all these butt hurt people, who banked on 9/11 for making a name/career...and when an actual intellectual denounces their work, especially in the way Chomsky did, they get their feelings hurt. They just can't let this go, so they scatch and smear in attempt to rebuttal against other Intellectual sources, and to save any remnants of reputation they had prior.
Watch this douche, then watch Chomsky. This guy needs to take a science course. If you have evidence to support something, but no evidence against it, that doesn't mean you have even a decent scientific hypothesis.
YES! THE TIP OFF TO WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO NEXT IS WHAT THEY ARE CRITISIZING OTHERS OF!!!
When the Obama Administration started to critisize china of Internet freedoms...I said right thre, HOLY CRAP, they are taking messures, or going to be taking messures to censor the internet!
This guy has a terriffic mind!...Yes, that is a projection!
Chomsky is a fake-leftist, he is fucking crazy, he is not only a fake-leftist, he said that Vladimir Lenin was a right-winger and Leon Trotsky was a fascist, go figure for your self if Noam Chomsky is a traitor of the US left
You make the mistake of assuming that some evidence that's contradictory to the "official version" is reliable simply because it varies from government sources. The reports of "6 or 7" of the hijackers still being alive are very suspect in and of themselves as far as I know. Bin Laden's level of involvement (and current state) is still up for debate, but it's important to remember that plenty of the information that's come out since the 9/11 and the ensuing information shitstorm has been false.
If you actually believe members of the real Left are "gatekeepers", than you're an idiot. It would defy what we know about how the media operates, as well as what we know in regards to how this society treats and views the real Left. Not to mention, the real Left doesn't get much play in the mainstream, which would make it pretty fucking hard to "gatekeep" much of anything.
Read an austrian economics book, and you'll realize it completely destroys anything you thought you knew about economics. The nyou realize how far in the ditch liberals are leading us to. But of course, you'll just ignore that and not try to undersand, it's too complicated to find out the truth, it's much more convenient to think that you know than actually knowing, right?
Yeah, a bunch of worthless libertarians who even Reagan wouldnt appoint (he stuck to supply-siders), also even Hayek admitted Keynes was a good economists
Oh, and keynes was both more reputed and demonstrated than any of those fucks
Does it mean keynes is right? Hardly. All he did was promote bubbles. Keynes is undoubtedly a great economic in the macroeconomics sense. Unfortunately macroeconomics don't work. So i honestly don't care for Keynes. When you take out the trash and moan about how much trash you have and come to the conclusion that you need more bags rather than being less of a pack rat, you're bound to being shortsighted.
No, Occams razor suggests he is probably _more_ right than those austrian dipfucks who go out of their way to politicize economics (of course they claim otherwise)
Doesn't really matter what you think here, you don't seem to have what it takes to pursue this discussion. For if you did, of all the alternatives out there, you wouldn't support any keynesianism. I don't care that you disagree with the austrian view, even the biggest austrian icons disagree with each other. Where i take offense is when you deny the fact bubbles create scarcity and wealth destruction, loss of incentive, financial insecurity through boom and bust cycles. But yea you deny this.
Why is it when there are holes in a conspiracy theory everybody flips a wig, but when the story everyone believes is the "official" story has holes, nobody bats an eye? I don't trust to much in conspiracies, but do see the questions raised within them. A theory is just someones best guess, not the truth. It's not supposed to be 100% proof. Just because another guys story has inconsistencies doesn't make the inconsistencies in my own disappear.
I didn't know the term intellectual as describing and individual meant: "To Know everything in the universe".The use of the term to describe individuals who have a grasp on things is kind shaky. There have have always been "intellectuals" of a particular time peroid in which a lot their assertions were proven wrong. Why is it that when someone considers themselves or others they look up to as intellectuals(smart on a certain level), everything thing they think and feel , must be correct?
A job like you suggest takes months of work to pull off. If you had anidea how stupid it sounds to educated intellectuals, you'd wish you had died in the event. Your kids are if they ever find out....
Chomsky has stated there is "no dispute" among intellectuals to a massive failure and subsequent cover up of gross inaction despite evidence of imminent attack. But what /no/ intellectual buys is the dumb assertion that they engineered a covert demolition of the WTC when they couldn't 'engineer' the "discovery" of a single WMD in all of Iraq! You don't really think they were too honest to pull a trick like that do you? That cost them the House, and with it, Pax Americana. "Think" man!
If bombs were planeted then the place wouldve needed to be locked down or there wouldve needed to be bombs planted under the guise of maintenance being done. Of all the people that work in the WTC buildings that have survived or the employees that wouldve had to be informed of maintenance IS THERE ONE person thats come forward to say that this types of things happened?
Yes there is, the re was a power down and reports of lots of noisey unexplained building work going on on several levels for 6 weeks running up to 9/11.
@fearonism , thats because the media won't let them . . . see also 911 Mysteries and other sources that show ample time of empty and cut-off WTC prior to 911.
A real shill is someone who parrots someone else's agenda, ideas they garnered from dubious sources, not someone who has spent a lifetime cultivating a world view and expressing to the masses well before 9-11. So you watched a couple videos and read a book or two. That does not make you informed. TRUTHERS ARE SHILLS for ALEX JONES, the barely post-pubescent makers of Loose Change and other wanna-be "experts" trying to make a name for themselves in radical circles.
