspicious is. It’s a false equivalence you are attempting, the evidence for 911 being conducted by the terrorist network known as Al Qaeda is overwhelming. However , it is only internet cranks and offline conspiracy theorist helmets who would disagree. You attempt to espouse something known such as the Reichstag fires, and then you compare something like this to 911 or the Gulf of Tonkin, or the invasion of Afghanistan to claim them as being on equal footing. It’s not only incorrect logically, but it’s also sloppy historically and intellectually dishonest. Particularly in light of you claiming to be so knowledgeable on a topic, and the information that categorically debunks your claims is openly available in library books, historical documents, news items, on internet pages etc…

        You can either do more research and see if you can debunk your own claims yourself or not, the information is there if you are intellectually honest enough to find it. People like you expect to be educated and proven wrong when you bring up your irrational beliefs and zany claims, however what you are ignoring is the following.

        You are responsible for proving your own claims true, not the other way round. i don’t have to debunk your claims, you have to make them believable to me, you are making the claims of false flags not me.

        Also allow me to smack you down with the folowing.

        That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

        Since you have provided no evidence for your claims other than your own beliefs, I am well within my rights to scoff at you.

      • “…the evidence for 911 being conducted by the terrorist network known as Al Qaeda is overwhelming.”

        I have heard this claimed before, but, as best I can determine, the above is a false statement. The evidence is far from overwhelming. In fact, is is more broadly true to say that the evidence is essentially non-existent.

        But, to try to get somewhere here, please tell me what is the specific evidence that you find most compelling. Is it the Bin Laden videotapes? Is it the phone calls (allegedly) made from the hijacked flights?

        I understand that if the evidence truly is “overwhelming”, then it could be time consuming to present it all. So I would be happy if you would just tell me what is the single most compelling piece of evidence, in your opinion.

        “However , it is only internet cranks and offline conspiracy theorist helmets who would disagree.”

        Man, you are one tiresome individual. Okay, fine, for the sake of argument, only internet cranks such as myself would disagree with the “overwhelming evidence” that exists for the Al Qaeda story. Fine.

        PLEASE STATE WHAT THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE IS.

        Not even all of it. Just tell me what is the most compelling single piece of evidence of all of it.

        “You attempt to espouse something known such as the Reichstag fires, and then you compare something like this to 911 or the Gulf of Tonkin, or the invasion of Afghanistan to claim them as being on equal footing.”

        You’re putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about all the events being on an “equal footing”. Actually, I don’t know what that means even.

        “It’s not only incorrect logically, but it’s also sloppy historically and intellectually dishonest. Particularly in light of you claiming to be so knowledgeable on a topic, and the information that categorically debunks your claims is openly available in library books, historical documents, news items, on internet pages etc…”

        Could you please just stop hand-waving and actually debunk a single assertion I have made so far? In your opinion, did the Spanish blow up the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor? Did the Gulf of Tonkin incident occur as described by the U.S. authorities? DId it even occur at all? Did Saddam have a WMD program? Each case is unique, of course, but they all have in common that they were used as the pretext to get the country into war! And in each such case, the claims being made were false.

        “You are responsible for proving your own claims true, not the other way round.”

        Are you saying that I have to prove that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction? I have to prove that the Gulf of Tonkin incident did not happen? Why on earth would I have to prove this? The very U.S. authorities have accepted that Saddam had no WMD and have also admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin incident did not happen.

        “i don’t have to debunk your claims, you have to make them believable to me, you are making the claims of false flags not me.”

        That false flag sorts of incidents have happened in the past is not really something that is up for debate. Obviously they have. Granted, that does not prove that the events of 9/11 were such a false flag incident. But this would have to be investigated properly in a rigorous manner. To simply argue that anybody who suspects this must be mentally ill is not a very serious argument, I’m sorry.

        “Also allow me to smack you down with the following. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

        Well, okay. By that standard, if you are incapable of providing any serious evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by Al Qaeda, then this claim can also be dismissed without evidence. There is a clear electronic record on this here on this page. I asked you what the evidence was on this and you just immediately insulted me. This kind of suggests (as all my previous investigation into the topic also supports) that there is no such evidence. But, prove me wrong. Provide some.

        “Since you have provided no evidence for your claims other than your own beliefs, I am well within my rights to scoff at you.”

        What specific claims are you suggesting that I need to provide evidence for? That the Gulf of Tonkin incident did not happen? The U.S. government has admitted this. Same with Saddam’s WMD’s. I was just providing historical background that would make it clear why a reasonable person would be suspicious of the government’s account of 9/11. It so happens that when you go back and look at these key events that were used to get wars going, the narrative about those events at the time was pretty much INVARIABLY mendacious!

        But anyway, you’ve surely heard of the psychological phenomenon called “projection”, haven’t you? The person who has asked for evidence, specifically that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks of 9/11 is me. The person who has refused to provide any such evidence so far is yourself.

      • Also your article is merely a cherry picking fallacy.

        Just in case you are completely ignorant to logical fallacies, which you seem to be, let me tell you what that means.

        “Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.”

      • I’m not here to discuss your pet fantasies, if anyone here has work to do it’s you.

        You have presented nothing, all you have done is say stuff stinks and you are unhappy with it, You don’t believe in Al Qaeda, and you believe 911 was a false flag. Conspiracy theorists like you are all over the internet and deserve no serious time investment.

        One thing I have learnt when discussing Conspiracy theorists over the last 12 or so years is that they like to drag people into their fantasies by discussing unimportant infinitesimal details, and also like to use false equivalence as a method to assert a rationale for their alternative worldviews.

        Quite honestly I am just too experienced in this subject to get into discussing your little points as they are irrelevant and do not prove foul play. You have been given the directions to get the information you want and like I stated, you were never likely to drop the cognitive bias anyway so I waste no time trying to educate people like you.

      • “Well, okay. By that standard, if you are incapable of providing any serious evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by Al Qaeda, then this claim can also be dismissed without evidence. ”

        Translation: “No you.”

        Listen up, because this is how debate works in the real world. You came up in here with the claims Al Qaeda doesn’t exist, and they didn’t carry out 911, you even claimed Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag.

        Now in normal discussion YOU are responsible to back up your claims FIRST, this is to show that not only are your claims founded in reality, but that they are actually worthy of even discussing with any level of seriousness at all. No one is going to waste time proving wrong what you haven’t even proven to be remotely plausible in the first place. You have to prove your claims happened exactly as you claim them before anyone is going to invest time discussing your claims. Since you haven’t yet you might as well forget the child like NO YOU type retorts, they won’t cut it in intellectual debate.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “Sigh…. Would any third party observer lurking in this conversation take you seriously?”
        ~Jonathan Revusky to the KillerGuy

        Answer:
        Only a social deviant locked into Authority Worship.

        \\][//

  5. “1: open google.
    2: Type “debunking false flags” and hit return.
    3: Click on the skeptoid link and read it fully.
    4: Click on the thrive debunked article link, and read it fully.
    5: Accept your ignorance to historical events by either staying silent or posting an admission of your lack of knowledge.”

    I just did this and read the article by one Mike Rothschild. I cannot at all figure out what your point on this is. The article seems very thin to me.

    The basic idea of a “false flag” sort of event, that you would stage an incident and frame another party for having done it in order to achieve a certain result, very often to start a war — this is shit that happens.

    By the same token, that men have murdered their wives does not mean that O.J. Simpson did murder his wife. It does not mean that he did not murder the wife. Each case is distinct and this would, like any such case, need to be investigated. I’m just in the position of saying that various men have, in fact, murdered their wives, and sometimes even pillars of society, and we cannot dismiss the _possibility_ that O.J. did in fact murder his wife.

    That the secret services of a government have staged phony events, false flags, in order to achieve whatever result — this is a documented fact. Whether this is what happened on 9/11 or not, again, would have to be properly investigated.

    What is completely destructive of reasoned intellectual discourse is when you take the approach that people who disagree with you about something can only possibly disagree with you because they are mentally ill, crazy, or whatever. And this is very sinister really. You see this kind of mentality taken to its logical extremes in Soviet Russia, where there was great complicity on the part of the psychiatry profession in committing political dissidents to mental asylums.

    The basic idea that you and your cohorts continually espouse, that the only possible reason that people think differently from you is because they are not mentally competent — this is a very dangerous, toxic idea that you guys are putting out there.

    It also has its Orwellian aspects to it. You guys call yourselves “skeptics”. You are the “skeptics society”.

    Since when is the definition of “skeptic” somebody who uncritically believes what the government tells them? WTF kind of “skeptic” is that????

    • “That the secret services of a government have staged phony events, false flags, in order to achieve whatever result — this is a documented fact. Whether this is what happened on 9/11 or not, again, would have to be properly investigated”

      The investigation into 91 has happened over the last 12 years and no evidence of foul play has been proven, it’s only people like you who try to point at minor incongruent details that are completely insignificant and prove nada.

      “Since when is the definition of “skeptic” somebody who uncritically believes what the government tells them? WTF kind of “skeptic” is that????”

      Ah the old you believe your government 100% trope. You are wrong, I in fact doubt governments as much as the next person. However, i do not go blaming them or doubting their claims based on zero evidence and the beliefs of internet conspiracy theorists. You have to try harder if you want to pigeon hole skepticism here.

      • “You came up in here with the claims Al Qaeda doesn’t exist,”

        I read back through this discussion and I never claimed that Al Qaeda does not exist. Granted, I do have my doubts on this, but I never made the claim.

        The claim I specifically made was that I had seen no evidence that a group called Al Qaeda really did orchestrate the attacks of 9/11. I asked you to provide evidence of this. You then insulted me, providing no evidence. You then later claimed that there was overwhelming evidence, yet failed to provide any.

        So, I asked you, not to provide all the alleged “overwhelming evidence” but rather, just tell me the specific piece of evidence that you find most compelling.

        NOTHING. It’s like a poker game where I’ve called your bluff and you have nothing to show. No pair, no ace in the hole. No nothing.

        If you claim that there is overwhelming evidence that Al Qaeda did this and then, when asked, will not provide any of said evidence, this is GAME OVER.

        “and they didn’t carry out 911, you even claimed Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag.”

        I specifically said that I had never seen any evidence that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. There are common sensical reasons to have great doubts about this. These sorts of non-State terrorist groups have the capability of doing a truck bomb or shooting up a shopping mall. Things like that. They have never before or since, had the capability of pulling off something like we saw on 9/11. The simple fact that entire years go by without a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil kind of suggests that, assuming that Al Qaeda exists at all, it has no operational capacity to carry out even much lesser attacks. So common sense suggests that this is pretty dubious. Also, the horrendous fact that the U.S: government has resorted to using torture to extract testimony from individuals suggests that they had no evidence and had to manufacture evidence by torturing people. It is well known that people will say anything you want them to if they are being tortured. I certainly would.

        I never said even that the Gulf of Tonkin was a “false flag”. For it to be a false flag, it would have to have happened. As far as I can tell, the Gulf of Tonkin incident did not occur. So it was not a false flag. It was a concocted story to get the U.S. more deeply involved in the Vietnam conflict. This is basically a fact, just like the non-existence of Saddam Hussein’s WMD program.

        Okay, I’ll give you one last chance. You claimed that there is overwhelming evidence that a group called Al Qaeda carried out the attacks of 9/11. There is a clear record here on this very page that you claimed this. You said the evidence was overwhelming.

        As evidence of good faith in the conversation, please provide some of that overwhelming evidence. Otherwise, the conversation must be considered over. We’ll have reached a point where you have repeatedly claimed the existence of “overwhelming evidence” and, then, when pressed to provide it, obviously cannot do so. Or, in other words, if you don’t make any attempt to provide any of this overwhelming evidence that you claim exists, I think the only fair assessment of things is that you are conceding the debate.

      • “The claim I specifically made was that I had seen no evidence that a group called Al Qaeda really did orchestrate the attacks of 9/11. I asked you to provide evidence of this. You then insulted me, providing no evidence. You then later claimed that there was overwhelming evidence, yet failed to provide any.

        So, I asked you, not to provide all the alleged “overwhelming evidence” but rather, just tell me the specific piece of evidence that you find most compelling.

        NOTHING. It’s like a poker game where I’ve called your bluff and you have nothing to show. No pair, no ace in the hole. No nothing. If you claim that there is overwhelming evidence that Al Qaeda did this and then, when asked, will not provide any of said evidence, this is GAME OVER.”

        1 open up google
        2 type in “evidence for Al Qaeda carrying out 911” hit return
        3 read the articles
        4 retire

        “I specifically said that I had never seen any evidence that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. There are common sensical reasons to have great doubts about this. These sorts of non-State terrorist groups have the capability of doing a truck bomb or shooting up a shopping mall. Things like that. They have never before or since, had the capability of pulling off something like we saw on 9/11. The simple fact that entire years go by without a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil kind of suggests that, assuming that Al Qaeda exists at all, it has no operational capacity to carry out even much lesser attacks. So common sense suggests that this is pretty dubious. ”

        False equivalence yet again. You assume people can’t hijack planes and then crash them into buildings, because in your perspective that is just too difficult. You make it sound as if Arabs are retards and incapable of the most basic of feats that the rest of society would be capable of. Just because it’s never been done before hardly stns up as evidence it was never possible. Your logic and reasoning is childish.

        “I never said even that the Gulf of Tonkin was a “false flag”. For it to be a false flag, it would have to have happened. As far as I can tell, the Gulf of Tonkin incident did not occur. So it was not a false flag. It was a concocted story to get the U.S. more deeply involved in the Vietnam conflict.”

        Wrong, you are just completely uneducated in this topic. I suggested you to read the thrive debunked article debunking false flags above, and I still suggest you read it in it’s entirety.

        “Okay, I’ll give you one last chance. You claimed that there is overwhelming evidence that a group called Al Qaeda carried out the attacks of 9/11. There is a clear record here on this very page that you claimed this. You said the evidence was overwhelming.”

        One word for you.

        Google

        “Or, in other words, if you don’t make any attempt to provide any of this overwhelming evidence that you claim exists, I think the only fair assessment of things is that you are conceding the debate.”

        You might conclude that, but that would be your own conclusion. However, I will still be here mocking your inability to conduct thorough research, your lack of evidence for your beliefs, and your continuous use of logical fallacies that demean your attempts to look intellectual.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        In street Arabic al qaeda means, “the western toilet”.

        The widely known translation of ‘Al Qaeda’, sometimes spelled ‘Al Qaida’, is ‘The Base’. However, this is not the only translation of the ominous term. There is another. “Ana raicha Al Qaeda” is colloquial for “I’m going to the toilet”. A very common and widespread use of the word “Al-Qaeda” in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. This name comes from the Arabic verb “Qa’ada” which mean “to sit”, pertinently, on the “Toilet Bowl”. In most Arabs homes there are two kinds of toilets: “Al-Qaeda” also called the “Hamam Franji” or foreign toilet, and “Hamam Arabi” or “Arab toilet” which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget it, the potty used by small children is called “Ma Qa’adia” or “Little Qaeda”. Why would a terrorist group call itself ‘The Toilet’? Did Osama really choose to name his terror network after potty humor? (The CIA came up with the name and are still laughing about it to this day.)

        “The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US.” ~ Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook
        \\][//

  6. Jonathan Revusky says:

    “1 open up google
    2 type in “evidence for Al Qaeda carrying out 911″ hit return
    3 read the articles
    4 retire”

    Did you try the google search that you propose? I just googled “evidence for Al Qaeda carrying out 911″ and almost all the top hits are articles citing an interview with Noam Chomsky where Chomsky points out that there is NO hard evidence that Al Qaeda carried out the attacks.

