Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by Dapper

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You reckon Dapper and ENT have drunken sex parties.... with only them in attendance?

No matter what your boss tells you Harry - it's not normal

Watch that soap!

Ah, the voice of experience. So you did party with Ent.

they did and this was the result of the union.



The dapent.... the most reality resistant creature known to man

How appropriate. Two dicks on its head, and a horizontal vagina !

You look at that and see sex? You do have problems!

Imagine how spazz's mum felt the first time she saw the scan.
Must have been a terrible shock

It's designed and written by fucking whackjobs for whackjobs.

What a delightful description of our colonial cousins

Originally Posted by Dapper

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Isn't that what Kim Jong Un says all the time.

Originally Posted by scottyroo

It's designed and written by fucking whackjobs for whackjobs.

What a delightful description of our colonial cousins

Not at all. I've found most Brits to be good, sensible people.

There are exceptions.

The article by George Nelson Colonel, USAF (ret.) says it all, really.

Not only pointing out the impossibility of not finding any identifiable parts in all 4 alleged plane crashes, but that one of them UA93 was still flying!



"In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident."

"Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government’s alleged version of what actually caused the total destruction of the WTC buildings,"

Pentagon American Airlines Flight 77
"..any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged."

"There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view".

Shanksville UA93
" at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious, but small hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged."

".. a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site.

If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site.

On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation."




So far, there's no proof whatsoever of any airliners crashing into any buildings in USA on 9/11,

Not a single scrap.


Surprise?


No.

Originally Posted by ENT

So far, there's no proof whatsoever of any airliners crashing into any buildings in USA on 9/11,

Not a single scrap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Confirmation bias is what the greater majority of US citizens experienced when Bush immediately launched into his now infamous "conspiracy theory" accusation, even before anyone had time to evaluate the horrors of 9/11, they needed to believe that their government would never do the unthinkable, murder its own citizens in a black flag op designed to start an oil war that hasn't ended yet!

The resulting displacement of millions of Muslims through war has been US led and instigated, but USA still will not pick up the tab for all those refugees, nor offer them all asylum.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The only denialists are the fucking idiots that think that they saw something billions around the world didn't.

Only a handful of people saw any kind of aircraft whatsoever fly into the twin towers, nobody saw an aircraft of any description hit the Pentagon and no-one saw UA 93 crash in Shanksville.

3 photoshopped videos of aircraft making impossible 'cooky-cutter' shaped entrances into the twin towers were viewed by millions on TV, and those vids are all the gullible public saw, and so believed the media spin.

Confirmation bias....

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by ENT

So far, there's no proof whatsoever of any airliners crashing into any buildings in USA on 9/11,

Not a single scrap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

It is conclusive, the 9/11 Aircraft were airborne long after their alleged crashes.

IT IS CONCLUSIVE - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE WELL AFTER CRASH

Here’s Why People Believe In Conspiracy Theories

UFO sightings. Hoaxed moon landings. Reptiles who rule the world.

What, in the name of our alleged lizard overlords, convinces a person to believe in conspiracy theories?

According to a pair of new studies published in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology, conspiracy theorists—and there are a lot more of them than you may think—tend to have one thing in common: they feel a lack of control over their lives.

Jan-Willem van Prooijen, associate professor in social and organizational psychology at VU University Amsterdam, has been studying conspiracy theories and those who believe them for six years. “When I started this research, one of the things that I really found astonishing was how many people believe in certain conspiracy theories,” he says.

Conspiracy theories often crop up during times of uncertainty and fear: after terrorist strikes, financial crises, high-profile deaths and natural disasters. Past research suggests that if people feel they don’t have control over a situation, they’ll try to make sense of it and find out what happened. “The sense-making leads them to connect dots that aren’t necessarily connected in reality,” van Prooijen says.

He and his team showed that the opposite is also true: feeling a sense of control is protective against believing conspiracy theories. In one of the studies, they split 119 people into two groups and told one group to write down times when they were totally in control; the other group was told to jot down a time when they didn’t feel in control. (This gave one group a powerful feeling, while the other felt helpless.)

The researchers then surveyed their attitudes on a building project in Amsterdam that accidentally destroyed the foundations of many houses, and which many people believed was a conspiracy of the city council. But those who had been primed to feel in control were less likely to believe the government was up to something evil. “We found that if you give people a feeling of control, then they are less inclined to believe those conspiracy theories,” he says. “Giving people a sense of control can make them less suspicious over governmental operations.”

The Dutch, of course, aren’t the only believers. The second experiment looked at survey data from a nationally representative sample of Americans conducted in the last months of 1999 leading up to Y2K. “The more that people feared the millennium bug in 1999, the more likely they were inclined to believe in other conspiracy theories, ranging from Kennedy to the government hiding evidence of the existence of UFOs,” van Prooijen says. The best predictor of believing in one conspiracy, he says, is believing in another.

This finding backs up data from another group last year, which found that 37% of surveyed Americans believe that the FDA is deliberately preventing the public from accessing natural cures for cancer because they’re beholden to drug companies.

These beliefs can be very hard to change, but giving people a feeling of control could help dispel some conspiratorial beliefs, the new research suggests—a finding that could prove useful worldwide. “There are no doubt cultural variables influencing it,” van Prooijen says. “But the essence of conspiracy theorizing is, I think, universal in human beings. People have a natural tendency to be suspicious of groups that are powerful and potentially hostile.”