I will believe a PhD in physics, engineers and firefighters...people's whose opinion should matter to point out the truth. Not corrupt politicians and sleepwalking neodrones.
Then if it's a case of sheer numbers, professionls overwhelmigly disiss 911Truth as misguided hostility by the gullible in responsto a moneymaking effort by conspiracy writers. ASk yourself, why couldn't Bush "find" a single WMD in all Iraq but could covertly plant tons of munitions in Manhattan to destroy 3 WTC bildings? Too honest? Too many onlookers in the Iraqi desert? Didn't want to?....at the cost of the entire PNAC proect? 911Truth is insane if you stop and think objectively.
-- why couldn't Bush "find" a single WMD in all Iraq but could covertly plant tons of munitions inManhattan to destroy 3WTC bildings?
Its about establishing precedent. The administration probably could have planted WMDs quite easily -- they don't because they want to enlarge the sphere of what they can get away with. Its a disempowering technique.
Its also what I term as "Squid Ink" - it keeps people in a state of controversy about reality in order to allow the squid to ultimately slip away.
It's a cult. It is anti-intellectualism at its best. Strange having so many "theories" that rely on speculation and hearsay versus scholarship, which relies on sound analysis based on evidence.
so-called GATEKEEPER=a real progressive who has spent a great deal of time and energy understanding the repressive effects of American imperialism and, even on 9-11-01, knew exactly the nature of the those who attacked the US and the reasons why. Gatekeepers rightfully believe that the likes of Alex Jones are dangerous egomaniacal wanna-be radicals who want anarchy for anarchy's sake. They say they want free thought but when those more learned express their ideas, they scream "SHILL".
On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower." Marvin Bush was in New York on 9/11.
The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.
Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Bush also served. According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."
1. How did the Bush Administration know the names of the suspects, and had their photos, less than 24 hours after the attacks?
2. Why did Bush try to stop ANY investigation of the attacks?
3. What about the samples of steel taken from Ground Zero that evidently showed significant levels of thermite and thermate (explosives used in controlled demolition)?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It would take vastly more text space than YouTube allows to adequately refute the ludicrous nonsense proferred by this gibbering idiot. But idiot though he may be, his "testimony" is very depressing. There are legitimate questions about 9/11, but those who are seriously pursuing them are undermined by idiots like this.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
THIS GUY IS A MORON. guess what? there were several hundred thousand people that witnessed first hand the planes hitting the buildings. are all tose people lying?? wtf? our gov. could not possibly pull off something as complicated as what these people claim.
to throw this guy's question back at him, WHO WILL BENIFIT from such a crazy theory? it's going to distract from the real issues we have to deal with.
The only difference is mealy-mouthed bullshit. If they covered up the murder of thousands, they collaborated, no matter what the reason. "Fear of losing their jobs" -- what puerile nonsense. You haven't the balls to say that to their face, like most of the conspiracy pansies.
And just exactly what does this ignorant dickweed think he adds to the conversation? The only "gaping hole" this little fruit is qualified to address is located between his boyfriend's ass-cheeks. He can't tell a steel beam from a stovepipe, but he suddenly thinks he's an engineer. And a few gullible assholes will swallow it, too.
Lame bullshit. Is that the best you can do? And you really think thousands of cops & firemen are afraid of getting fired? Do you have a clue how big their unions are, and how powerful?
You're full of shit. Almost as much as this idiot McMurtry pansy.
PART 2 Confidential unreleased undercover communication mostly were destroyed between these two demons. Mid east terrorists are HAPPY to cause civil war derision and paranoia to ALL Americans. Do NOT fall for this Arab 'terrorists' ploy. Stand firm and United. Don't play into ALLEGED USA government 9/11 conspiracy spreading American fear, confusion, chaos and cowardice! Keep the faith in USA vigilance!
EGMAG... So why don't you give us references to your "facts". I'll be more than happy to quote references from ex-CIA agents, ex-FBI agents, generals in the US Army, Congressmen, Engineers, Explosive and demolition experts, the Twin Tower designers and builders themselves, the Pilot's association report, to name a few. Let's talk about supported facts.
eggmac... Shitman? why do i get the same type of responses from people like you when all i ask is a couple of references to your claims? whay does a debate have to become and ongoing insult to people who are trying to discover truth? I don't know the complete truth, nor do you, but there's a difference between trying to find it, and trying not to find it so as not to disrupt what you actually believe. If you don't have any real input, why bother...
ARAB CONSPIRACY-9/11 IS REAL Osamma stated "It is better than I expected (9/11). He sent his radical martyrs from the training camps to murder innocent people. Saddam said" Your sons and daughters will swim in their blood. There also were undercover communication between these two demons. Mid east radicals are HAPPY to cause civil war derision and paranoia to ALL Americans. Do NOT fall for this Arab ploy. Stand firm and United. Don't play into chaos and cowardice.THE MOON WALK IS FAKE-
ARAB CONSPIRACY-9/11 IS REAL Osamma stated "It is better than I expected (9/11). He sent his radical martyrs from the training camps to murder innocent people. Saddam said" Your sons and daughters will swim in their blood. There also were undercover communication between these two demons. Mid east radicals are HAPPY to cause civil war derision and paranoia to ALL Americans. Do NOT fall for this Arab ploy. Stand firm and United. Don't play into chaos and cowardice.