    “One word for you. Google”

    Well, this is outrageous. I call bullshit on this. You claimed that there was overwhelming evidence that Al Qaeda did 9/11. I tried the proposed google search and get a bunch of links to Noam Chomsky meticulously pointing out that there is no real proof of the Al Qaeda story wrt 911. I mean, for starters, you’re so damned sloppy and lazy that you propose a google search and you don’t even do the thing yourself and see the result before putting it up there. Because when you do the proposed google search, you get a whole bunch of articles pointing out that there is NO evidence that Al Qaeda did 911. (Really, a total WTF moment!! ROTFL!!!)

    But regardless of that, you say go look at google. Does google have telepathic capabilities that it can tell me what evidence YOU find COMPELLING. You say there is this compelling evidence and I ask you what evidence you find so compelling and I am supposed to find the answer to that via google??? NO. If you claim there is all this overwhelming evidence, i.e. evidence that you find so compelling, then you have to tell me what that evidence is! Surely you can see that!

    How can I guess what evidence you are referring to? So what is it? Is it the testimony from prisoners at Guantanamo who were all tortured? Can it be that? Is it these phone calls that people say they got from planes? I would not say that is hard evidence at all, but I have no way of knowing if this is what you are referring to or not? Is it these Bin Laden videotapes, where the guy seems to get younger over the years, and is left handed in one video and right handed in another? I don’t think that stuff withstands the laugh test. But maybe you find that stuff convincing. But I have no way of knowing.

    Again: What is the most compelling piece of evidence, in your opinion, that demonstrates that Al Qaeda is responsible for 911? This is a reasonable question, and, your claims to the contrary, there is no way to get the answer to this question using Google.

    So, please tell me. What is the most compelling evidence that Al Qaeda is responsible for 911? Or do you now want to retract your prior statement that there is overwhelming evidence for this?

    • “Did you try the google search that you propose? ”

      It was a the first thing that popped in my head, I guess you are missing the reason I am saying it. Let me clear it up for you, I am scoffing at your inability to research conflicting information to your pre conceived ideas on how the world works. Your inability to dissect information and look for the counter information on your own shows that your intellectual honesty regarding facts and truth is lacking. If you really wanted to know if the Gulf of tonkin or any other claim you made was factually accurate, you could in fact research it yourself, and if you were honest with yourself about the information you came across you would be able to observe your own bias regarding the subject. In essence I am telling you to read everything that debunks your preconceived notions yourself, and stop being intellectually lazy expecting others to do the work for you. Hopefully that is clear enough for you.

      You are an embarrassment, I have shown you a place that debunks you and you have either not bothered reading it, or are refusing to acknowledge that it shows your fallacious reasoning and beliefs. Either way you are intellectually dishonest.

      If you want an exact google to debunk your irrationality I will lay it out exactly for you:

      “False Flag” Attacks–Debunked! | Thrive Debunked”

      • Jonathan Revusky says:

        “It was a the first thing that popped in my head,”

        So, let me get this straight. You told me to educate myself about the overwhelming evidence (alleged) that exists linking Al Qaeda to the 9/11 attacks. you tell me to put in google “evidence for Al Qaeda carrying out 911″. I do so, and see that the result of the search, at the very least, the entire first page of results is articles pointing out that there is NO hard evidence linking Al Qaeda to 911.

        You are a simple man of simple faith, it seems. You had such great confidence that the Oracle (google in this case) would back up your side of the discussion that you did not even check yourself what the proposed google search yields before suggesting that I do it.

        Most of the links that come up on that google search refer to an interview with Noam Chomsky. Whatever one thinks of Chomsky, he is a serious intellectual, and if Chomsky says there is no hard evidence linking Al Qaeda to 911, he has likely looked into it and come to this conclusion.

        in this discussion, you have claimed the opposite of what Chomsky says, that there is “overwhelming” evidence of Al Qaeda responsibility for 911. I asked you to provide the evidence, at least some of it, like just tell me what is the single most compelling piece of evidence that shows Al Qaeda’s responsibility. You have declined to do so. This is utterly devastating, isn’t it?

      • Short answer to the crap you just posted, no.

      • I also notice you are avoiding reading the article that I suggested, this speaks volumes about your character.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        There is no hard evidence that al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11.

        Even the FBI spokesman made this statement when it was inquired why bin Laden had been charged for the attacks on the Cole and such overseas, but the 9/11 events were not listed on the FBI Wanted List.
        \\][//

      • Bin Laden himself admitted to orchestrating the attacks through Al Qaeda.

    • What evidence do you have there is no Al Qaeda terrorist network?
      What evidence do you have that Bin Laden was not responsible ?
      Who do you believe committed 9/11 if not Bin Laden and Al Qaeda ?

      You opened a post here with mere doubts and suspicions, that is not even enough to sway anyone in an intellectual debate. You come in here throwing suspicion and doubt about the facts that have been given, but expect the burden of proof from others to prove you wrong. That is what is termed ‘shifting the burden of proof’. You are attempting to push the burden onto me because I made a general claim that there is enough evidence to show you are wrong about this. Information you are either too dumb to find online yourself, or too lazy to bother researching. Which to me hints that you don’t want to find it, or are unwilling to find it, because doubting the known facts serves a purpose for you either emotionally or politically.

      However,If you can answer those three questions and provide evidence proving your case, there is a chance that you might be taken seriously here by someone. However, silly doubts about a guy looking younger or using a left hand and right hand in a video, or your doubts about aircraft recordings where terrorists can be heard hijacking the aircraft are simply inadmissible childish conjecture. Your doubts about them being what they purport to be are of no substance to a thorough debate, we can’t just sit and discuss whether your doubt is warranted without facts. And if you won’t provide evidence for your suspicions and doubts, then you might as well just be saying “Well I doubt the official story so there”, which just shows how little you even have to enter into a debate.

      Your claims about false flags have been dealt with already, and your other stupid things you have said have been dealt with above, all of which you have just left and not bothered acknowledging your falsehoods. Conveniently just trying to shift the burden of proof in order to take the spotlight off the fact you have no evidence to back your unconvincing doubts.

      • Jonathan Revusky says:

        “However, silly doubts about a guy looking younger or using a left hand and right hand in a video, or your doubts about aircraft recordings where terrorists can be heard hijacking the aircraft are simply inadmissible childish conjecture.”

        Okay, so I infer from the above statement that you consider this sort of evidence, the Bin Laden videos or the phone calls to be hard evidence, in fact, such indisputable evidence that only a “childish” person would have any doubts about it.

        Now, first of all, even regarding the authenticity of the Bin Laden videos, which is very much in doubt by real experts on these matters, even if you assume for the sake of argument that they are genuine, is this hard evidence of anything? A guy on a video says he did something. That’s hard evidence of something. Anybody can make a video claiming anything. I can put up a video on youtube saying I did it!

        And the phone calls look to me to be what any court would qualify as hearsay. All the people who really were there are dead, after all. That said, you look at these things more closely, for example, a phone call from a guy by the name of Mark Bingham, who calls his own mother and says: “Hi, Mom. This is Mark Bingham.” This is rather odd. Another guy gets through to an operator. The operator offers to put him through to his wife or other family and he declines and in the last minutes of his life talks to the operator and tells her the story of what is going on. Again, rather odd.

        But again, even if you accept that all of this “evidence” is genuine, at best it shows a plane was hijacked, not that it was orchestrated by a guy named Bin Laden living in a cave in Afghanistan.

        This is the Occam’s razor explanation of the reluctance to have proper trials of the alleged terrorists. They don’t have any solid proof that would stand up in a court of law, so they invent legal theories where they can hold people indefinitely without a trial. Any proper trial using this quality of proof would be a fiasco!

        Now, you have a ph.D. in psychology and I do not, so maybe you can explain, using your superior professional knowledge why a skeptical stance towards these things is proof that the person is a mental case. Illuminate us, oh wise one…

        Anyway, fine. If you find all of the above mentioned stuff constitutes an overwhelming body of evidence, that is your right, I guess. An intellectual figure of the calibre of Noam Chomsky obviously disagrees, does not consider this to be hard evidence. But what is really going on here when you claim that somebody who disputes the quality of this “evidence” is obviously a mental case? I previously made the comments about the role of Soviet psychiatrists in committing political dissidents to mental hospitals.

        I get very bad vibes from this. It has a sinister, totalitarian bent, this kind of incoherent anger, disgust that you express towards, basically, people who don’t believe the things you think they are supposed to believe. I mean, your comments about the “gene pool” are really creepy. The refusal to accept that these accounts about the phone calls or these videos are hard evidence is proof of defective genes? WTF? You purport to be a skeptic, belong to something called the skeptics society and express this venomous hatred, derision, towards people who ARE genuine skeptics!

        I find the whole thing really quite extraordinary.

      • So you have no evidence to back up your beliefs, that’s fine. At least everyone who reads this can see that to e the case

      • “Now, you have a ph.D. in psychology and I do not, so maybe you can explain, using your superior professional knowledge why a skeptical stance towards these things is proof that the person is a mental case. Illuminate us, oh wise one…”

        I don’t run this blog, I am not even one of its authors. I am just a passing commentator, the people who run this blog haven’t even commented in this as of yet. I don’t know who you think you are talking to or what you are trying to prove, but you are way off the mark and failing.

      • “You purport to be a skeptic, belong to something called the skeptics society and express this venomous hatred, derision, towards people who ARE genuine skeptics!”

        You aren’t a skeptic, you are a conspiracy theorist who thinks the US government blew up it’s own buildings, killed its own people in order to go to war. All this with zero evidence and mere belief based upon doubt. You don’t even come into the ballpark of skepticism, what you are is a conspiracy theorist pure and simple.

  7. Jonathan Revusky says:

    “What evidence do you have there is no Al Qaeda terrorist network?”

    This is getting to be rather sad. Demanding that somebody prove a negative is well known to be an illegitimate debating tactic. A genuinely crazy person could affirm that there are extraterrestrials living among us and demand that you or I provide evidence that there are none, and we would be hard pressed to provide evidence of the negative.

    “What evidence do you have that Bin Laden was not responsible?”

    Again, rather sad, demanding that I demonstrate a negative. It’s silly. What evidence do I have that you are NOT responsible for the murder of Princess Diana?

    In a sane world, if you accuse somebody of something, the onus is on you to provide evidence of the person’s guilt, not on others to prove his innocence. This is the most basic principle of jurisprudence, I believe.

    “Who do you believe committed 9/11 if not Bin Laden and Al Qaeda ?”

    On straight logical grounds, it is perfectly legitimate for me to say I don’t know. For example, if I express doubt (or outright disbelief) in the creation story in the Bible, this does not put some onus on me to tell you precisely how the universe came into being. I honestly do not know, yet I also am pretty confident that the biblical creation story is untrue. This is a perfectly reasonable position.

    However, I would elaborate that if my doubts on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda focus on the perception that these kinds of elements lack the capability of carrying out attacks of this scale, it stands to reason that I would look at actors that likely do have the capability. And, yes, this naturally suggests that a more fruitful line of inquiry is to look within the national security state itself, a.k.a. military industrial complex. In general, when you investigate a crime, you look for suspects who have the means AND the motive. There are business interests for whom war is very profitable, for example. So, I would focus the investigation on elements that had both the means and the motive. And that is pretty obviously not some bearded barefoot jihadis running around in places like Afghanistan.

    • You came in with your claims here, you are the one doubting the evidence that we have to show Al qaeda did it, that Bin Laden did it, and yet you refuse to provide why you believe this to be the case. The sad part is that you are unable to see how debate works. The burden of proof is on you not I, you have to show why you think they didn’t do it, if you can’t then you have to accept you are a person who believes with no evidence. I am fine with that if you are willing to accept it.

      So in short: you disbelieve the official story and you think their own government carried out the attacks, but have no evidence t back up your beliefs. LOL you are a crank and not worth discussing with anymore.

      • “You came in with your claims here, you are the one doubting the evidence that we have to show Al qaeda did it, that Bin Laden did it,”

        No, that is not what is going on here AT ALL! You are talking as if you produced evidence and then I doubted the evidence. NO! I asked you what the evidence was and you refused to even answer the question and insulted me instead. Then, when pressed further, you told me to look up the search string “evidence for Al Qaeda carrying out 911″ and presumably I would see all the evidence. Except, when you actually put that search string in Google, all the top hits are articles pointing out that there is NO hard evidence linking Al Qaeda to the 9/11 attacks. (Absolutely amazing internet moment, that…)

        “and yet you refuse to provide why you believe this to be the case.”

        Well, the fact that I asked you to provide some of the “overwhelming evidence” and you were pretty obviously unable to do so — that is a good starting point from right within this dialogue.

        However, my doubts about the story are of longer standing. I have long been aware that this is a very strange story all round. We have this Al Qaeda, an organization that came into existence more or less as a joint CIA-Pakistani ISI-Saudi Intelligence operation to stick it to the Russians back in the eighties. We are supposed to believe that the various intelligence agencies have no knowledge about what these people are up to — not only that this hodgepodge of fanatics and misfits that make up this “Al Qaeda” are capable of carrying out something like 9/11 but also that they are capable of doing so without any of the major intelligence agencies knowing about it. Even if you think the CIA operations directorate are a bunch of incompetents (which may well be the case) the whole idea that Pakistani ISI and Saudi Intelligence don’t basically know what these Al Qaeda jerks are up to is, I think, really quite odd.

        This is a very fanciful story all ways around. So, basically, you are told a story that you find fantastical, you ask for some evidence that the story is actually true and there is none. The onus is on me to demonstrate the negative, that this fantastical story is actually false!

      • Conspiracy theorists say the darndest things.

    • “And that is pretty obviously not some bearded barefoot jihadis running around in places like Afghanistan.”

      To boot you are a racist too. That’s twice you have made these kind of insinuations that Arabs lack the intellect or skill to carry it out, this time however you reveal your true nature.

      • “To boot you are a racist too. That’s twice you have made these kind of insinuations that Arabs lack the intellect or skill to carry it out, this time however you reveal your true nature.”

        Oh, good grief! The race card! I suppose if I said that the local Women’s League lacks the capacity to do a 9/11 that would make me a sexist as well!

        This is a total joke. I mean, if somebody said that the Ku Klux Klan did something like 9/11, my immediate reaction would be that the KKK has no capacity do something like that. They can lynch a few black folks or make a crude bomb, but have no capability of doing something like that. And the KKK, whatever you think of them, are white people…

        But aside from the absurdity of the racism accusation — saying that Al Qaeda lacks the operational capacity to do something like that is racist apparently — there is also the fact that the entire 9/11 narrative of the Muslim suicidal fanatics so eager to meet their I-forget-how-many virgins in paradise, the willingness to believe this story rests almost entirely on racist stereotypes!

        We’re supposed to believe that this guy Mohammed Atta was finishing off his ph.D. in Urban Planning in a German university and then decides to go fly a plane into a building. If you told the same story and the guy’s name was John Jones, nobody would believe it. The willingness to believe something like this OBVIOUSLY resides on racist stereotypes to start with!

        So I express doubt about the story and I’m the racist!

        But heck, when you try to play that race card, you’re pretty tapped out, dude. Give up already.

      • You actually aid racist slurs, it was nothing to do with the doubt of the facts. If you can’t see that then you are an idiot.

  8. a grateful reader says:

    Cass Sunstein, is that you?

    I learned a lot from both of you, so thanks to both.