Conspiracy Theorists Aren’t Really Skeptics

The fascinating psychology of people who know the real truth about JFK, UFOs, and 9/11.

By William Saletan


Believing in conspiracy theories doesn't make you any less gullible than people who buy the "official story."
Photo by Joshua Roberts/AFP/Getty Images

To believe that the U.S. government planned or deliberately allowed the 9/11 attacks, you’d have to posit that President Bush intentionally sacrificed 3,000 Americans. To believe that explosives, not planes, brought down the buildings, you’d have to imagine an operation large enough to plant the devices without anyone getting caught. To insist that the truth remains hidden, you’d have to assume that everyone who has reviewed the attacks and the events leading up to them—the CIA, the Justice Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, scientific organizations, peer-reviewed journals, news organizations, the airlines, and local law enforcement agencies in three states—was incompetent, deceived, or part of the cover-up.
.

And yet, as Slate’s Jeremy Stahl points out, millions of Americans hold these beliefs. In a Zogby poll taken six years ago, only 64 percent of U.S. adults agreed that the attacks “caught US intelligence and military forces off guard.” More than 30 percent chose a different conclusion: that “certain elements in the US government knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military, and economic motives,” or that these government elements “actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attacks.”

How can this be? How can so many people, in the name of skepticism, promote so many absurdities?

The answer is that people who suspect conspiracies aren’t really skeptics. Like the rest of us, they’re selective doubters. They favor a worldview, which they uncritically defend. But their worldview isn’t about God, values, freedom, or equality. It’s about the omnipotence of elites.

Conspiracy chatter was once dismissed as mental illness. But the prevalence of such belief, documented in surveys, has forced scholars to take it more seriously. Conspiracy theory psychology is becoming an empirical field with a broader mission: to understand why so many people embrace this way of interpreting history. As you’d expect, distrust turns out to be an important factor. But it’s not the kind of distrust that cultivates critical thinking.

In 1999 a research team headed by Marina Abalakina-Paap, a psychologist at New Mexico State University, published a study of U.S. college students. The students were asked whether they agreed with statements such as “Underground movements threaten the stability of American society” and “People who see conspiracies behind everything are simply imagining things.” The strongest predictor of general belief in conspiracies, the authors found, was “lack of trust.”

But the survey instrument that was used in the experiment to measure “trust” was more social than intellectual. It asked the students, in various ways, whether they believed that most human beings treat others generously, fairly, and sincerely. It measured faith in people, not in propositions. “People low in trust of others are likely to believe that others are colluding against them,” the authors proposed. This sort of distrust, in other words, favors a certain kind of belief. It makes you more susceptible, not less, to claims of conspiracy.

Once you buy into the first conspiracy theory, the next one seems that much more plausible.

A decade later, a study of British adults yielded similar results. Viren Swami of the University of Westminster, working with two colleagues, found that beliefs in a 9/11 conspiracy were associated with “political cynicism.” He and his collaborators concluded that “conspiracist ideas are predicted by an alienation from mainstream politics and a questioning of received truths.” But the cynicism scale used in the experiment, drawn from a 1975 survey instrument, featured propositions such as “Most politicians are really willing to be truthful to the voters,” and “Almost all politicians will sell out their ideals or break their promises if it will increase their power.” It didn’t measure general wariness. It measured negative beliefs about the establishment.

The common thread between distrust and cynicism, as defined in these experiments, is a perception of bad character. More broadly, it’s a tendency to focus on intention and agency, rather than randomness or causal complexity. In extreme form, it can become paranoia. In mild form, it’s a common weakness known as the fundamental attribution error—ascribing others’ behavior to personality traits and objectives, forgetting the importance of situational factors and chance. Suspicion, imagination, and fantasy are closely related.

Here's another good read regarding crashed 9/11 planes still flying post crashes.

Two 9/11 Airliners, Flight 93 and 175, Were Only Just Recently Taken Off The FAA 'Active' List Are Both Jetliners Still Flying in United's 'Friendly Skies'?

Believe what you want to believe.

Woman Sees ‘Flying Saucer’ Being Towed By Trucks Near Secret Air Force Base




Rob Waugh's Yahoo Blog

8 March 2016





View photos

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-sees...104825701.html

So the U.S. government had the resources and wherewithal to conduct a massive attack on its own peoples and invest massive amounts of time, energy and resoruces to cover-up said attack and they would have gotten away with it...







... Except someone forgot to tell the FAA to take a couple of planes off a list.

Yeah, makes sense.

Good posts and links, Pragmatic, thanks.

Also Dapper, good article from Col, Nelson USAF

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

So the U.S. government had the resources and wherewithal to conduct a massive attack on its own peoples and invest massive amounts of time, energy and resoruces to cover-up said attack and they would have gotten away with it...

... Except someone forgot to tell the FAA to take a couple of planes off a list.

Confirmation bias operating well there....

Forgot? A couple of planes delisted. you say?

And ya reckon y're a lawyer?


PS.

Do you think man landed on the moon?

Originally Posted by ENT

Forgot? A couple of planes delisted. you say?

You just thanked Pragmatic for the link.

Didn't actually read it did you.

Originally Posted by ENT

And ya reckon y're a lawyer?

I do?

And what of it, you insisted that I was a furniture designer in Auckland.

Just another thing in a long list of things that you believe to be true which actually aren't.