Listen to uncensored mainstream TV commentators and eyewitnesses, emergency response personnel etc. talking about the numerous explosions going off in the WTC buildings on 911, just watch part 2 of the movie Zeitgeist on Google video. Go to video.google(dot)com and type in "Zeitgeist" in the search bar. It's a long film, 1hr 56min but well worth it. Teaches you the stuff they skipped over in history class. LOL
ARAB CONSPIRACY-9/11 IS REAL Osamma stated "It is better than I expected (9/11). He sent his radical martyrs from the training camps to murder innocent people. Saddam said" Your sons and daughters will swim in their blood. There also were undercover communication between these two demons. Mid east radicals are HAPPY to cause civil war derision and paranoia to ALL Americans. Do NOT fall for this Arab ploy. Stand firm and United. Don't play into chaos and cowardice
And why, pray tell, does anyone think that an academic without the slightest knowledge of any part of this issue (structural engineering, demolition, etc) has a single thought of any particular value to understanding the subject?
Just one more cheesy Stalinist who'd like to replace the prevailing power structure with unproductive, inexperienced propagandists like himself.
Those who claim "coverup," basically stating that the thousands of cops & firemen who helped in recovery at Ground Zero and, obviously, deliberately ignored what must have been massive, clear evidence of explosives on the metal structure. If there were any.
Yes it does, it proves that it is the social consensus. Read my posts for why this matters. And IF you are interested in this, read the Pearl Harbour doc I told you about.
Oh, and I dont think PH was an inside job, please rjust read the doc.
Well 70% is not a consensus by definition. And all that 70% are saying is that they want more investigation, like everyone should, but that doesn't mean, or imply, that they believe it was a controlled demo.
Look up the word "consensus". The definition is "majority of opinion". Hence the consensus on 7, overwhelming, from those who know about it, is that it needs investigation into whether it was blown. This, as I have said to you many times now, is the point of the TM.
well the American Heritage Dictionary definition is "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole" which was my understanding, but there's other definitions that claim it's just a majority decision.
And that 70% still doesn't mean anything, because I want more investigations too, as I've said, but I certainly don't believe it was an inside job. And because I want more investigations doesn't make me part of the "T"M either.
Vidal and Palast wouldn't claim there was some "undeniable unifying framework" behind it (although both have been known to entertain certain fantasies). They might say something like "we don't know the full story of 9/11, and we'd like to", which is perfectly reasonable.
What McMurtry is saying here is exactly the opposite: "I DO know the full story of 9/11, and it's so undeniable that if you disagree you must be an unwitting tool for the government".
They are saying things like Cheney might of purposely held back NORAD, etc.. which is significantly different than claiming the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition and Islamic Extremists had nothing to do with it.
But tchicherine's point was that they are not fanatical about it or claiming it's "undeniable" like this fraud McMurtry is...
As I have said, you, like many people make the mistake of equating the Truth movement with the implosion of the TTs. The TM believes there is enough evidence to warrant a new investigation into US complicity. All people who believe that, in whatever strandm subscribe to the same conclusion- Bush et al were complicit in 911. Implosion, no planes, LIHOP- its all the same boat.
It's really difficult to have a productive conversation when you keep resorting to such maximalist positions: "all people who look at the evidence believe in US complicity" and so forth. If you're going to convince sceptical, open-minded people, you have to admit to what you don't know, not claim you know everything and that it fits in an "undeniable unifying framework".
"The TM believes there is enough evidence to warrant a new investigation into US complicity. All people who believe that, in whatever strandm (sic) subscribe to the same conclusion- Bush et al were complicit in 911."
How exactly am I misrepresenting your argument? You explicitly say that everyone who thinks an investigation is warranted believes that the US was complicit in the attacks.
I don't know what I can do here but quote what you wrote once again. You, not me, said that:
"The TM believes there is enough evidence to warrant a new investigation into US complicity. All people who believe that, in whatever strandm (sic) subscribe to the same conclusion- Bush et al were complicit in 911."
Either support your statement or abjure it, but don't claim you didn't make it. It's right there on the screen for anybody to read.
I really don't know how I can explain your own arguments to you any more clearly than I already have, let alone debunk them, so I'm going to leave it at this. Feel free to have the last word.
I know the true believers will rag me, but I could only listen to this one and the next segment before I was shaking my head. McMurtry comes off as knowledgeable but the "undeniable unifying framework" is specious. Ex. other things than bombs can sound like explosions (for heaven's sake). Time to stop fretting and pretending you know all the hidden answers and DO SOMETHING to get the Sun King and his corrupt court out of office.
ya.. the "undeniable" part is just a reflection of how dishonest this whole "movement" is. If it were reasonable it would say that some things are suspicious, not that it's completely proved, undeniable, obvious, etc.. and if you don't agree you must be working for the gov't. These guys are frauds.
Architects and Engineers examine the WTC buildings' collapse, including WTC building 7 (which wasn't hit by a plane). Just do a google search for "architects and engineers for 911 truth" also do a search on "gordon ross wtc collapse".