    That being said, my man J Revusky is a machete next to conspiracykiller the butterknife.
    (–LLCoolJ)

    Hey, JR, spit some more like you’re in the salt water. Spit for resistance, spit for accuracy, spit for distance. You ain’t spittin just any old rhetoric/you’re spittin like you’re ten steps ahead of it.
    (–J-Live).

    I totally understand your discouragement and fears and I hope this small note from afar will fortify you.

    Signed,
    A grateful reader

    • When people are quoting rappers to show support for their fellow conspiracy theorists comments, it’s probably safe to say this has sunk to the bottom of the barrel.

    • Hi, thanks for the encouragement! I pointed a friend of mine to this page and he looked at it and asked me why I would even bother to argue with the idiot in question. Naturally, you’re not going to argue with an idiot and somehow persuade him to stop being an idiot. Things don’t work that way. The only practical reason would be if there was some audience that you could have some influence on.

      So, thanks for writing a few words and giving me the feeling that this is not a complete waste of time!

      Best Regards and Greetings from Spain

      • LOL thanks for posting a few inane rapper quotes in solidarity of my conspiracy theorising. Fight the power !!!

      • Sour Dove says:

        You were remarkably polite. I suspect that, like thousands of people around the world, people who considered themselves members or allies of what is called “Al Qaeda” knew what was coming, but I have no more evidence of that than your dismissive interlocuter does.

  9. a grateful reader says:

    Very well. I admit your point about the internet.

  10. a grateful reader says:

    ooh,darn it! I just wasn’t clever enough!

    Revise to “Very well. I admit your point about the Ivy League.” After searching “academic study of rap at Harvard,” top result is the recently established Nasir Jones Hip-Hop Fellowship!

    But not to derail, or get trolled/
    I’m up here lovin how J Revusky is blowing up big and bold
    Greasin up the conspiracy skillet
    Like Nasir Jones had to get busy widit
    In the Harvard Hip-Hop Archive, I learned my skills[citation needed?]

  11. Ami L. says:

    If I may…it’s interesting to read an article about conspiracy theorists and 9/11…then read the ridiculously over done bickering. I for one would like to think we have better things to do with our time…for instance I’m researching these articles for a college course. Although I may have lost a few ticks on my IQ from people who obviously have nothing better to do than sit around and have a pissing contest. Turn all that negative energy to positive and go help the homeless or build a school for under privileged children, start a community garden…something other than this baloney.

    • Quite the bold statement to assume that people posting on here aren’t doing other things for their community. Logic failure, concentrate on being good at college instead of assumptions about other people.

    • Oh, my. What a nasty little piece of work you are. I can tell you’ve got a bright future ahead of you. It does take some talent to be such a slimeball at an early age. You’re a natural, I guess. Other people have to work years at it… So young and you’ve already internalized the self righteous hypocrisy and mendacity that dominates our society.

      Yeah right. We should help the homeless or do something for underprivileged children…. I’m pretty sure it’ll be a cold day in hell when you are doing any of those things.

      But anyway… just one question out of curiosity. You say you were researching these articles for a college course? What college course? What is the name of the course? In what discipline?

  12. Sour Dove says:

    People never conspire. When they plan something evil or unpopular, they announce their plan, execute it, then turn themselves in.

    • “The perfect crime is useless unless everyone knows you carried it out.” The penguin DC Comics.

      This psychological trait of egoism is the very reason why Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks when they happened.

      • Sour Dove says:

        Do you assert the attacks were planned in secret?

      • Well how exactly can you plan something in secret without telling someone else ?

        Assuming that there is a code of honour amongst criminals, let’s say the terrorists maintained the strategy between themselves then there was a level of secrecy. In the strictest sense of the definition of secrecy ‘Known or shared only by the initiated’, then yes there was a secret between the terrorists initiated into carrying out the attacks on the trade centre. However afterwards the surviving leaders [the terrorists who never carry out the low level jobs], freely took responsibility and claimed the credit for the attacks on 9/11.

      • Sour Dove says:

        Can you think of a word that means a secret plan?

      • All that being said, there is a suggestion of evidence that some security personnel were aware that the terrorists were planning to conduct an attack on US soil. So it wasn’t a complete secret, and had the security forces been more interconnected with information sharing, and acted efficiently on threat reports the act may have never been successful.

      • “Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks when they happened.”

        They did? I don’t remember it that way. I remember all these talking heads getting on the TV the very day of the attacks saying that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda did it. In fact, I remember that Bin Laden denied it and the Taliban asked for some evidence and none was provided….

      • Transcript: Translation of Bin Laden’s Videotaped Message:
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16990-2004Nov1.html

        List of all discussions about al qaeda responsibilities.
        http://www.911myths.com/html/responsibility.html

    • Al Qaeda released several videos in 2004 claiming responsibility for the attacks on 9/11. Shortly before the US presidential election in 2004, in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaeda’s involvement in the attacks on the US, and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because “we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation.”

      Your False memory is of no consequence to the evidence.

      • Sour Dove says:

        By keeping the plan among themselves, the conspirators conspired. Claims after the event have no bearing on that fact. Are you sure you want to dispute that?

      • As has already been explained to you, operatives within the security forces of the United States were well aware that Al Qaeda had something planned. They had already conducted attacks elsewhere against US targets. It was not a secret that muslim terrorists hated the US and were planning revenge for American interference on their soil. It’s claimed that even the attacks on the twin towers were known to some within the agencies, and that they weren’t taken seriously enough to prevent the attacks.

        I don’t think you really have anything to add to this topic, other than your incessant need to define secrecy, It’s fine to define it, as long as you are using that definition to make a logical point, but you seem to just want to define it. If you have something to add by all means do so.

  13. Sour Dove says:

    The word you are leaving conveniently undefined is “conspiracy,” not “secrecy.”

    • That term has long been defined. A conspiracy is a plan between two or more people that is withheld from others knowledge in order to profit the conspirators in some way.

      There’s nothing ‘inconvenient’ about me defining it. Now do you have anything to add here, or would you like to define more words ?

    • With all due respect, I see where you are going, which is that you are trying to get your interlocutor to accept that the official story is also a “conspiracy theory” insofar as it involves people conspiring. And then they are also supposed to accept (since, presumably they are forced logically into doing so) that they, also, are “conspiracy theorists”.

      So, I see where you are going, but I don’t think that this tack works in terms of addressing the people I call the “denialists”. You see, you have to understand that the denialists, the people like the author of the idiotic article that we are ostensibly commenting on, use the term “conspiracy theory” or “conspiracy theorist” in a very special way. For them, the official narrative provided by the government about something is NEVER a “conspiracy theory”, even if it obviously involves people conspiring! Moreover, the person who asserts his belief in the government narrative, no matter how absurd it is, is never a “conspiracy theorist”! Of course, this is all because they use language in a very Orwellian sort of way.

      So, rather than get tied up in knots arguing with these people about the meaning of the word “conspiracy”, I would make two overarching points:

      1. The denialists are claiming that the people they call “conspiracy theorists” are dangerous to democracy (or what they, in their Orwellian usage call democracy). But is this true? I would say not. No. What is very very dangerous to any real concept of democracy is the idea that people who disagree with the government line on something are inherently crazy and the things they say can be dismissed out of hand. Especially, when you consider the precedent, for example, in the Soviet Union, where psychiatrists would commit political dissidents to mental asylums because such people were “self-evidently” mentally ill. In general, I would say that, when credentialed individuals, psychiatrists or ph.D.’s in psychology, say that a group of people are mentally ill due to their political beliefs, this should be seen as very sinister.

      2. It makes perfect sense to demand proof of the assertions. It is claimed that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by a religious fanatic living in Afghanistan and carried out by another 19 religious fanatics in the U.S.A. It behooves us to point out that “proof by repetition” is invalid and to demand what, precisely, is the proof that this story is true. Of course, then they start with point 1. above again, that anybody who doubts the story is self-evidently crazy, a conspiracy theorist, and so on. And then we get back to, if the person will only insult you but not provide any proof when it is requested, they have conceded the debate.

      Anyway, okay, I could be wrong, but I think the above two points are the ones worth focusing on.

      • “So, I see where you are going, but I don’t think that this tack works in terms of addressing the people I call the “denialists”. ”

        Would it be alright if I were neither a “conspiracy theorist” nor a “denialist”? The healthiest response might be a skepticism towards both the “official story” as well as the “alternative explanations”.

        A conspiracy involving Al-Queda strikes me as more plausible than one involving the US government, especially when the alternative explanations involve preposterous nonsense like missiles hitting the Pentagon, controlled demolitions of building 7, etc etc. (they are preposterous because they fail the Occam’s Razor test. Why blow up building 7? Why use a missile? The most believable conspiracy is the simplest one that is consistent with the facts).

        “It is claimed that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by a religious fanatic living in Afghanistan and carried out by another 19 religious fanatics in the U.S.A. It behooves us to point out that “proof by repetition” is invalid and to *****demand what, precisely, is the proof that this story is true******. ”

        I could Google this and come up with a short summary of the evidence, but before I spend time doing this, can I ask you what sort of proof you would be willing to accept?

        (I realize this is hypothetical as the participants are long gone).

      • Jonathan Revusky says:

        “A conspiracy involving Al-Queda strikes me as more plausible than one involving the US government”

        This, frankly, is very weak tea. All of this talk of what is “plausible” is really a form of rather risible hand waving. Let me explain why.

        “Plausibility” is a highly subjective concept. What narratives you or I or anybody finds “plausible” is a primarily a function of two things:

        (a) prior knowledge of the facts on a question

        (b) all sorts of cultural conditioning

        As an extreme example of (a), it is just as “plausible” that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east as the other way round. It just so happens that it is not so. It is simply our prior knowledge that the sun does in fact rise in the east and sets in the west that makes the opposite implausible.

        It is implausible to you that the U.S. Government would carry out terrorist attacks and frame Muslims to start a war. This is probably because you are fairly ignorant of real history. For example, if I mentioned Operation Northwoods, do you know what I am talking about? Or Operation Gladio? What about the Mukden Incident? The Gleiwitz Incident? The sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor?

        Also, you have framed the question in such a way that it sounds far more absurd than it really is. Because actually, the question is whether some faction, possibly rogue faction of the U.S. power structure carried out 9/11, not whether the U.S. government as a whole did. Actually, the U.S. government as a whole is a huge leviathan that does not operationally “do” anything.

        As for point (b) above, there is a vast amount of cultural conditioning that any westerner has undergone that tends to make him predisposed to find a narrative involving crazy violent (suicidal even) fanatics coming from an Arab or Muslim culture far more plausible than it really is. Here is a conceptual experiment. Just tell yourself the official 9/11 story and change all Arab names to Anglo-saxon names, like Smith, Jones, and Miller, say, and see how plausible the story actually sounds now.

        Truth told, your hand waving about “plausibility” really means something like:

        “Given, on the one part, my lack of general knowledge about the history false flag terrorism, and on the other part, my cultural conditioning to find any racist narrative involving Arabs plausible, the official story on 9/11 rings true to me.”

        But, regardless, just as in the extreme case of the sun rising in the west, it does not matter at all whether you, given your state of knowledge, find the sun rising in the west just as plausible as the sun rising in the east. This is a factual question and, in that case, the evidence is overwhelming that the sun does rise in the east.

        So, this is where we are, the assertion that a story is “plausible” without any reference to any hard facts. As I said, weak tea.

        Now, I stopped participating in this conversation months ago because I was fairly certain that my interlocutor was not debating in good faith. He kept asserting that there was some overwhelming amount of evidence that the official story on 9/11 was true, yet, when asked what that evidence was, he declined to provide any. I then asked him to provide the single most compelling piece of evidence that the official story was true. He declined to answer.

        And that’s really the state of the debate. If you want to take up things where that was left off, then just tell me what the overwhelming evidence is. Or, since it is presumably so overwhelming, just state what the single most compelling piece of evidence (IYHO) is. And then we take it from there.

        “I could Google this and come up with a short summary of the evidence, but before I spend time doing this, can I ask you what sort of proof you would be willing to accept?”

        I find this to be a very bizarre request. In a debate, as far as I can recall, people request in advance the proof or evidence that the other party would find convincing or not. They simply present their argument. And the other side presents their counter-argument. And so on.

        Moreover, this event did not happen yesterday. There have been twelve years for a public record to be formed on this. I have studied the question and come to the conclusion that there is no hard evidence that the government story on 9/11 is true. And there has been a mounting amount of evidence that it, in fact, CANNOT be true. This is my view, and it is based on significant research into the question.

        Now, okay, to save some time, I have looked into the question of the phone calls that were allegedly made from the planes and find all that quite suspect. I find the videos allegedly made by Bin Laden in which he claims responsibility also quite suspect. So you can forget about trotting out that kind of stuff as “hard evidence”.

        Obviously, the hand-waving about “plausibility” is not hard evidence or even soft evidence. It’s a big nothing.

        But here’s the deal and I think it’s fair. If you really want to pick up the mantle of the other jerk I was arguing with, then take up where he dropped out. I asked him what, in his opinion, was the most compelling pieces of evidence that the government’s narrative on 9/11 actually was true.

        Answer that and we can take it from there.

        I will make a further offer. If you outline the most compelling evidence that the government story is true, I will outline the most compelling evidence (as I see it) that:

        (a) The government story is untrue.

        (b) The attacks came from *inside* the power structure.

        If the above proposal is unfair, in your opinion, please outline what you consider to be unfair about it.

      • veritytwo says:

        Saying. “the well informed are always thought to be crazy by the ignorant”

  14. “I would say that, when credentialed individuals, psychiatrists or ph.D.’s in psychology, say that a group of people are mentally ill due to their political beliefs, this should be seen as very sinister.”

    That’s a straw man.

    The facts being presented are that people’s beliefs can be determined to be manifestations of their psychological make up, some of them being based in very normal functions of the mind and some of them being unusual and closer to pathological problems. The diagnoses are not some off hand attempt to usurp a political model or crowd, they are in fact a reasonable attempt to rationalise the irrational beliefs of a sector of society. Making out that it is a political whitewash akin to a Soviet plot is frankly unrealistic and clearly lacking any attempt to assess the psychology papers and information about the subject. Your arguments are from a position of fear and persecution and fail to assess the topic in any realistic manner.

  15. a grateful reader says:

    That is not remotely a straw man, CK. It might be some other bad thing, but I think you lack a basic understanding of the informal logic term “straw man.” A straw man is when one misrepresents an opposing position to make it look like one is fairly considering and then refuting that position, when really one is refuting only a purposefully weakened trick-version for rhetorical effect in front of an audience.

    Show me how the comment you label “straw man” does that, and I’ll acknowledge that this criticism is unjustified and I’ll take it back, and I’ll further admit that I’m the one who didn’t fully understand the term. But absent that, I’d say this has to be counted as evidence of your argumentative weakness.

    • I know what a strawman is, and he is building one up from the arguments made by the original posts on this blog.

      The original blogs discuss the psychological issues of memory, beliefs, and other cognition and how they relate to the topic of conspiracy theory. The above user then makes the claim that these blog posts are the same as the Communist regime and are designed to destroy the arguments made by conspiracy theorists by association to mental illness. There is nowhere that this is done on the blog, and any reference to pathological issues, or mental illness is either by commenters or as a means to highlight how retarded certain conspiracy theorist world views are. The comparison is hardly sinister and being utlised in political manner, it’s a fair comparison when done, and can be shown of equal standing as far as some beliefs are concerned.