Then count the number of actual structural engineers on board. Padding the list with electrical engrs, chemical engrs, "dental materials" engrs (like Wood), engrs who've only built oil derricks (Pegelow), or Avery -- who claims Jesus turned him into a space alien (no shit).
Get the idea that ae911 is pretty desperate & will happily welcome applicants from the Rubber Room platoon?
Thank you for posting this. We may not be able to wake up those who prefer their dreamworld, but it's important to give everyone the chance to wake up by providing information.
I'm currently reading Webster Tarpley's '9/11 Synthetic Terrorism: made in USA' and I find it very informative. It's available for free in pdf format on the internet - check it out on google
"Even the firemen who were actually present at the event" are unwittingly complicit in the government-driven cover-up because they're so deeply indoctrinated.
Do you know how stupid this sounds?
Yeah, we've got an "undeniable unifying framework", as long as we exclude all the evidence that doesn't fit in it.
it would take more than just firemen to pull it off, probably hundreds of thousands of people: both the Republicans and Democrats, all the 9/11 responders, most of the far left, the mass media, most qualified scientists, etc.. etc.. basically everyone is on the conspiracy but the conspiracy theorists.
Completely wrong. Read Lippmann's "Public Opinion" availble online to read, to see how the opinions of the many are moulded by the few, in the words of one of the few
I'm aware of Lippmann's "Manufacturing Consent" elitism. What does that have to do with who must of been in on a 9/11 inside job in the incredibly unlikely case there was won?
He illustrates the power and necessity of cultural ideologies in the formation of public opinion. I.e. a foreigner, even scientist, would be more ableto look at implicating evidence re: 911 objectively, since he is not affected by elements such as patriotism, identification, stereotypes etc that would undountedly affect any US observer
He illustrates how members of a country/culture will susbsrcibe unswervingly to that culture's ideology. This includes the idea that that culture is incapable of being "evil".
Your comment about scientists is true for the TTs, but not for WTC7
Yes, I know about Lippmann, but I don't see the relevance. In fact it looks like Elites are relatively encouraging these conspiracies, quite the opposite to your point.
And the overwhelming majority of the scientific community does not believe that WTC7 was a controlled demo. Which means they must be in on it if it's so obvious and they have watched it.
1. Giving them lots of airtime (more than any other radicals suspiciously) proliferates the "Truth" industry. Of course they usually make fun of them, that's not the point.
2. There's no polls, but it's obvious that the overwhelming majority don't believe because there's no outcry in the scientific community except a few tiny and insignificant groups like Scholars for "Truth"... and most of their members don't even have the relevant qualifications..
1. That is PRECISELY the point. They come on the show, and they (the audience) are told that they and anyone who believes them hates their country, supports the terrorists, is a kook and a loon. THIS is why they are brought on.
2. As I have said, hardly anyone knows about wtc7. Bearning in minD the prop model, you will understand tht the fact that 6 yrs post, that no one is aware of the most rudimentary fact of the most newsworthy day of our lives, points to interests being protected.
1. They mock them, but don't even really engage in the material and this gives "Truth"ers so much exposure, a very huge and unusual gift from Foxnews.
2. We do know about wtc7, it's been investigated and it was the fires weakening the steel. That's the scientific community's position, and it's not challenged within the scientific community except by a microscopic fringe.
1. They already have exposure. Everyone knows about the movement. They dont go into the facts, since they dont want their audience to know them. They just mock the truthers, so that their audience will do likewise.
2. a)That is not the official explanation. b) As Ive asked you before, name me 1 non gov expert who agrees with you.
Television access gives "Truth"ers huge exposure which radicals nearly never get. That's just a fact.
And your other point is an obvious trick question, i.e. name me one non-government scientist who says the moon landing actually happened.. you probably can't..
1. Exposure, when given to ridicule, is negative exposure. This has been explained.
2. You said that all scientists agree with you. I asked you for one example. You couldnt find one.
The moon landing is somethign considered by all people to be real. The collapse of 7, is believed by most people who know about it, to be an implosion. Hence the 2 examples are miles apart.
Secondly, I pointed out the sophistry of your question precisely so you and others could see that its unspoken premises are far beyond what you explicitly claim. Nevertheless, when you ask a question like that, you are making an implicit claim that all non gov scientists agree with you. If that's your claim, the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not on me to give you a name. But here's one anyway: Zdeněk P. Bažant. Look it up.
No, that is your inference, and is totally untenable. My point is very clear- a number of qualified, independent people, have commented on 7, and there is an overwhelming consensus. Oh, and thanks for the name- he has written a paper, with Zhou, on 1+2. We are talking about 7.
What exactly is the "overwhelming consensus" about 7? That there are questions that remain unanswered? Or that the attacks in their totality were undeniably a false flag operation organised and executed by the US government? And what exactly is your evidence for this "consensus" anyway? Have their been studies of peer-reviewed journals?
mjd1982, when you ask a question like "name me 1 non gov expert who agrees with you", what you are really saying is that every non gov expert out there thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Which is totally ridiculous. When you ask a question, one of the things you need to do to examine its legitimacy is reverse the terms. Its simple logic, everybody learns it in the first year of college, and it disproves and delegitimates the vast majority of your arguments.