      However all this said, look at this.
      “I would say that, when credentialed individuals, psychiatrists or ph.D.’s in psychology, SAY THAT A GROUP OF PEOPLE ARE MENTALLY ILL DUE TO THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS, this should be seen as very sinister.”

      This is clearly an argument no author here has ever stated, the motivation and statements are never political. They are not discussed in a political setting, they are also not made to destroy a persons political worldview or to promote another political worldview. This claim is fabricated and the position never taken by any author here.

      This is building up an argument that was never made in order to make a false comparison of the Communist states treatment of political dissidents, when there is no such thing occurring on this blog or in the USA/UK/European Union members states..

      That is the very definition of a strawman, even according to your own definition of it.
      “A straw man is when one misrepresents an opposing position to make it look like one is fairly considering and then refuting that position”

      I think it’s clear I understand exactly what a strawman is, and how logic functions. You only have to take a look at the posts I make here, I am obviously aware of the fallacious reasoning used by the people posting here. Many times I have discussed the use of faulty logic by commenters here, who try their hardest to flatly deny they use it.

      • The actual definition of a strawman is the following:

        “The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s ACTUAL POSITION and substitutes a DISTORTED, EXAGGERATED, OR MISREPRESENTED VIEW of that position.”

        http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

      • a grateful reader says:

        Conspiracy Killer, thanks for taking the time and mental effort. I take your point, as follows: you and other conspiracy theory critics aren’t doing anything like confining or forcibly drugging people, but simply making an objective point that certain types and degrees of flawed thinking, which you say are manifested by many conspiracy theorists, are themselves potentially diagnostic of mental illness. Thus, an image of you as someone with a straight-jacket draped over one arm, syringe in hand, with several cops in tow and some sort of frighteningly mainstream lapel pin, is what you’re calling the straw man. Is that correct, at least in a simplistic way?

        So, J Revusky, I agree with a lot of what you said, but I agree with Conspiracy Killer here: this is a person who cares with a keyboard, and while the lessons of the Brezhnev era are burningly important, naturally, there is in fact a major differentiation between CK and a Soviet psychiatrist: namely, CK would of course not be able to file a report somewhere and initiate the violation of anyone’s rights and freedom of thought or speech. And, even if someone with a thought pattern like CK’s might like to do, (s)he doesn’t have that authority at this point, and after all who’s to say that any of us wouldn’t (won’t?) also abuse authority in the some way under coercion, whether locked in a bureaucracy behind ferns or down in the dirt?

      • Exactly, nicely put.

        I am as concerned as the next person about the way the world works and some of the tyrants in it. However, I would prefer to people remain sensible and not get carried away with their imaginations by using biased beliefs or faulty claims to pin blame on others, which themselves can be damaging.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        conspiracykiller has nothing here but appeals to authority. One of the weakest arguments there is.

        The very establishment of a “national security state” is the establishment of government in secret. This means that the government itself is a ‘Conspiracy’.

        What does “Full Spectrum Dominance” mean? It is the stated main strategy of the US military at this time. “Full spectrum” means “total”, “dominance” means to dominate, control, and rule. So the answer is that it is Totalitarian.

        That the US has become an open despotic maximum security state as the result of a psyop, known popularly as 9/11 can only be denied by the delusional, and brainwashed.
        \\][//

      • Show all my appeals to authority without cherry picking and editing the statements out of context. You however utilise begging the question which simply shows your lack of evidence. Also you utilise theory of gaps, by inserting your own conclusions and claims where there are gaps in information. To falsely bolster your assertions because they lack credibility. Problem is your techniques make them lack credibility even more because you want your claims to be true, but have nothing to back them up.

  16. a grateful reader says:

    Or, more precisely, the “straw man” is the purposefully weakened trick-version.

  17. a grateful reader says:

    Not to be tiresome, but that Nizkor definition is ???? because you can’t simultaneously misrepresent something and ignore it. You have to look at what you’re misrepresenting to misrepresent it successfully.

    • That is true, I only used it since it’s conveniently online and is what I would consider a decent source for definitions. However I would use two books as reference The philosopher’s toolkit & how to think about weird things if I were going to suggest a written source.

  18. The1bananas says:

    Evidence that al Qaeda caused 911:
    — Three year FBI investigation that cost $70 million dollars and involved thousands of Agents concluded that al Qaeda caused 911. There are three documents and you can download them from the FBI’s website.
    — al Qaeda was convicted of 911 by a Germany jury; in the US, al Qaeda was deemed responsible in an Atlanta court case.
    — The CIA and US State Department have both implemented al Qaeda.
    — Three American President’s have acknowledged al Qaeda cause 911: Clinton, Bush, Obama.
    — There are over 100 books listed on Amazon by mid-east experts implicating al Qaeda. (There are no recognized mid-east experts who disagree).
    — Osama wrote a 4,000 page document in which he lists the reasons why he brought about 911 in detail. Four reasons are provided (US troops on Muslim holy land soil in Saudi Arabia; support for Israel, etc.).
    — Osama’s driver implemented him on 60 Minutes speaking from Yemen; his son-in-law implemented him in 2014 while describing a conversation he and Osama had in a cave in Afghanistan. Kalid S Mohammed has implemented him (speaking of him as a hero).

    • Sour Dove says:

      “– The CIA and US State Department have both implemented al Qaeda.” –The1bananas
      This may not be quite the point you hoped to make. There is truth in it nonetheless.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “– The CIA and US State Department have both implemented al Qaeda.” –The1bananas

        Hahahahahaha … splendid … and absolutely true.

        He slipped on a Freudian banana peel {grin}
        \\][//

    • Jonathan Revusky says:

      The first basic problem is that you don’t seem to know what hard evidence is. All you are doing is making an appeal to authority, i.e. you say that all these various people claim something, therefore it must be true. This one really made me laugh, I have to say:

      “– Three American President’s have acknowledged al Qaeda cause 911: Clinton, Bush, Obama.”

      This, for you, is evidence that the claim is true — that those three U.S. politicians claim it is the case. Yeah of course they claim that. For you, THAT IS EVIDENCE????

      In any case, all that appeal to authority argumentation is fallacious. Your basic argument is like saying that because all the bigwigs in the Catholic Church claim that the stories in the BIble are true, therefore they must be true.

      Other arguments you make are pretty lame as well. Basically, you argue that, because rigging a controlled demolition is a lot of work and time consuming, therefore they did not do it. WTF kind of argument is that?

      Also, you claim things that are, no doubt, utterly false. The claim that there are no “experts” who doubt the official story on 9/11 is absolutely and utterly false. Go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Go to Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Go to Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Go to a web page called “Patriots question 9/11”. You immediately see that there are individuals of immense expertise and ability who question the 9/11 story, in fact, claim that the official story is impossible, and thus, must be false.

      If there is so much evidence for this being the work of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, then why did Noam Chomsky make the point that there is no hard evidence? The man, whatever you think of him, is a serious scholar. More importantly, if there was so much proof of Bin Laden’s guilt, why did the U.S. authorities not provide any when the Taliban requested it?

      Now, regarding testimony from, say, Salim Hamdan, who was, apparently, Osama Bin Laden’s driver, how would his driver know whether Osama had orchestrated 9/11 or not?

      In general, these people who were locked up in Guantanamo and tortured can probably be counted on to say whatever the U.S. authorities want them to say. They are terrified of being kidnapped and tortured some more.

      The claim that Osama Bin Laden wrote 4000 pages of text (presumably in Arabic) saying why he did what is claimed he did — where does this come from? Just think about that. Does that make any sense? 4000 pages?

      “You must be joking. The only way there could be more hard evidence then the massive amount compiled, would be if God himself came down and showed you a movie.”

      The above is only true if people simply repeating something constitutes evidence. However, it does not.

      • And what evidence do you have other than a flaccid attempt to state a mountain of independent evidence is an appeal to authority ?

      • Jonathan Revusky says:

        Among the “mountain” of so-called “evidence” that was provided is the fact that Clinton, Bush, and Obama all claim that Al Qaeda did it. Let me get this straight. Do you consider that evidence?

      • “The claim that there are no “experts” who doubt the official story on 9/11 is absolutely and utterly false. Go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Go to Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Go to Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Go to a web page called “Patriots question 9/11″. You immediately see that there are individuals of immense expertise and ability who question the 9/11 story, in fact, claim that the official story is impossible, and thus, must be false.”

        Appeal to authority seems to suit you when it serves your line of rhetorical crapola.

  19. The1bananas says:

    >It is implausible to you that the U.S. Government would carry out terrorist attacks and frame Muslims to start a war.

    No. It is implausible that (1) the US government would decide to blow up three buildings by controlled demolition, a labor intensive, difficult to hide process that would take at least a year, when they could just put a bomb in the basement and walk out. Ten minutes. However, we see from the implosions that the buildings were not brought down this way.
    (2) the US Republican government at the time would seek to blow up three buildings in the heart of Jewish NYC, that area being a source of Republican support and financial backing when if the purpose was to go to war, they could just bomb a US site or embassy somewhere in the mid-east using an Iraqi colored plane, and blame it on Saddam.
    (3) the US government would kill 3,000 of its own citizens, unprecedented, and then blame the murder on 19 Saudi’s operating in Afghanistan when the intention was to go to war with Iraq.
    (4) the US government would bring the buildings down by controlled demolition when the purpose of such a demolition is to leave a neat, tidy footprint and not disturb the surrounding buildings. People who fly fully loaded planes into buildings at high speed have no concern for “neat, tidy.”
    (5) the US government, seeking to kill people by ramming planes into buildings, would then wait 90 minutes for everyone to escape those buildings prior to blowing the building. Why bother with jets? Just blow the buildings. No sane group would plan jets and demolition, it would be like a bank robber tunneling under the bank and planning to blow the front door, only one or the other is required.
    (5) no civil engineering firm, no demolition firm, no chemical analysis laboratory and no physics or engineering department at any US University has been willing to certify that the 911 Truth claims for how the buildings came down are scientifically accurate. Hundreds of scientists have established that the buildings collapsed from structural damage and fire. See the peer reviewed published journal articles on the subject.

    • Jonathan Revusky says:

      Response to point 1 above: The basic argument you are making is that rigging the buildings for demolition is time consuming and laborious, therefore they didn’t do it. Not a very strong argument. As for how the buildings were brought down, they clearly were not brought down from the impact of airplanes. Each of the twin towers contains 100,000 tons of structural steel. The idea that 90,000 liters of jet fuel would cause 100,000 tons of steel to simply disintegrate in short order is very suspicious, since there is less than a litre of jet fuel for every ton of steel. The impact of a 100 ton airplane against a building that consists of several hundred thousand tons of steel and concrete would be negligible. (For the building, not for the plane, of course…) Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed without being hit by a plane. The only way this can be achieved is with controlled demolition.

      Response to point 2: 9/11 was a psychological operation designed to affect mass psychology so that the faction that carried it out could implement their plans. The reason why they did not simply bomb an embassy in some faraway part of the world instead is quite obvious: this would not have had the desired psychological impact. I really would have thought this was obvious, frankly.

      Response to point 3 above: The fact that the patsies they claim did it were mostly Saudis is actually of little practical consequence. Most of the U.S. public is very unsophisticated about the various nationalities in the greater Middle East, so simply establishing in the public mind that some Aaayrabs did it was sufficient for their purposes. As it turned out, they were able to leverage the event to start all the wars they wanted. And off to war it was…

      Response to point 4 above: You’re completely missing the point. The only reason that there are any planes in the story is to be able to frame fanatical Arab suicide hijackers. A plane flying into a massive steel framed skyscraper will not cause it to completely disintegrate. There is simply too much of an energy deficit. To cause several hundred thousand tons of steel and concrete to disintegrate, as we saw on that day, you need high powered explosives of some sort. This is generally known.

      Response to point 5 above: The whole thing has to appear minimally realistic. If you are going to claim that the complete collapse, disintegration really, of those huge buildings was because of fire, you need to leave some time for the fire to spread and so on. You can’t just have a plane strike a building and have the building immediately disintegrate. You need to be able to say: “The massive fire spread and the heat built up and yah dee dah.” This, as far as I can see, is the obvious explanation for why the buildings were not detonated immediately, thus leaving people time to escape the buildings.

      Response to point 6 above: Obviously, far more people in these engineering professions are aware that the official story of the collapse of the buildings is false than are willing to stand up and say so. There should be no need to explain why. What is also striking is how few comparably qualified people (if any) are wiling to debate Richard Gage, or Kevin Ryan, or Neils Harrit or Steven Jones in any public venue. If the official story of the collapse of the buildings is self-evidently true, then there should be legions of engineers and physicists willing to uphold that side of a debate. I have scanned youtube and come up just about blank on this. In fact, you will typically find that the people upholding the official story have no technical qualifications whatsoever. They are mostly just journalists. On the 9/11 truth side, you have very qualified people, ph.D. physicists and chemists, architects and engineers with decades of experience…

  20. The1bananas says:

    Evidence that supports the fact that the WTC buildings fell from fire and structural damage:
    — A dozen peer reviewed Journal articles in leading ASCE journals.
    — Two articles in Scientific American.
    — Studies conducted at five Universities (MIT, Columbia, Northwestern, Purdue, Univ of Sydney.
    — NIST
    — Seismic data from both Columbia and Protec, both seismographs with ½ mile of WTC site.
    — Conclusion of two NOVA investigations and an investigation by Popular Mechanics using experts from around the world.
    — The lack of support for any other theory among even one publication or periodical in the US. There is no press, media, academic, civil engineering individuals that support any other theory.

  21. The1bananas says:

    >there is no hard evidence that the government story on 9/11 is true.

    You must be joking. The only way there could be more hard evidence then the massive amount compiled, would be if God himself came down and showed you a movie.

    Have you looked at the solid wall of scientific studies? It is over the top. I can copy the studies here, but it will take about ten pages. Have you read any of the three FBI reports? 1000 pages, some 7,000 interviews, people who were in the buildings, night security? Have you looked at the seismic data from Columbia University? Talked to any large scale demolition firm to learn that it is impossible to wire a building for a controlled demolition while it is occupied?

  22. Jonathan Revusky says:

    The person I was responding to was claiming that there are no qualified experts who have expressed any doubt about the official 9/11 story. I was simply pointing out that this claim is utterly false.

  23. Gray says:

    What is frustrating is that people that are open minded oftern struggle to draw a line in reality and tend to over complicate events  quickly falling into the hands of the conspirators they seek to expose, effectively they become active participance in a disinformation conspiracy that blocks any attempt for more believable conspiracies to get air.
    Crazy ideas regarding 911 and I have herd them all from controlled demolition to remote control planes tend to close the minds of those with a more skeptical view of reality.
    The current disinformation campaign by the likes of Alex Jones and other radicals serves only to discourage further genuine investigations into what might be the truth behind these events.

     Let’s take the example of operation cyclone
    Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989.  This was the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken funding began with $20–30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.  Funding continued after 1989 as the Mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah’s PDPA during the Civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992)

    Now to think that the CIA walked from this multi billion dollar investment in my opinion is highly non-plausible yet logical people are expected to beleve the US government did, not leaving one operative to monitor or gide such a force. It is far more likely that elements of the operation continued either as rouge factions or with full support of CIA. 

    One does not need to look to deep to see America has been involved and continues involvement  in some very ugly geopolitical activitys, there are many angry people in nations that have been effected by these covert and overt actions, recruiting angry people to carry out abominable acts is not a problem.

    Why do we need the crazy conspiracies when there is a clear line of investigation.

    It is clear that  Bin laden and Al Qaeda carried out the 911 attack what is not clear is did Bin laden act alone. 
    One might wonder after Bin ladens brutal murder if he could of shed some light to these matters if taken alive.

    • Jonathan Revusky says:

      With all due respect, I think you are quite confused about various issues.

      However, let me start by acknowledging that you do make make one valid, reasonable point IMO. That is:

      It is unreasonable, given their initial involvement with Bin Laden and his cohorts in Afghanistan, to think that Western intelligence agencies would not have these kinds of people infiltrated and be apprised of what they were up to.

      Yes, that is a fairly important, valid point. However, as far as I can see, this is simply one further nail in the coffin of the official narrative. It is absurd to think that these kinds of non-State actors who have always been in bed with western intelligence agencies could mount such an operation without it coming to the attention of… if not of the CIA, then of Mossad, Saudi Intelligence, Pakistani ISI, etcetera.

      That said, I don’t see why you think this constitutes some kind of specific line of investigation, as opposed to what you, in classic hand-waving fashion, refer to as all these “crazy conspiracies”. Basically, it is just one further argument that says that the official story of what happened on 9/11 must be false.

      Your various comments make me wonder whether you really are familiar with the so-called “conspiracy theory” literature that you dismiss with a wave of the hand. For example, if you read The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin, you actually see that this book is not really about promulgating his own conspiracy theory, but rather, about meticulously documenting exactly why the government’s conspiracy theory of the 19 Arabs and the bearded nut in the cave simply cannot be true. And he does a fantastic job of that.

      Now, getting back to what you seem to be arguing (you can correct me if I am wrong), you are, I think advocating some form of LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose) versus MIHOP (made it happen on purpose.) You want to imply that the CIA and/or other intelligence agencies must have known what Al Qaeda was up to but let it happen because they considered it beneficial in terms of launching their plans.

      That is a nice story, but in this instance, it makes little sense. The original LIHOP story is about 12/7/1941, when the official story is that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a “surprise attack”. Revisionist historians have studied this and made the case that the U.S. had already broken the Japanese codes at that point and knew perfectly well that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor. They sacrificed the people there and some obsolete battleships because it suited their purpose, which was to enter the war. This revisionist LIHOP story regarding Pearl Harbor is, IMO, probably true. I say “probably” because I have not studied it as much as some other things. But, LIHOP in this instance does ring true.

      However, LIHOP really makes no sense for 9/11 because, while you can rely on the Japanese, an advanced industrial State with a top knotch military, to execute Pearl Harbor, you cannot rely on this collection of retards and misfits that have been named “Al Qaeda” to execute any damned thing. Certainly not of that scale. They lack the capability. If they need something of that scale to happen, they OBVIOUSLY have to do it themselves. Of course, this serves to highlight a basic difference between something like WW II and the “War on Terror”. In the former, the enemy really did exist! You have a very competent industrialized enemy State that can do a Pearl Harbor! In general, LIHOP theories can only make sense when you actually have an enemy that really exists. I mean a capable enemy anyway. When your enemy is basically a fictitious construct like “Islamic terrorism”, the events have to be made to happen, MIHOP, because, otherwise, they simply WILL NOT happen.

      The invasion of Afghanistan was being planned during the summer of 2001. The tentative date set for the attack was, I believe, October of 2001. It is very hard to see how they would have come up with a pretext for invading a country on the other side of the world without the events of September 2001. Now, the whole idea that these warmongers were basing their grand plan around relying on a handful of misfits to be able to pull off 9/11, somehow hijacking 4 aircraft within an hour and flying them into buildings, so that they could get their war going as scheduled — this is really fundamentally absurd if you really think about it. Also, there were people who knew what was going to happen and could not resist making a killing in the market. Note all the financial speculation (uninvestigated AFAIK) that happened prior to 9/11. Put options… To make these bets you need to be quite sure that the shit really is going down. And you’re not betting serious money, just gambling that a handful of looney religious nuts are going to get extraordinarily lucky.

      I think that should be clear. Do think about it.

      Now, in general, regarding your comments regarding having an “open mind”, self-observation is notoriously difficult. Are you sure that you are approaching the question with an open mind? What I have found striking about all of this dismissal of so-called “conspiracy theorists” is that when you actually look at the conspiracy theory literature, you realize that many of these authors are extremely capable independent researchers. They are not kooks at all. David Ray Griffin is an example. Another case that comes to mind wrt the JFK assassination is Mark Lane, who is a top trial attorney. These, and others, are top knotch people who have done very good independent research demonstrating that the official government narrative on these deep events cannot be possibly true. Also, go look at the various videos produced by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. These are very qualified people who make the case that the destruction of the buildings on 9/11 could not possibly be caused by the impact of the aircraft and subsequent fires. And the leading alternative theory (possibly the only viable one) is that the buildings were pre-rigged with very powerful explosives that were set off, and the airplane story is thus, basically, a red herring.

      If you do have an open mind, and thus, are interested, I would be glad to provide you (and anybody else lurking) some key links, though they are easy enough to find actually. You can start by watching any of the videos of ae911truth on youtube, for example.

      Now, as for your final comment about Osama Bin Laden being able to shed light on it had he been taken alive, this refers to another problematic story, of course. Well, I would just express doubt that, assuming Osama Bin Laden really was killed in Abbotabad, Pakistan, on that day (an assertion for which there is no hard evidence) I do not believe he could have provided much insight into 9/11. I do not believe he had anything to do with it. Read the independent research of people like David Ray Griffin and others, and you will see that this Osama Bin Laden story is plainly false.

      • With all due respect, I think you are quite confused about various issues.

      • Gray says:

        First of all you seem to have completely missed the point, you have shamefully made your self an agent of the conspirators.

        Think about that.

        I have examined the numerous demolition and other wacky theory’s and as most logical people have concluded they just don’t stack up, we can work through each issue one at a time if you feel so compelled.

        The main problem that I find is that as soon as one makes mention that elements of the US governments were involvement in the events of 911 one become tarred with the same brush as the crazies and deluded, reasonable debate can make no headway or at lest very slow progress in examining the underlying issues with anyone of sound mind because one must first work through the disinformation conspiracies you seem so  keen to push. 

        You say:
        (“Now, the whole idea that these warmongers were basing their grand plan around relying on a handful of misfits to be able to pull off 9/11, somehow hijacking 4 aircraft within an hour and flying them into buildings, so that they could get their war going as scheduled — this is really fundamentally absurd”)

        For a false flag and to justify a war you only needed one of the four groups to be successful, maybe there were more groups then 4 we will never know. Could the fact that there were 4 groups supports my case over yours, I think so. The fact that there were three continuances seems to discredit the argument that you make. Correct me if I am wrong.

        For a false flag and to justify a war you need not take the building to the ground, just the act of flying one plane into a building would have been enough to secure the objective.

        It is only the simplest of conspiracies that have an ability to play out.
        Everything that the wacko conspiracies involve uses far more man power then is needed to achieve the set goals. Why would you over complicate the mission and bringing in more people into the conspiracy and risk a leek of mistake? 

      • Common sense or logic are not strong points of conspiracy theorists Gray, it’s not sensible to enter into discourse with them on specifics. The conspiracy theorist will never concede being wrong, since their general emotional stability rests on their worldview.being correct. Trying to peel the onion of manufactured storylines they have created will create many tears. This is the reason they are impervious to common sense and reason.

        Conspiracy theorists will utilise logic for validating their unsubstantiated claims in the same way apologetics do in Christendom, evidence and facts are not something they care about. It is wise for the rational person to always be aware of the cyclic debate conspiracy theorists try and lull people into, forever gish galloping on minor details, never conceding they are wrong on anything.

      • It shouldn’t therefore surprise you that david Ray Griffin is a graduate in the Horsehit of Theology and philosophy, which explains his utilisation of unsubstantiated reasoning in preference for hard evidence.For theologians and philosophers like him cyclic reasoning and extraneous nonsense has meaning. To anyone rational it’s just a word game the children play.

  24. Gray says:

    Yes just been looking into David and a see he thinks god is separate to the universe, as an atheist I can not subscribe to that. My god is the universe and it’s laws.

    His views on the Afghanistan mujahideen are well documented and credible but it seems to end there with fake phone calls and other hocus pocus.

    Conspiracy followers seem highly motivated and a great resource if harvested.

  25. I take pleasure in, result in I found exactly what I was taking a look for.

    You’ve ended my four day long hunt! God Bless you man.
    Have a nice day. Bye

  26. Hi there colleagues, fastidious article and nice arguments commented at this place,
    I am truly enjoying by these.

  27. hybridrogue1 says:

    How did military grade explosives – nanothermate – end up in the dust in the aftermath of the WTC?

    \\][//

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Again a strawman reply from conspiracykiller. My question again was: How did military grade explosives – nanothermate – end up in the dust in the aftermath of the WTC?

        I have seen this bullshit “debunking site” many times before and the rhetorical jabberwacky there has nothing to do with real science, but is in fact rhetorical nonsense.

        APPENDIX C : Limited Metallurgical Examination – Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, R. D. Sisson, Jr. of Worcester Polytechnic Institute

        It is in this examination that the first evidence of ‘Thermite Arson’ is revealed in this report by the discovery of iron – aluminum rich microspheres, and the signature of eutectic corrosive attack on the steel samples tested.
        A further exposition is given by Jerry Lobdill, June 2007:
        http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf

        \\][//

      • I don’t think you understand what a strawman actually is, or if you do you seem to just throw out logic terminology in the wrong ways. My reply was not a strawman, it was a link addressing your claim. I sometimes wonder if conspiracy theorists like to see themselves at technically versed in all fields without doing the requisite study.

      • Pro tip: nanothermate and aluminum rich microspheres,

        Not even the same thing let alone the same empirical size.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        James Millette’s study is useless as it skipped critical procedures and does not address the actual chemistry of the Harrit – Jones paper.
        \\][//

      • The Harrit- Jones is useless as it’s not a peer reviewed article tat is agreed upon by scientific consensus. So the article skips critical procedures itself.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Don’t play hopscotch with the context with me conspiracykiller, it is obvious I was speaking to scientific procedure not publishing procedure.

        Even if we accept the notion given in the ‘screwloosechange’ page given, the question still remains, what was this solgel material doing in the dust – even if ‘just as fuses’?

        A note on Greening, he has also said that the NIST Reports are worthless and a waste of the taxpayers money – see the Randy forums for that too.
        \\][//

      • What it really comes down to as Greening has said is the following.

        Either you want to believe your own government [assuming you are a US citizen] conspired to kill its own citizens with a ridiculous conspiracy. Or you believe that terrorism and terrorists have and will continue to attack INternational targets as was carried out in September 2001, prior and subsequently.

        Ether way you have nothing.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        It is not a matter of what I “want to believe”, it is a matter of what the evidence proves.

        Your link to the screwloosechange site was a strawman because it did not address the question I asked about the dust. Sometimes I think that you people who take it upon yourself to be professional “debunkers” want to appear as if you have expertise in any and all subjects. {grin}

        As far as your “pro tip” a nanothermate is a product of solgel chemistry, the nanostructures are not the microspheres but the molecular structure that makes them up.

        Anyway, I am not going to camp out here with such unpleasant company. It is futile going round’n’round with someone who is only determined to be “right” no matter what.
        \\][//

      • See you then, don’t forget you can post your whacky beliefs on every other forum on the internet too for the next few decades.

  28. hybridrogue1 says:

    Why did NIST fail in their mandate to explain the global collapse of the Twin Towers, but only modeled the events up to the point where they were “poised for collapse”?
    \\][//

    • Have you actually fully read and understood the NIST report, or are you just taking someone elses interpretation of it from a conspiracy theory website ?

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Have you actually fully read and understood the NIST report, or are you just taking someone else’s interpretation of it from a conspiracy debunking theory website ?

        I have read select portions of it, and of course analysis by physicists. But that was not my question was it? No it wasn’t. I asked why NIST did not fulfill their mandate to explain the complete global collapse of the twin towers. {you were squawking about strawman arguments earlier – don’t be a hypocrite now.}

        If you have actually read the reports you know that they modeled the structure from the point of impact until “it was poised for collapse”. You would also know that they say themselves in the report that they fudged the results because they could not even get to the point of “poised for collapse” without tweaking the software.
        \\][//

      • So if the NIST report fails according to the limited portions you have admitted to reading, how about you explain precisely and technically exactly how the towers collapsed.

        Or are you just going to use gap theory once more and ascertain it was a cover up job without evidence ?

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “how about you explain precisely and technically exactly how the towers collapsed.” ~conspiracykiller

        http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/

        The material at the URL above is arranged as such; the ABSTRACT is the ‘body’ of the article in this wordpress format, the points from that abstract follow in what is referred to as the comments section. This way I was able to provide video is the presentation.
        \\][//

      • There you go you have managed to plug your blog, you can be on your way now.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        You are the one who asked for a full explanation…
        So, you really wanted me to make that long and detailed an exposition here on a blog forum?
        Rather than “plug” JREF and screwloosechange forums, why don’t you make those arguments in full here? Impractical yes? Yes?

        Don’t worry bucko, I have no intention of spending the rest of my life going around in circles with a pretender such as you.
        \\][//

      • That’s the most sensible thing you have said yet.

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      That you are a pretender? Yes I know.
      \\][//

      • Yup I am pretending to care about anything you have said. We both know you will keep posting your whacky beliefs for the blog owners to keep for posterity. It’s not me who is the subject of study here, it’s you.

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      Just to make clear to the readership here, the deflection techniques used by ConspiracyKiller here; he never actually addresses my question:

      –Why did NIST fail in their mandate to explain the global collapse of the Twin Towers, but only modeled the events up to the point where they were “poised for collapse”?

      He claims that he knows what the fallacious straw-man argument is, so since he knows this, and since his deflection is meant to steer away from answering the real question, his commentary is a type of straw-man.

      NIST had a mandate to explain the global – the complete and total collapse of the Twin Towers. They didn’t even begin to give such an explanation, they left off their analysis just prior to the moment that they were tasked with explaining. And allegory can show how deceitful this is:
      It would be as if the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of John Kennedy had ended it’s analysis of the events of November 22, 1963 at the point when the motorcade had turned to enter Elm Street. Just leaving it there, is an exact analogy of what the NIST Report does.

      This is in fact a blatant fraud for NIST to turn it’s back on the most essential aspect of the job it was tasked with. Anyone who does not appreciate this simply doesn’t want to admit to themselves what a crucial point this is in this whole nefarious affair.
      \\][//

  29. hybridrogue1 says:

    conspiracykiller exhibits pathos in the extreme, and is extraordinary ignorant.
    His claim to the word “rational” is ludicrous. He seems of the type that feels that who ever has the stupidest insults is the king of the hill. Only if that hill is a pile of bullshit is he correct.

    He seems to squat here on this blog as a gatekeeper. If I were Mr Brotherton I would can his nasty ass post haste, because conspiracykiller has the stench of a psychopath about him.
    \\][//

  30. hybridrogue1 says:

    Finally I will point out that this blog, which pretends to speak to “psychology” actually has a political agenda. That agenda is to promote going along to get along with the herd mind. It is a part of the larger agenda of promoting collectivist thinking. The popular spin of lollipop history is propagated here ruthlessly.

    In its very essence this blog site itself is a psychological operation, the creation of a new formula of rhetorical sedative to put the people back into their trance.
    \\][//

  31. hybridrogue1 says:

    The saddest part is you probably think I am serious when I put that on my gravatar” ~conspiracykiller

    The saddest part is that you are serious about all the other fiction you write on this blog.