That is so far from what I have said, it is quite astonishing. Go back and read. I have said that the overwhelming majority of people do not know about 7, since it has been censored by the MSM. Hence the dearth of commentary from the scientific community. What there has been, has been pretty unanimous.
You learn logic in 1st yr college; you learn reading in 1st yr school.
It hasn't been censored, "Truth"ers are on TV all the time, with more exposure than most radicals. This is an obvious point and your barely coherent excuses for it are completely ridiculous. Everyone knows about WTC7, everyone was watching on 9/11.
And you couldn't even find and name a single non-government scientist who believes we landed on the moon.
Can we stop going round in circles? Truthers come on TV, in the main, to be ridiculed and told they hate their country. Agree or not? If not, show me where
Our landing on the moon is something accepted by most people who know about it. 7 being imploded is accepted by most (70%) of people who know about it. Hence if silence on scientists part indicates support for the general consensus, it is clear what they think
Yes.. they are attacked, but it still gives their views a huge amount of exposure which they otherwise wouldn't get, which is why they decide to go on, because it's greatly beneficial overall.
Of course the moon landing is obvious, but you can't NAME a single non-government scientist, and neither can I, because it's a trick question, which was my point.
Ok, well if you think that, e.g. Tarpley's appearance on H&C, or Fetzers on O reilly was good for the TM, then we will have to agree to disagree.
You missed the point about the moon landing. The social consensus of those who know about it is taht the moon landing was real. The social consensus about those who know about 7, is that it was imploded. Thus if silence means non objection to the consensus, things re 7 become clear.
Why do "Truth"ers keep going on TV if it's hurting them then?
And you can't find a single non-government scientist who believes we landed on the moon, regardless of what the consensus is. But that doesn't prove we didn't land on the moon. That was my point I clearly made.
And it's not a social consensus that WTC7 imploded, in fact "Truth"ers are only a small fringe of the population... by definition not a consensus..
1. Because they want to try and get their point across. They want to try and succeed. But they are set up to fail.
2. Nor can I find a single scientist who has written a paper on how the Earth is round- this is because it is generally accepted by most people. Likewise with 7, 70% of people who know about it, believe it was imploded.
Yeah, they heard loud noises that sounded like explosions. What a freakin' surprise, considering the massive amounts of jet fuel, generators, transformers blown, hi-volt elec lines severed ... not to mention floors & ceilings collapsing.
Dumb fuck. Got any real proof of explosives, not "explosions?"
So, you mean that after an hour there were jet fuel exploding (hey, it's kerosene, paraffine..!) and that there were generators running and magically EXPLODING and that the buldings were powered up during the collapses? Floors collapsing will crash, not explode!
9/11 conspiracy theories are the new aliens. People are using them to distract themselves so they don't have to do the real work it takes to discover and oppose the actual crimes the United States is committing in the real world.
Agent Mulder's mantra -- "I Want To Believe" -- fits McMurtry and others like him perfectly.
great post, really appreciate you doing this. I just made a video talking about 9/11 truth aswell. I think its very important we stick to things we can argue...not try to say we know for sure what hit the pentagon, or what kind of plane hit the towers...talk about the molten steel, the near free fall speed of building 7. Some things we CANT know for sure...because the investigation was never done. REOPEN 9/11 Vote Ron Paul 2008!
actually, Elites are purposely encouraging 9/11 conspiracies to delude and distract the population away from real Republicrat crimes. Notice how much press and media attention they are increasingly getting compared to real dissidents like Zinn, Chomsky, Fisk, Klein, etc.. etc..
And have a look at the kind of coveragre they are getting. Watch any fox/msnbc interview, the BBC/Sky coverage of it, NY Times/Post... Chomsky's Propaganda Model is 100% congruent with this. The MSM cannot ignore the online media, so they come out to actively decry it
Of course it's mostly dismissive, but just the fact they get so much press is suspicious. i.e. How many times has Chomsky been on Foxnews? Zero. How many times have Jones, Fetzer, Barrett been on? Many times.
Explain WTC7 after watching the collapse, lots of clips to choose from on youtube. Go check if those eyes n ears are working because i can clearly see 'controlled demolitions' at work not the act of fires. Then look at the clips on youtube showing the close-up shots of WTC1 & 2 collapsing, you can clearly see those floors poping out! What Osama pulled that trick off as well. All Lies n fake wars, military industrial complex some call it.
I've looked at the footage, it's just the windows shattering as the building collapses and smoke and debris pouring out. Try showing a little skepticism. This conspiracy nonsense is just that.
Do be so daft! The simple fact Building 7 collapsed into a neat little pile is a miraculous event and a scientific wonder. You really do have your blinkers up, wow its not a surprise they pulled the wool over every ones eyes with an attitude like yours. WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed with no resistance just like WTC 1 & 2. And was the third concrete & steel building to collapse due to fire, a new world record as its never happened before, but three within 6 hours....wake up sleepy!
Has such ignorance on this level been witnessed before? Your in denial if you think WTC7 was anything other than controlled demolitions, do you naysayers still think an office fire can totally demolish each and every floor of a modern building and melt & cut all 42 steel core columns, each one being 4" thick x4 sides per column. Hello brain working yet, its just not phisically possible, the most obvious reason is 'controlled demolition', = prior kneledge of 9/11!
you do understand how WTC7 was built, right? "melt & cut all 42 steel core columns" - You know this to be true, of course? and, how do you explain the fitting of the explosives? look into demoltition of buildings of the same size - hello brain working? guess all the office workers were in on it too.
oh, and anyone who came into contact with the building.