    Your commentary indicates that you actually believe, despite all of the unconstitutional legislation and executive decrees since the events of 9/11 that you technically still have your constitutional rights. It is my position that this point of view is preposterous to the point of insanity. I don’t know whether or not you have ever read the Constitution, but if you have you clearly do not understand it.
    \\][//

    • The constitution means nothing to me as I am not a US citizen, however. All the US friends I have currently possess all their constitutional rights completely intact and are living a perfectly free life without any stormtroopers locking them up or threatening their livelihoods.

      You do have a penchant for the dramatic flare on here, perhaps you should try your hand at writing dystopian fiction.

      PS. I knew you would hang around and blubber on like the typical conspiratards who pass through here.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Actually it is you, and likely your US friends who have a cinematic misconception of life in a totalitarian society.

        Yes we are free here, free to be monitored every moment, free to come and go… where is it any different than that? Korea? Sure. Does it take the extreme of Korea before one is aware of the lack of legal freedoms?

        When things happen drip-by-drip, few can distinguish how more oppressive it gets day by day, week by week, month by month.

        You should probably read … (grin)… a book called THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE FREE.
        In fact you should definitely read some history – some real history, not the bullshit that passes for it in academia. But as you are a typical TVZombie, a member of the sub genus of Homo Vishnu Ignoranus I doubt if you will make an attempt to educate yourself, being so satisfied with your programming and conditioning to normalcy biases.

        \\][//

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Funny? Actually you are the one who is absurdly funny; your dialog is like something from Monty Python.
        Ludicrous – you know, the word means ‘playing games’, joking around, acting a fool; a twit spinning an uneven weave in your yarn causing weakness in your own fabric.

        You’re a wise-guy, thinking that being ‘clever’ can stand in for actual rational discussion.
        You are quite mistaken, and anyone with a lick of sense reading this exchange is going to see that.
        \\][//

      • Your dialogue is like a visit to the paranoid schizophrenics ward of the funny farm.

      • Narad says:

        Wow. I guess HR1 was right about you: whoever comes up with the stupidest insults wins.

        It has been noted that the severity of your insults are inversely correlated with the strength of your arguments.

        Do you eye-roll when you say “conspiratard woo-wooo-wackjob!”?

        If HybridRogue1 wears a tin-foil hat, you must surely be wearing one with a miniature propeller on top.

      • Narad says:

        I appreciate a response from HybridRogue1, but I am confused as to the relevance of his link.

        HR1 should talk to C. Mckee because T&S in vacuous right now.

  32. hybridrogue1 says:

    “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
    \\][//

  33. hybridrogue1 says:

    On The Panoptic Maximum Security State

    As Foucault puts it, the Panopticon is polyvalent in its applications; it serves to reform the prisoner. The Panopticon provides us with a model in which a self-disciplined society is conditioned to the habituation of acceptance of this rape of dignity as “normal”.
    This condition leads to herd behavior and activities. Even though a sane person would realize that “political participation” is actual nothing but empty ritual.
    Those who posit such obvious points causes fear and loathing in those who are under such programming. And there is even training for those such as these who desire to “help the herd”, and who feel every emotion of righteousness and moral authority to step up for “intervention” to help cure the rare sane individual in their midst.
    As control is the prime directive, it is the most focused and finely tuned instruments seeing to the tiniest detail to refine the tools of manipulation and direction of the society.
    Every topic and activity of peoples lives must be monitored and controlled by the aparatus building the maximum security state.

    Orwell gave us a preview of this society in his dystopian novel NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR.
    The concepts of ‘doublethink’ and ‘newspeak’ are prescient for his time. That the mainstream consensus charaterizes the story as “science fiction”, it can be hand waved as not a serious work for grasping the despotic nature of the present societies of this brave new world.

    I was informed by one of these nanny do-gooders today that all of our rights and freedom are intact and only “conspiratards” had the ‘bad thoughts’ that I have written about. It is as funny as it is tragic, and is standard script; as it is from central casting. This one, a gravitar called ‘conspiracykiller’ is a True Believer. As much a fanatic as Paul, one of the main authors and ‘saint’ of biblical myth. His certainty is sublime. He loves Big Brother.
    . . . . . . . . . .

    As for the term polyvalent as used above, what we are speaking to is the panopticon’s universal applicability to the manipulation of human behavior.

    The culture has been seeped in it from cradle to grave for several generations. It has progressed to the stage of an utterly pathological society.The ambiguity of language and the servile acceptance of contradictory construction of thoughts has developed a herd of somnambulist human beings stuffed with psychotic delusions like walking talking voodoo dolls.
    \\][//

    • Oh but fear not people we are all safe, because captain negative up above will save us all from the fate we cannot see by posting non stop misanthropic yarns on internet pages. His super powers of intuition are powered by the kool aid and his suit of tin foil makes him invulnerable.

  34. hybridrogue1 says:

    I am sure this will break the heart of the ‘killer-guy’… But:

    The JREF forum hired a scientist named Millette to test WCT dust samples to debunk the Jones-Harrit et al NanoThermite paper.
    At one point Millette passed preliminary notes to the JREF forum so the monkeys there could hoot and holler about it. But it turns out now that Millette did not publish the report. It is not conclusive whether it did not pass peer review, or if he simply withdrew it. But it is a dead letter.

    Now it has also been discovered that Millette was one of the scientists involved in giving the green light to the EPA for the clean-up of the WTC site, which as we all know was based on fraudulent science and hundreds of those workers involved now are suffering from many types of cancers and other ailments do to the extreme toxicity of that dust and environment. There are now parties out to take Millettes head. He is liable for criminal fraud in that case.

    Harrit´s paper is essentially flawless according to one of the referees that reviewed the paper on behalf of the journal, which explains why no-one has been able to challenge the explosive conclusion with published data.

    Some of these issues are addressed here:
    http://www.911grassroots.org/2013/09/new-wtc-dust-study-looks-set-to-confirm.html

    \\][//

    • You just keep piling conspiracy theories on top of other conspiracy theories.
      You’ve built yourself a lovely little Russian doll for yourself there buddy, pffft.

      • Also the publisher for the harrit jones paper was Bentham, which is a vanity press that has been shown to publish anything and behave disreputably. If the finding of the Harrit Jones publication were of scientific merit publishers would clamour over one another to publish it for free like all other reputable journals. Since being the one to change the World would be a historical precedence, and science and journalists are always trying to be the first to prove something and change the game.

        Bentham press however is a money making business ot a reputable journal.

        http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      Well actually ‘killer-guy’ I have shot down your whole enterprise of attempting to debunk the discovery of solgel nanothermite in the WTC dust. And your only response to that is a quip about a “Russian doll”.

      Millette produced a Revised Progress Report of Results: MVA9119 Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust on 01 March 2012…

      And this is the last we have heard from him.

      The crow you hear outside wants to come in for dinner.
      \\][//

      • You shot nothing down, you just see an explanation you want to believe true. You have nothing and no reputable scientists on the planet are supporting your claims. And I just shot down your disreputable vanity publication.

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor” ~PNAC

      \\][//

  35. hybridrogue1 says:

    “If the finding of the Harrit Jones publication were of scientific merit publishers would clamour over one another to publish it for free like all other reputable journals.”~dat killer guy

    You keep coming up with stale bullshit ‘killer-guy’ …

    The fact is that if the Harrit-Jones is without merit, publishers would clamor over one another to publish rebuttals – and none have come forth.
    This calling Bentham a “vanity journal” is just more debunker nonsense. I have read that junk about a single paper getting through that was a practical joke. You have no idea how many peer reviewed journals have to retract papers. Especially in the medical field where people have died or been damaged for life by some drug that was deemed “safe” by peer review. These have been headline cases in many instances and I need not provide citations.

    You are grasping at straws…so go ahead and build another strawman, the crows you are going to eat need a perch.
    \\][//

    • Because it’s in a vanity press that is a laughing stock, it needs to actually get published first.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        It is published, whether you have issues with the publisher or not, no one has been able to make a successful rebuttal to the science.

        You find yourself a rebuttal of that Harrit-Jones paper in a “reputable journal”, and we’ll discuss it then.

        9/11 is a “controversial issue” so-called “reputable” people are afraid of it – it’s political and has nothing to do with science…sorta like this website we speak on now.
        \\][//

      • That’s like asking me to find a reputable scientific journal that disproves the moon is made of cheese.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “That’s like asking me to find a reputable scientific journal that disproves the moon is made of cheese.”~conspiracykiller

        No it’s not. There isn’t the slightest controversy over the fact that the moon is not made of cheese. You have no real substantive argument so you make these ‘cheesy’ little quips and excuses.

        The fact is that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the WTC complex was blown up by explosives. The eye witness testimony confirms this, the video and still imagery confirms this, and the physical evidence confirms this. This physical evidence is not only the residue of military grade explosives found in the dust, but the tell tale eutectic damage to steel samples indicative of thermite arson.

        And this is only one aspect of the proofs that 9/11 was a self inflicted wound of the state and pretext for a stated agenda. You have your hands full attempting to ‘debunk’ the truth.
        \\][//

      • “been proven beyond reasonable doubt ”

        You clearly don’t understand how to use this term.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “You clearly don’t understand how to use this term.”~the killer guy

        The fact is that you clearly don’t understand rational debate. Making bold pronouncements such as the above after wobbling about like a tic-tock automaton reading some script from central casting is not reasoned argument.

        You are a prime example that there’s no business like bullshit, it’s the hottest property in town. And you have a substantial plot of it.
        \\][//

      • If you are going to use scientific terminology in a debate to attempt to gain credibility for your claims at least use the terms correctly. The fact is that in legislative scenarios BRD requires a 91% statistical agreement of evidence, and in scientific/academic arenas BRD requires evidence that supports and agrees with the theory from multiple academic and scientific areas, inclusive of numerous third party experiments whose findings support the theory.

        It should be obvious to anyone with a brain cell that neither legislative or academic/scientific support your claims, so your usage of BRD in debate is not only erroneous it is dishonest of you.

        You wonder why I make your discussion into a satire ? Well it’s simply because it’s all it deserves, you haven’t the requisite skill set or evidence to be taken seriously.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “The fact is that in legislative scenarios BRD requires a 91% statistical agreement of evidence, and in scientific/academic arenas BRD requires evidence that supports and agrees with the theory from multiple academic and scientific areas, inclusive of numerous third party experiments whose findings support the theory.”~killer guy

        You are speaking in context of a lawful trial. Since it is obvious the state will never allow an actual impartial trial, the only thing left is reasoned debate. You have no “statistical agreement of evidence”. You simply assume that the majority of academics and scientists would come to your own conclusions if presented with all of the facts in an unbiased manner. You also dismiss normalcy bias which is pandemic in a society manipulated by a Public Relations Regime, and the fear of nonconformity to the opinions of authority.
        Most people don’t have the courage to stake their livelihood on speaking out, regardless of what they really think. The majority doesn’t even want to think about these issues when they are living from hand to mouth.

        Academia and official scientific groups are most effected by political dogma, and the integrity of their various fields is tainted with the pressure to conform.

        And lastly, your recent comment is a blatant appeal to authority, insisting that the layman is incapable of thinking things through for himself. You have this opinion because you yourself are incapable of thinking for yourself, and you are insulted that any others would be so brash as to disagree with the status quo. You are a pathetic example of the dominated, house broken pet of authoritarian masters.
        \\][//

      • The reason why you will never win this debate is because you have nothing that supports you, whenever you are asked for evidence that is sufficient you appeal to conspiracy. Anyone who knows how this works correctly will see you use scientific and academic terminology to seem like an authority, yet when it’s shown you have no work of authority you accuse the other of appealing to authority. This wreaks of intellectual dishonesty and makes you look desperate to avoid being shown to have insufficient evidence.

        You can’t have it both ways, either you and your fellow conspiracist cohorts are willing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your claims are of sound argument and supported via the correct method, with 3rd party support and academic works holding your claims up, or you will be flailing in the wind and ignored because you are unwilling to do so and rely on the dishonest use of appeals to authority when called out.

        The problem you have is not that anyone is unwilling to risk their careers, it’s that there is no evidence of sufficient quality to follow, therefore academics see it as a fruitless venture. You keep utilising one conspiracy to support another conspiracy, and it’s transparent.

        I can see you have nothing of a quality standard and are desperate, and likely so can others reading this who are versed in academia. Your claims require a grand conspiracy, and it’s simply preposterous. You resort to conspiracy memes that are unproven to support further conspiracy memes that are unproven.

        Lastly you don’t even utilise logic or academic terminology correctly, and that’s the reason I deem you to lack any credibility. You seem fairly smart relatively speaking, but not as smart as you probably think you are. The fact you use terminology so incorrectly makes you look like you are out of your depth here.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “You can’t have it both ways, either you and your fellow conspiracist cohorts are willing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your claims are of sound argument and supported via the correct method, with 3rd party support and academic works…”

        You have no definition of “3rd party support”, and the fact is that there are plenty of academics writing sound arguments criticizing the official narrative. Regardless of the academic credentials of anyone writing such critiques, you frame them as “conspiracist”, as if this term automatically strips them of their expertise and intelligence.

        Yet you yourself have been incapable of making a cogent rational argument.
        And who actually “wins” this argument will not depend on the readership of this politically biased website.

        And nobody will win an argument with the state, because the state is not eloquence, it is not reason, it relies on the force of violence and deceit. The state will not allow a full and impartial hearing on the true facts of this case because these facts would reveal it is the state itself that is the perpetrator. Catch 22, tails they win, heads we loose.

        Good luck with your continuing doublethink and newspeak burlesque.
        \\][//

      • Resorting to conspiracy theory to defend your conspiracy theories as I previously stated, totally transparent.

      • “You have no definition of “3rd party support””

        If you were versed in the academic/scientific method I wouldn’t need to. You would understand that I am asking for technical and scientific verification of your claims via multiple fields of science/engineering/academia that are of sufficient quality and content to mount a credible case. All of which passed the peer review of the general consensus of experts.
        You of course will claim conspiracy in the academic arena to avoid having to do this.Yet you will happily wheel out any academic papers that haven’t passed this requisite step by non experts to claim some kind of authority that supports your claims. Essentially you are totally devoid of intellectual honesty, and cherry pick academia and non academia whenever it suits your conspiracist agenda. However, when shown to be lacking credibility, you use appeals to authority to prevent having to deal with your lack of evidentiary support.

        “and the fact is that there are plenty of academics writing sound arguments criticizing the official narrative. Regardless of the academic credentials of anyone writing such critiques, you frame them as “conspiracist”, as if this term automatically strips them of their expertise and intelligence.”

        Actually it strips them of their expertise and credibility in the scientific/academic field simply because they lack the qualifications and peer review process. The fact they assume conclusions of grand conspiracy theory further demeans their credibility, particularly when the conclusions are unwarranted and unsupported. It has nothing to do with their intelligence, because it’s already been shown that reasonable intelligent people can believe stupid shit. You are an example.

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      List of Publications

      NIELS HARRIT
      “Pyrylium Salts and Hydroxylamine in Acid Medium. Synthesis of Pyridine N-Oxides from Pyrylium Salts.” N. Harrit, C.L. Pedersen and O. Buchardt, Acta Chemica Scandinavica 24 (1970) 3435-3443.
      “Light-Induced Ring Expansion of Pyridine N-Oxides.” O. Buchardt, C.L. Pedersen and N. Harrit, Journal of Organic Chemistry. 37 (1972) 3592-3595.
      “Detection of Transients in Low-temperature Photochemistry of 4-Phenyl-1,3,2-oxathiazolyio-5-oxide by Ultraviolet and Electron Spin Resonance Spectrometry.” A. Holm, N. Harrit, K. Bechgaard, O. Buchardt, and S. Harnung, Chem.Commun. 1972, 1125.
      “The Photochemical Behavior of Aromatic 1,2-Diazine-N-Oxides.” K.B. Tomer, N. Harrit, I. Rosenthal, O. Buchardt, P.L. Kumler and D. Creed, .J.Am.Chem.Soc. 95 (1973) 7402-7406.
      “Photochemical Rearrangement of 3-Methyl-2-methylthio-5-phenyl-(1,3-thiazol-4-ylio)oxide to 3-Methyl-4-methylthio-5-phenyl-1,3-thiazol-2-one.” O. Buchardt, J. Domanus, N. Harrit, A. Holm, G. Isaksson and J. Sandström, Chem. Commun. 1974, 376-377.
      “Photolyse af 4-Phenyl-1,3,2-oxathiazolylio-5-oxid. Mekanisme og metode.” Licentiatafhandling. 215 sider. Kemisk Laboratorium II, H.C.Ørsted Institutet, Københavns Universitet 1975.
      “Photochemistry of Thiatriazoles. Benzonitrile Sulphide as Intermediate in the Photolysis of Phenyl-Substituted 1,2,3,4-Thiatriazole, 1,3,2-Oxathiazolylio-5-oxide and 1,3,4-Oxathiazole-2-one.” A. Holm, N. Harrit and N.H. Toubro, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 97 (1975) 6197-6201.
      “The Photocycloaddition of Cyclohexene to Carbostyrils.” O. Buchardt, J. J. Christensen and N. Harrit, Acta Chemica Scandinavica B30 (1976) 189-192.
      “Oxathiiranes as Intermediates in the Photolysis of Sulfines.” L. Carlsen, N. Harrit and A. Holm, J. Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans. I, 1976, 1404-1408.
      “On the mechanism of Photolysis of 4-Phenyl-1,3,2-oxathiazolylio-5-oxide in ethanol. Evidence for Ketene Intermediates.” A. Holm, N. Harrit and N.H. Toubro, Tetrahedron 32 (1976) 2559-2563.
      “Enviromental Effects as a Determining Factor in Photochemical reactions: Photolysis of matrix-isolated 4-Phenyl-1,3,2-oxathiazolylio-5-oxide.” I.R. Dunkin, M. Poliakoff, J.J. Turner, N. Harrit and A. Holm, Tetr. Letters 1976, 873-876.
      “Photoinduced Ring Opening and COS Elimination of Mesoionic Thiadiazoles.” A. Holm, N.H. Toubro and N. Harrit, Tetr. Lett. 1976, 1909-1912.
      “Photolysis of 1,2,5-Selenadiazoles. Formation of Nitrile Selenides.” N. Harrit, C.L. Pedersen, M. Poliakoff and I. Dunkin, Acta Chemica Scandinavica B31 (1977) 848-858.
      “Strong Evidence for Thiazirines as Stable Intermediates at Cryogenic Temperature in the Photolytic Formation of Nitrile Sulfides from Aryl Substituted 1,2,3,4-Thiatriazole, Thiatriazole-3-oxide and 1,3,4-Oxathiazol-2-one.” A. Holm, N. Harrit and I. Trabjerg, J. Chem. Soc. Perkin I 1978, 746-750.
      “Evidence from the Absorption and Emission Spectra of Trimethylenemethane Derivatives for two Molecular Species in Thermal Equilibrium.” N. Harrit, N. Turro, M.J. Mirbach, J.A. Berson and M. Platz, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 100 (1978) 7653-7658.
      “Photoinduced Ring Opening and Fragmentation of Isomeric Mesoinic Anhydro-4(5)-hydroxythiazolium Hydroxides and of Anhydro-5-hydroxy-3-methyl-2-phenyloxazolium Hydroxides.” N.H.Toubro, B. Hansen, N. Harrit, A. Holm and K.T. Potts, Tetrahedron 35 (1979) 229-231.
      “Absence of Triazirine Intermediates in the Photolytic Formation of azides from Mesoionic 3-Substituted 1,2,3,4-Oxathiazolylio-5-oxides.” C. Bjerre, C. Christophersen, B. Hansen, N. Harrit, F.M. Nicolaisen and A. Holm, Tetrahedron 35 (1979) 409-411.
      “Photolysis of 1,2,3-Selenadiazole. Formation of Selenirene by Secondary Photolysis of Selenoketene.” N. Harrit, S. Rosenkilde, B. D. Larsen and A. Holm, J. Chem. Soc. Perkin I 1985, 907-911.
      “Viscosity-dependent Fluorescence and Low-temperature Photochemistry of Mesoionic 4-Phenyl-1,3,2-oxathiazolylium-5-olate.” N. Harrit, A. Holm, I. Dunkin, M. Poliakoff and J.J. Turner, J. Chem. Soc. Perkin II 1987, 1227-1238.
      “On Selenoketenes. Formation of 1,3,4-Selenodiazoline from Carbodiselenide and Diazoalkanes.” R.H. Berg, N. Harrit, E. Larsen and A. Holm, Acta Chemica Scandinavica 43 (1989) 885-887.
      “Pregnancy Zone Protein, a Proteinase Binding Macroglobulin. Interactions with Proteinase Binding Macroglobulin. Interactions with Proteinases and Methylamine.” U. Christensen, M. Simonsen, N. Harrit and L. Sottrup-Jensen, Biochemistry, 28 (1989) 9324-9331.
      “Mixed-function-oxygenase in Juvenile rainbow Trout Exposed to Hexachlorobenzene or 3,3’,4,4’-tetrachlorobiphenyl.” H. Tyle, M. Egsmose and N. Harrit, Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 100 (1991) 161-164.
      “Pregnancy Zone Protein, a Proteinase Binding -Macroglobulin. Stopped-flow Kinetic Studies of its Interaction with Chymotrypsin.” U. Christensen, L. Sottrup-Jensen and N. Harrit, Biochem. Biophys. Acta, 1076 (1991) 91-96.
      “The Peroxide Chemistry of triaryl Substituted Imidazoles. Fenflumizole, a Non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory Agent.” P.L. Frandsen, K. Håkansson, A. Holm and N. Harrit, Acta Chemica Scandinavica 45 (1991) 627-631.
      “Photolysis of N-2,4,6-Trinitrophenyl Substituted Amino Acids.” J. Frederiksen, B.D. Larsen and N. Harrit, Tetrahedron Lett. 32 (1991) 5823.
      “Photolysis of 1,2,3-Thiadiazole. Formation of Thiirene by Secondary Photolysis of Thioketene.” B.D. Larsen, N. Harrit, H. Eggert and A. Holm, Acta Chem. Scand. 46 (1992) 482-486.
      “Two Different Ca2+ Ion Binding Sites in Factor VIIa and in Des(1-38) factor VIIa.” J. Schiødt, N. Harrit, U. Christensen and L. Petersen, FEBS Letters, 306 (1992) 265-268.
      “Correlations Between the Rate Constant of Singlet Oxygen Quenching by Imidazole Derivatives and Anti-inflammatory Activity in Rats.” R.V. Bensasson, J. Frederiksen, M. Rougée, D. Lexa and N. Harrit, Mol. Pharmacol. 42 (1992) 718-722.
      “Synthesis of New Sulfur Heteroaromatics Isoelectronic with Dibenzo[g,p]chrysene by Photocyclization of Thienyl- and Phenyl-Substituted Ethenes.” E. Fischer, J. Larsen, J.B. Christensen, M. Fourmigué, H.G. Madsen and N. Harrit, J. Org. Chem. 61, (1996) 6997-7005.
      “Ordering of the Disk-like 2,3,6,7,10,11-Hexakis(hexylthio)triphenylene in Solution and at Liquid-Solid Interface.” Gabriel, J.-C., Larsen, N.B., Larsen, M., Harrit, N., Pedersen, J.S., Schaumburg, K. and Bechgaard, K. Langmuir 12 (1996) 1690-1692.
      “Photoconductivity of Langmuir-Blodgett Films of Corbathiene.” A. Komolov, K. Schaumburg and N. Harrit, Thin Solid Films 293 (1997) 159.
      “Photophysical properties of 2,3,6,7,10,11-Hexakis(n-hexylsulfonyl)triphe-nylene and 2,3,6,7,10,11-Hexakis(n-hexylsulfonyl)triphenylene in solution.” D. Baunsgaard, M. Larsen, N. Harrit, J. Frederiksen, R. Wilbrandt, H. Stapelfeldt, J.Chem.Soc., Faraday Trans., 93 (1997) 1893-1901.
      “Fluorescein-Conjugated Lysine Monomers for Solid Phase Synthesis of Fluorescent Peptides and PNA Oligomers.” J. Lohse, P.E. Nielsen, N. Harrit and O. Dahl, Bioconjugate Chem. 8 (1997) 503-509.
      ”Synthesis, Structure, and Fluorescence Properties of 5,17-Distyryl-25,26,27,28-tetrapropoxycalix[4]arenes in the Cone Conformation.” Mogens Larsen, Frederik C. Krebs, Mikkel Jørgensen, og Niels Harrit, J.Org.Chem., 63 (1998) 4420-4424.
      ”2,6,10-Tris(dialkylamino)trioxatriangulenium Ions. Synthesis, Structure, and Properties of Exceptionally Stable Carbenium Ions.” Bo W. Laursen, Frederik C. Krebs, Merete F. Nielsen, Klaus Bechgaard, Jørn B. Christensen, and Niels Harrit, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 120 (1998) 12255 –12263.
      ”Vibronic Activity in the Phosphorescence Spectra of Disklike Aromatic Molecules: A Combined Experimental and Theoretical Investigation.” D. Baunsgaard, N. Harrit, M. El Balsami, F. Negri, G. Orlandi, J. Frederiksen and R. Wilbrandt, J. Phys. Chem. A, 102 (1998) 10007 –10016.
      ”The Phosphorescence Spectra of Triphenylene and Truxene: A Combined Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of The Vibronic Structure.” D. Baunsgaard, M. El Balsami, J. Frederiksen, N. Harrit, F. Negri, G. Orlandi and R. Wilbrandt, Laser Chemistry, 19 (1999) 349-351.
      ”Synthesis and conformational studies of a series of 5,17-bis-aryl-25,26,27,28-tetrapropoxycalix[4]arenes: The influence of - interactions on the molecular structure.” Mogens Larsen, Frederik C. Krebs, Niels Harrit, and Mikkel Jørgensen. J.Chem.Soc.Perkin Trans. 2, 1999, 1749-1757.
      ”Vibrational spectroscopic and quantum chemical studies of the trioxatriangulenium carbocation.” Johannes Reynisson, G. Balakrishnan, Niels Harrit, and Robert Wilbrandt. J.Mol.Struct., 520, 2000, 63-73.
      “Structural properties of DNO investigated with pyrene excimer formation.” Johannes Reynisson, Lise Vejby-Christensen, Robert Wilbrandt, Niels Harrit, Rolf H. Berg, J. Pept. Sci. 6, 2000, 603-611.
      “Synthesis of a Hoechst 32258 Analogue Amino Acid Building Block for Direct Incorporation of a Fluorescent, High-Affinity DNA Binding Motif into Peptides.” Carsten Behrens, Niels Harrit, Peter E. Nielsen, Bioconjugate Chem. 12 (2001) 1021-1027.
      „Photophysics of Trioxatriangulenium ion. Electrophilic reactivity in the ground state and excited singlet state.“ Jóhannes Reynisson, Niels Harrit, Robert Wilbrandt, Vibeke Brinck, Bo W. Laursen, Kasper Nørgaard, and Albert M. Brouwer, Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences 1 (2002) 763-773.
      “System and Method for the Classification of Biological Samples and their Diagnostic Potential”, Lars Nørgård, Morten Albrechtsen, Ole Olsen, Niels Harrit og Rasmus Bro-Jørgensen, Patent (WO2001092859).
      “Redox regulation of gene expression of chemoprotective enzymes and of chemoprotection against inflammation and carcinogenesis.“ Vincent Zoete, John Frederiksen, Niels Harrit, Rodger Scurlock, Michel Rougée and René V. Bensasson, Free Radical Research, 36 (2002) 111-114.
      “Intercalation of Trioxatriangulenium Ion (TOTA+) in DNA: Binding, Electron Transfer, X-Ray Crystallography, and Electronic Structure.” Jóhannes Reynisson, Gary B. Schuster, Sheldon B. Howerton, Loren D. Williams, Robert N. Barrnett, Charles L. Cleveland, Uzi Landman, Niels Harrit and Jonathan B. Chaires, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 125 (2003) 2072-2083
      “Novel Synthesis of Protected Thiol End-Capped Stilbenes and Oligo(phenylenevinylene)s (OPVs).” Nicolai Stuhr-Hansen, Jørn B. Christensen, Niels Harrit, and Thomas Bjørnholm, J. Org. Chem., 68 (2003) 1275-1282.
      “Oligodeoxynucleotides Containing -L-ribo­ configured LNA-type C-aryl Nucleosides: Synthesis and Properties as a Universal Base.” B. Ravindra Babu Raunak, Mads D. Sørensen, Virinder S. Parmar, Niels H. Harrit and Jesper Wengel, Organic & Biomolecular Chem. (RSC), 2 (2004) 80-89.
      “Spectroscopic Properties of Sintered BaMgAl10O17:Eu2+ (BAM)
      Translucent Pellets. Comparison with Commercial Powder.” E. Zych, W. Goetz, N. Harrit and H. Spanggaard, J. Alloys and Compounds, 380 (2004) 113-117.
      ”2,6,10-Tris(dialkylamino)-­trioxa­triangule­nium salts – a new promising fluorophore. Ion-pair formation and aggregation in non-polar solvents.” Bo W. Laursen, Jóhannes Reynisson, Kurt V. Mikkelsen, Klaus Bechgaard and Niels Harrit, Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences (RSC), 4 (2005) 568-576.
      “Fluorescent Pyrene-Functionalized 2’Amino-LNAs for Nucleic Acid detection in Homogenous Assays.” Patrick J. Hrdlicka, B. Ravindra Babu, Mads D. Sørensen, Niels Harrit, and Jesper Wengel, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 127 (2005) 13293 – 13299.
      “Expanding the Optical Trapping Range of Gold Nanoparticles.” Poul Martin Hansen, Vikram Kjøller Bhatia, Niels Harrit, and Lene Oddershede, Nano Letters, 5 (2005) 1937 – 1942.
      ” Fluorescence spectroscopy and chemometrics for classification of breast cancer samples-a feasibility study using extended canonical variates analysis.” Lars Nørgaard, Gyorgy, Soletormos, Niels Harrit, Morten Albrechtsen, Ole, Olsen, Dorte Nielsen, Kristoffer Kampmann, and Rasmus Bro, Journal of Chemometrics (2007), 21, 451-458..
      “Close Columnar Packing of Triangulenium Ions in Langmuir Films.” Jens B. Simonsen, Kristian Kjaer, Paul Howes, Kasper Norgaard, Thomas Bjornholm, Niels Harrit, Bo W. Laursen, Langmuir 25 (2009) 3584-3592.
      “Time-resolved X-ray scattering of an electronically excited state in solution. Structure of the 3A(2u) state of tetrakis-mu-pyrophosphitodiplatinate(II).” Morten Christensen, Kristoffer Haldrup, Klaus Bechgaard, Robert Feidenhans’l, Qingyu Kong, Marco Cammarata, Manuela Lo Russo, Michael Wulff, Niels Harrit, Martin Meedom Nielsen, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 131 (2009) 502-8.
      “Structural Tracking of a Bimolecular Reaction in Solution by Time-Resolved X-ray Scattering.” Kristoffer Haldrup, Morten Christensen, Marco Cammarata, Qingyu Kong, Michael Wulff, Simon O. Mariager, Klaus Bechgaard, Robert Feidenhans’l, Niels Harrit*, Martin M. Nielsen*. Angewandte Chemie. 2009. “Hot paper” pre-published on the web: www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122369907/PDFSTART
      “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2 (2009) 7 – 31.
      __________________________________________
      Yup…{grin}
      \\][//

  36. hybridrogue1 says:

    “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

    \\][//

  37. Sour Dove says:

    Where humans are involved, there’s always plenty of incompetence to go around. All the same, so many details of the planned attacks were published in major media during the six years between 1995, when the FBI received the contents of Ramzi Yousef’s laptop, and the event itself, that I was able to figure out the date, time, and location of all four crashes by July 1999.