What I shooud have said was that NC is not a factor to the America that watches Fox, whereas JOnes et al are more so, potentially. More of those people have heard of Loose Change than have the Propaganda Model, deleterious tho both are to the Establishment
There's nothing unusual about the "official" science or there'd be an uproar of scientists throughout the world over 9/11, which there clearly isn't (but of course all those millions of scientists around the world must be on the Illuminati payroll).
And if the 9/11 "conspiracy" was real, why not censor Jones et al. instead of Chomsky especially if Chomsky is against the theory?
as I told you, 99% of people dont even know about wtc7. There is a reason for this, and it is explained well by Chomsky in MC. If it were, THEN there would be mass uproar.
Chomsly doesnt need to be censored, since his views do not touch the Fox audience. Those of Jones et al do, hence they attack him
Chomsky is the most articulate proponent of far-leftism, that's why he's censored. The reason that Jones, Fetzer, and other CTers get more coverage on Fox than most of the leading voices on the far-left (Zinn, Cockburn, etc..) is because Elites want to encourage the 9/11 conspiracy and censor the real left.
The propaganda model accurately predicts that conspiracies will pass through the mainstream media filters as they do.
Chomsky is more dangerous to the Fox audience than 9/11 CTers that's why he's censored (and why they haven't heard of him), if he was no threat they would have him on. And most people never heard of Fetzer, Jones, but they suspiciously get plenty of mainstream coverage.
If there was some credence to 9/11 CTs, then all the CTers would be more censored than Chomsky, which isn't the case.
But this is the same point. Chomsky's views would be a threat IF PEOPLE KNEW ABOUT THEM. The Fox audience in general doesnt, so he is not a threat.
911 on the other hand is a threat, since the Fox audience does know about it. So it must be lampooned as vigorously as possible. This is precisely what is happening now.
Yes, Chomsky's views would be very threatening if people knew about them, that's precisely why he's censored.
And the media wouldn't let the most articulate advocates for the 9/11 CT on if it was real, they would use strawmen. In fact, they invite them on to lampoon the far-left by using CTers as strawmen...
As ive told you, that he's censored is irrelevant, cos that audience doesnt know who he is in the 1st place. If they did, he would come on and be lampooned, just like the TM.
The media isnt using the best advocates, it uses the worst- Fetzer, Tarpley et al. Better would be Vidal, Mcgovern, Palast et al.
Look, the Fox audience hasn't heard of any of those figures either... Chomsky's views would be quite popular if he wasn't censored.. this is an obvious point.
And Vidal, McGovern, and Palast don't say it was a controlled demo or an inside job, just that Bush let it happen and restricted NORAD, etc..
1. They have heard of the movement. These people are being purported as the heads of the movement. Thats all that matters.
2. If Bush let is happen, then it was an inside job, and he will be put in front of a firing squad. No different to is he blew up the TTs. The positions are effectively, identical.
Dont get confused as to the meaning of the truth movement- simply that there is sufficient evidence of gov connivance to warrant a new investigation into such.
As explaine, that is ONE scenario for the inside job. There are too many to detail; but they all fall under the umbrella of US connivance. For one example you may like, google "Kabir Mohabbat Counterpunch". Also, read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" on the PNAC website.
That's the MAIN scenario, that it was a controlled demo. There are all sorts of ridiculous conspiracies, like it was really done by Reptilians, but I'm talking about the leading scenario.
Those two references have nothing to do with what we're talking about.
And just for the record, I would also like another investigation too, like most people. The Bush Admin's incompetence that day is probably deeper than is known, but it doesn't follow that I'm in the "Truth" Movement then.
This is the belief of most people who know about it. It is the social consensus, and you have let to find 1 scientist who disagrees with this.
Incidentally, if you are suspicious of the Bush admin's incompetence, are you aware that they called for a new Pearl Harbour in sept 2000? Where does that leave u?
It is not the social consensus and you can't back that up. And your "find 1 scientist" thing is a trick question. But to answer it anyway, Forman Williams debunks 9/11 myths and he's not a government scientist.
And are you claiming Pearl Harbour was an inside job too? I hope not.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. And that poll doesn't prove anything. It says the Gov't "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act"..
I agree with that too, given the August 6th PDB "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" and how Bush knew US policies in the ME were empowering terrorists. That doesn't show New Yorkers believe it was an inside job though..
You are illustrating yourtotal misundestanding of the TM. I am an active member of it. The premise is there is sufficient evidence of gov complicity to warrant a new investigation. This is what and y the poll asks. If this is right, then Bush has committed a capital crime. If you agree that they knew in advance, then you are also a truther, and you should be pressing for a new investigation into the murder of 3000 people, rather than arguing against it for the sake of implosion
What an outlandish video.. 9/11 "truth" is not scientifically proven, the overwhelmingly majority of qualified scientists says the CT "science" doesn't add up.. and there's a distinction between a criminal conspiracy, which is what 9/11 was, and paranoid unsubstantiated conspiracy theory
I have opened my eyes and that's the problem, because all of the evidence presented is so thin how could you expect a reasonable person to accept it?.. I'm sorry, I'm going to be believe my lying eyes instead of what the CTers assert..
for starters you spell like a moron, conclusion moron.
as a ironworker with thirty years under my belt,with demo experience; wtc was a rigged demo. you can burn that steel with k-1 from now until hell freezes it will never melt.
the best thing we could do for national security is open all of the dulles/bush gang files, if they weren't sadly blown up in 7.
hah. I didn't make a single spelling error and even if I did that's so pedantic and desperate it's interesting you say it. Why haven't hundreds of thousands of qualified experts across the world come out against this "controlled demo" if it's so obvious? because it's pure fantasy, that's why..
i think i will go with the people who were actually there, in "idea" you can prove anything to be, just as you could prove it to not be true. What i will believe is what people who were there say and its not what you would like us to believe. I mean... unless your saying these "qualified experts" actually made a building twin of the two towers and rammed an air craft into the building just so perfectly that the experiment can be seen as being perfectly done!
The TTs is one thing, but WTC7 is hardly known by anyone, and all the non US experts who have spoken on it that i am aware of are unequivocal that it was a CD.
Look, there are hundreds of thousands of scientists who are qualified to understand the science of 9/11 in the US alone, and the overwhelming majority of them don't support 9/11 conspiracies. All there is for a conspiracy are tiny groups like "Scholars for Truth" which are negligible and not peer-reviewed.
The pattern is very clear. US researchers either do not speak about WTC7, or are hazy about it. Those outside the US are unequivocal. Again, if you read Lippmanns text, you will understand why.
Ridiculous. Firstly what evidence is there that "all of the dulles/bush gang files" were in WTC7? Zero.
And if you are claiming hundreds of thousands of scientists are being shut up in the US, you're really off the rails. It would be impossible to prevent something from leaking.
all these butt hurt people, who banked on 9/11 for making a name/career...and when an actual intellectual denounces their work, especially in the way Chomsky did, they get their feelings hurt. They just can't let this go, so they scatch and smear in attempt to rebuttal against other Intellectual sources, and to save any remnants of reputation they had prior.
alexjohnson45 6 months ago
Watch this douche, then watch Chomsky. This guy needs to take a science course. If you have evidence to support something, but no evidence against it, that doesn't mean you have even a decent scientific hypothesis.
mistermoen 1 year ago
YES! THE TIP OFF TO WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO NEXT IS WHAT THEY ARE CRITISIZING OTHERS OF!!!
When the Obama Administration started to critisize china of Internet freedoms...I said right thre, HOLY CRAP, they are taking messures, or going to be taking messures to censor the internet!
This guy has a terriffic mind!...Yes, that is a projection!
PanteraFan1987 2 years ago
Chomsky is a fake-leftist, he is fucking crazy, he is not only a fake-leftist, he said that Vladimir Lenin was a right-winger and Leon Trotsky was a fascist, go figure for your self if Noam Chomsky is a traitor of the US left
maxistsocialist 2 years ago
You make the mistake of assuming that some evidence that's contradictory to the "official version" is reliable simply because it varies from government sources. The reports of "6 or 7" of the hijackers still being alive are very suspect in and of themselves as far as I know. Bin Laden's level of involvement (and current state) is still up for debate, but it's important to remember that plenty of the information that's come out since the 9/11 and the ensuing information shitstorm has been false.
randombutler 2 years ago
If you actually believe members of the real Left are "gatekeepers", than you're an idiot. It would defy what we know about how the media operates, as well as what we know in regards to how this society treats and views the real Left. Not to mention, the real Left doesn't get much play in the mainstream, which would make it pretty fucking hard to "gatekeep" much of anything.
Go read a god damn book!
AnarchyDavey 2 years ago
Read an austrian economics book, and you'll realize it completely destroys anything you thought you knew about economics. The nyou realize how far in the ditch liberals are leading us to. But of course, you'll just ignore that and not try to undersand, it's too complicated to find out the truth, it's much more convenient to think that you know than actually knowing, right?
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Yeah, a bunch of worthless libertarians who even Reagan wouldnt appoint (he stuck to supply-siders), also even Hayek admitted Keynes was a good economists
Oh, and keynes was both more reputed and demonstrated than any of those fucks
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 2 years ago
Does it mean keynes is right? Hardly. All he did was promote bubbles. Keynes is undoubtedly a great economic in the macroeconomics sense. Unfortunately macroeconomics don't work. So i honestly don't care for Keynes. When you take out the trash and moan about how much trash you have and come to the conclusion that you need more bags rather than being less of a pack rat, you're bound to being shortsighted.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
No, Occams razor suggests he is probably _more_ right than those austrian dipfucks who go out of their way to politicize economics (of course they claim otherwise)
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 2 years ago
Doesn't really matter what you think here, you don't seem to have what it takes to pursue this discussion. For if you did, of all the alternatives out there, you wouldn't support any keynesianism. I don't care that you disagree with the austrian view, even the biggest austrian icons disagree with each other. Where i take offense is when you deny the fact bubbles create scarcity and wealth destruction, loss of incentive, financial insecurity through boom and bust cycles. But yea you deny this.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Why is it when there are holes in a conspiracy theory everybody flips a wig, but when the story everyone believes is the "official" story has holes, nobody bats an eye? I don't trust to much in conspiracies, but do see the questions raised within them. A theory is just someones best guess, not the truth. It's not supposed to be 100% proof. Just because another guys story has inconsistencies doesn't make the inconsistencies in my own disappear.