    Peter Lance’s books reprint the interrogation transcripts that informed the FBI and the Yousef prosecution team of what was coming. He thinks that ass-covering accounts for the decison to let thousands of US civilians die. I don’t.

    It was clear to me that if the plotters acted after having lost the element of surprise, then they believed that none of the people paid to stop perps like them would even try to interfere. Little did I suspect they would fly so far off course before returning to the targets. Even I didn’t expect such arrogance, such flagrant demonstrations of assurance. In one of the “Osama” tapes, “Osama” makes the same remark.

    Either I am smarter and better informed than all our paid protectors put together, or somebody in a position of power put the kibosh on each and every effort to stymie the attacks. It seems unlikely that anyone will argue that an obscure bank clerk is better equipped to predict and prevent such catastrophes than any of the well-trained experts whose life work is doing same.

    You are free to make that argument, but I doubt anyone will.

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      The only problem with your analysis Sour Dove, is that the “hijackers” didn’t hijack any planes. There is absolutely no solid proof that any of these people ever boarded the aircraft said to have hit the three targets.

      The planes that took off from the airports were not the planes involved in the incidents.
      Each one flew out of the range of commercial radar at some point in their flights, and it was at those points that they were replaced by radio controlled “drones” which took off as the commercial craft were landing.

      Each craft had a very specific spot to hit and it could not be left to the possibility of human error that these pinpoint targets could be missed. One “target” the Pentagon was not actually hit, it was a distraction for bombs planted in the building, and flew over the building in the timed sequence to give the appearance that it hit – a ‘magic act’ if you will.

      The Pennsylvania plane very likely had the passengers from the other aircraft aboard along with the original passengers it left the airport with. That plane was blown up over the site said to be a crash site. There was no air crash there, it was stage dressing over an old mineshaft.
      \\][//

      • ha ha ha ha ha. wow, now I know how bonkers you really are after hearing that. And you have the nerve to call me delusional for doubting your claims ?

        I can not take another thing you say seriously any more after reading what you believe true.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        And as you have likely realized by now killer clown, I don’t give a flying bat turd what you think.
        \\][//

  38. hybridrogue1 says:

    The point in countering propaganda is not to change the propagandist’s mind, but to lay his techniques and dissembling bare to a candid world.~Willy Whitten
    \\][//

  39. hybridrogue1 says:

    The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories?
    No, that should read;
    The Conspiracy of Psychology Theories
    \\][//

  40. ruffadam says:

    Conspiracykiller I notice you love to use the term conspiracy theorist. As you know of course that term has been hijacked by propagandists and what it actually means now, in the way they use it, is “crazy person” or “nutcase”. What you really mean to say when you use that term is “you are a nutcase” so you should simply replace the term with the real language you want to use since that would be more honest. So from now on I recommend you simply use terms like “nutcase” or “whacko” since it is more direct and honest.

    I like the term Koolaid drinker for people like yourself but that has a much more direct connotation to the situation and is therefore more honest. As you know the cult leader Jim Jones managed to convince over 900 people to drink poisoned Koolaid which of course killed them. So when I call you a Koolaid drinker because of your cult like belief in the official story of 9/11 I am being up front and honest with you in my use of language. I am saying you are indoctrinated into a cult with the purveyors of the ridiculous official story in the role of your God like leader. I am saying you are a brainwashed follower of a dangerous and evil cult.

    The use of the term conspiracy theorist on the other hand is not so honest because it is essentially a hijacked term used now for indirect passive aggressive insult purposes. “Conspiracies” happen all the time and even the laughable official story of 9/11 involves a “conspiracy” between 19 hijackers. The word “theory” is also abused and twisted the way propagandists like yourself use it. A “theory” is simply an educated guess as to how something happened. Detectives in real life often develop theories about crimes they are attempting to solve and investigate to either prove the “theory” correct or incorrect. So what a truther really is is an investigator who has developed through research and study of evidence an educated guess as to what actually happened on 9/11. The fact that 9/11 must have involved more than one person means it was in fact a real live “conspiracy”. So your bastardization of the term “conspiracy theorist” for insult and disinformation purposes is really dishonest. In terms of a disinformationist the particular disinformation technique you are using with the term “conspiracy theorist” is rule number 5 from the 25 rules of disinformation:

    5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      “Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.”~ruffadam

      And killer clown here responds with; “OK whacko.” Hahahaha, which rather verifies the “rule number 5” assertion that the killer clown is a disinformationist trying to “sidetrack his opponents with name calling and ridicule”. But of course this skeptard “conspiracykiller” has already made it clear that he is a disinformationist. His initial response to almost anyone who indicates disagreement with his dogma is a slur and uncalled for ad hominem attack.

      Like I pointed out before the “conspiracykiller” has the profile of the ‘True Believer’, displaying the same cult mentality.

      Kudos to ruffadam for his prescient observations.
      \\][//

      • Actually I was just following his request in his opening statement:
        “So from now on I recommend you simply use terms like “nutcase” or “whacko” since it is more direct and honest.”

        You really are desperate to find agent provocateurs where there are none, it’s sad to see a grown man/woman mindlessly clutch at straws so wrong so often.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “… the term conspiracy theorist. As you know of course that term has been hijacked by propagandists and what it actually means now, in the way they use it, is “crazy person” or “nutcase”~ruffadam

        So when conspiracykiller says: “Actually I was just following his request in his opening statement..” conspiracykiller is verifying that he is a propagandists who has “hijacked.. the term conspiracy theorist.”

        And then this same conspiracykiller, who has admitted to being honest now as a propagandist, makes the confused statement to me indicating he misapprehends the construction of language and has missed the fact of his own subtextual admission of being a propagandist .. or his term, “agent provocateur”: Thus reinforcing my point that “conspiracykiller” has the profile of the ‘True Believer’, displaying the same cult mentality.

        What angers this killer clown the most is the fact that “psychoanalysis” is a two way street, that when one attempts to use human beings as lab rats, the ‘subject/investigator’ dialectic can be switched and played back. Conspiracykiller thinks he is immune to critique because he is on “home-ground” He has a lot of misconceptions and does not recognize when he is ‘projecting’ his own personality on others.
        \\][//

      • wah wah. I swear you get dumber by the minute.

      • ruffadam says:

        Kool aid drinkers are a sad and lonely species and unfortunately completely unaware of the poison in the Kool aid.

      • The irony is almost unbearable.

      • ruffadam says:

        All you have is one liners Kool aid drinker? Really that is the best you can do? I thought maybe you had an explanation for the free fall speed of WTC 7 that doesn’t involve explosives or defying the laws of physics. As it turns out though you appear to have nothing up your sleeve just like all the rest of the Kool aid drinkers. I guess you will just have to fall back on the “thermal expansion” theory huh? So hey you are a “theorist” too! The only problem is your theory is a load of bull.

  41. hybridrogue1 says:

    “ConspiracyPsychology.com was created by Rob Brotherton. Rob is a Visiting Research Fellow at Goldsmiths, University of London. Drawing on the wider framework of anomalistic psychology, his research addresses the measurement, personality correlates, and cognitive origins of conspiracy theories.”
    https://conspiracypsychology.com/about/

    Check out this page – these guys are just toddlers!
    Hahahahaha!!!
    \\][//

  42. hybridrogue1 says:

    It is interesting that this whole cult has sprung from Goldsmiths, University of London.
    London…Goldsmiths…{grin}

    Of course those who know the history of “money” and the genesis of ‘Fractional Reserve Banking’ [Usury] and how it started with the goldsmiths making loans with ‘interest’ of paper IOU’s based on the theory that not all depositors of gold for safekeeping would ever demand their gold at once. And how this whole racket revolved around the “fraction” of the reserves of held gold was expanded dishonestly in issuing more IOU’s than actual gold in the storehouse …that whole thing.

    And now we have this cabal of postmodern shamans housed at Goldsmiths, University of London.
    As Alice said, the deeper we look into this issue the more it becomes “curiouser and curiouser”.

    And killerguy, who cannot seem to follow a travelling thought, will likely have another cheesy quip without the slightest context.
    \\][//

  43. veritytwo says:

    Love the way you and Ruffadam are killing this Killer (ha ha ha ) clown.

    • Through your conspiracy goggles everything looks warped.

    • ruffadam says:

      Like most Kool Aid drinkers Killerguy is basically just hot air and insults, nothing more. Every time without fail when you challenge one of these types to a legitimate debate with rules they flee. In any environment where they are required to respond with a legitimate rebuttal and insults are not allowed they run. A neutral moderator scares them, rules of decorum scare them, having to actually respond without evasion to points made by opponents scares them to death. That is why none of the JREFer leaders or other assorted Kool aid drinkers will engage in a legitimate debate with a neutral moderator. I know many knowledgeable truthers who would rip them to shreds in a real debate. They won’t do it because they know VERY WELL that they would not only be destroyed in such a debate but that they would also be exposed as willingly complicit in the cover-up of 9/11. These turds are active participants in a serious felony crime of covering up mass homicide. Some of them will be held accountable for this crime and I will be happy to supply the prosecution with plenty of evidence of what they have done. Killerguy is just a low level follower type and not particularly bright so he will most likely walk away just being reviled by the post 9/11 justice society. Killerguy’s handlers on the other hand are going to have a really hard time staying out of prison or the electric chair. People like Michael Shermer and Penn Gillette, the cover-up king pins, are going to have to answer for their crimes in court. A real court not the puppet sham courts we have today. So killerguy laugh now because your time is short and the big lie of 9/11 is in free fall just like the towers were after the demolition charges went off.

  44. veritytwo says:

    That’s what they call people like you in Quebec killerpoofter. Poofs

  45. hybridrogue1 says:

    “Merely putting a word in the form of a derogatory phrase creates in the mind of the listener the impression of something unsavory. People who care about the truth are mere “truthers,” after all. Tenth amendment supporters are “tenthers.” Those who prepare for the future are “preppers.” Want to demonize someone who does good things? Call them a do-gooder!

    Language is the great tool of the tyrants. It always has been, and always will be. Patriots are expected to abide by a PATRIOT Act that destroys their Bill of Rights, support “surgical strikes” against “enemy combatants” by the Department of “Defense,” and cheer the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to those who wage war.

    Our language has been weaponized against us.”~James Corbett
    \\][//

  46. veritytwo says:

    Me thinks someone here is irritated like anyone gives a shit Rogue1. A lightweight in a heavyweight world.

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      Well you know Veri, I was just curious because I have read and heard about these alien abduction stories for a long time. And no one has told of any details of the actual procedure. So… another opportunity seems to have passed. The subject refuses to speak to it, which is of course his prerogative. And whether the killer is a he or a she is not even determined; just a certain sentiment and attitude is revealed. And alas it is a triviality in the larger picture.
      \\][//

  47. hybridrogue1 says:

    THE WORD, BELIEVE

    The word “believe” has an ancient etymology, and is derived from the Sanskrit.
    It is a portmanteau, a combination of two short words; “bel” and “eve”. It has gone through countless variations through time, and “bal” and eva” are two of the earliest.
    When one examines the concepts these words were used for conceptually, we find that this is a dialectical portmanteau, with a tension of the opposites extant in it’s meaning.

    “Bel”: has to do with jejune, rebellion, angst and “belligerence”, “bellum” “Bal” {an evil entity}, “ballistic” and a long nomenclature of similar conceptualizations put into a descriptive word.

    “Eve”: has to do with nurture, nature, empathy, compassion, love, and understanding, equilibrium… also a lengthily nomenclature.

    The original conjunction actually expressed an error of thinking, which comes back to us in more modern times in the form of “True Believer”, irrational certainty, fanaticism, and again associated with ‘bellum’ or war, and destruction.

    This is why I make an attempt not to use the words ‘believe’, and ‘belief’ when self referencing. I like to use the term I “think” or “it is my opinion”. Or, “beyond reasonable doubt”, when making a strong judgment of my opinion.
    [If I do use the term self descriptively, I mean it in the very soft and vague popular sense]

    Belief is best defined in terms of “faith”, of believing without the need of proofs, as is demanded of many of the major organized religions. And this is where the word again takes on its original connotations, of erroneous thinking.
    __________________________
    This brings us back to the major topic of this thread, the attempt of psychological agitprop to frame “Conspiracy Theorists” as true believers, who have a gullible propensity for accepting ideas without sufficient substantiation.

    I want to make it clear that I do not see “psychology” as a whole as entirely without merit, as in all lines of inquiry there are those with good intent seeking real answers,and there are others who simply want to use ‘knowledge for power’. Ironically true believers are some of the most apt to fall into the second category.

    Let us consider normalcy bias and confirmation bias and how it is more normal to have a confirmation bias … or how conformists are more biased in their confirmations and ideation.

    So “normalcy bias” has a truncated definition as per ‘unexpected disaster’ reaction, and also needs to be adopted as an explanation for the perpetual disaster of the ongoing strategy of tension of life in a panoptic society.

    Accepting the truth of ‘realpolitik’ Machiavellian architecture of modern political power is difficult when one is not even aware of it. And most are unaware of it due to the fact that modern political power is maintained by a regime of public relations that manipulates perceptions to effect ignorance of the architecture of political power. It’s a political agenda.

    The agenda is in plain sight, and as Marshal McLuhan reveals, it is simply public incredulity that blinds them to the obvious.

    [Also see: Gatto, Iserbyt, Sutton — on the purposeful destruction of education]
    \\][//

  48. I am grnuinely happy to read this web site posts whifh includes lots
    of helpful data, thanhks for providfing these kinds off information.

  49. Pingback: 5 Reasons Conspiracy Theories Are Destroying the World |

  50. Editor says:

    Author above doesn’t understand the issues.

    Neither does Noam Chomsky, but that’s far more intentional and unforgivable:

    A Public Challenge to Professor Noam Chomsky
    https://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/a-public-challenge-to-professor-noam-chomsky/

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      “The problem was not conspiracy within the government, but incompetence.”~Rob Brotherton

      This is quite the bold and far reaching statement. It is made with absolutely no proofs to back it up. As someone who has spent the last 14 years in deep study of the events of 9/11, I can say with great confidence that Mr Brotherton hasn’t the slightest idea of what he is talking about.
      ~Willy Whitten
      For information on the events of 9/11, See:
      https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/911-false-flag-psyop/
      \\][//

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s