medit84truth 3 years ago
I didn't know the term intellectual as describing and individual meant: "To Know everything in the universe".The use of the term to describe individuals who have a grasp on things is kind shaky. There have have always been "intellectuals" of a particular time peroid in which a lot their assertions were proven wrong. Why is it that when someone considers themselves or others they look up to as intellectuals(smart on a certain level), everything thing they think and feel , must be correct?
medit84truth 3 years ago
A job like you suggest takes months of work to pull off. If you had anidea how stupid it sounds to educated intellectuals, you'd wish you had died in the event. Your kids are if they ever find out....
Mycos1 3 years ago
Chomsky has stated there is "no dispute" among intellectuals to a massive failure and subsequent cover up of gross inaction despite evidence of imminent attack. But what /no/ intellectual buys is the dumb assertion that they engineered a covert demolition of the WTC when they couldn't 'engineer' the "discovery" of a single WMD in all of Iraq! You don't really think they were too honest to pull a trick like that do you? That cost them the House, and with it, Pax Americana. "Think" man!
Mycos1 3 years ago
Are there any Chomsky supporters who think independently of Chomsky?
kingobnoxious 4 years ago
uh.....no
fearonism 4 years ago
Huh? The question should be are there any supporters of Zionism who think at all.
oldjoe5 3 years ago 2
LOL
silentsoliloquy82 3 years ago
THE UNDENIABLE UNIFYING FRAMEWORK OF 9/11 makes me giggle
melbn 4 years ago
noam chomsky??? he isnt but what certificates does his sources have??? lol
melbn 4 years ago
If bombs were planeted then the place wouldve needed to be locked down or there wouldve needed to be bombs planted under the guise of maintenance being done. Of all the people that work in the WTC buildings that have survived or the employees that wouldve had to be informed of maintenance IS THERE ONE person thats come forward to say that this types of things happened?
fearonism 4 years ago
Yes there is, the re was a power down and reports of lots of noisey unexplained building work going on on several levels for 6 weeks running up to 9/11.
stutrix 4 years ago 3
Has anyone provided proof of this? Is this just hearsay? Why hasnt anyone that works in those buildings coming forward to report this?
fearonism 4 years ago
@fearonism , thats because the media won't let them . . . see also 911 Mysteries and other sources that show ample time of empty and cut-off WTC prior to 911.
phoebus1966 4 years ago
A real shill is someone who parrots someone else's agenda, ideas they garnered from dubious sources, not someone who has spent a lifetime cultivating a world view and expressing to the masses well before 9-11. So you watched a couple videos and read a book or two. That does not make you informed. TRUTHERS ARE SHILLS for ALEX JONES, the barely post-pubescent makers of Loose Change and other wanna-be "experts" trying to make a name for themselves in radical circles.
priorzola 4 years ago
I will believe a PhD in physics, engineers and firefighters...people's whose opinion should matter to point out the truth. Not corrupt politicians and sleepwalking neodrones.
donnamateo 4 years ago
Then if it's a case of sheer numbers, professionls overwhelmigly disiss 911Truth as misguided hostility by the gullible in responsto a moneymaking effort by conspiracy writers. ASk yourself, why couldn't Bush "find" a single WMD in all Iraq but could covertly plant tons of munitions in Manhattan to destroy 3 WTC bildings? Too honest? Too many onlookers in the Iraqi desert? Didn't want to?....at the cost of the entire PNAC proect? 911Truth is insane if you stop and think objectively.
Mycos1 3 years ago
-- why couldn't Bush "find" a single WMD in all Iraq but could covertly plant tons of munitions inManhattan to destroy 3WTC bildings?
Its about establishing precedent. The administration probably could have planted WMDs quite easily -- they don't because they want to enlarge the sphere of what they can get away with. Its a disempowering technique.
Its also what I term as "Squid Ink" - it keeps people in a state of controversy about reality in order to allow the squid to ultimately slip away.
mindprism 3 years ago
It's a cult. It is anti-intellectualism at its best. Strange having so many "theories" that rely on speculation and hearsay versus scholarship, which relies on sound analysis based on evidence.
AnarchyDavey 2 years ago
-- TRUTHERS ARE SHILLS for ALEX JONES
Hitler said the sky is blue.
mindprism 3 years ago
so-called GATEKEEPER=a real progressive who has spent a great deal of time and energy understanding the repressive effects of American imperialism and, even on 9-11-01, knew exactly the nature of the those who attacked the US and the reasons why. Gatekeepers rightfully believe that the likes of Alex Jones are dangerous egomaniacal wanna-be radicals who want anarchy for anarchy's sake. They say they want free thought but when those more learned express their ideas, they scream "SHILL".
priorzola 4 years ago
On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower." Marvin Bush was in New York on 9/11.
thecomposer1962 4 years ago
The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.
thecomposer1962 4 years ago
Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Bush also served. According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."
thecomposer1962 4 years ago 4
@thecomposer1962 already this bit of information is enough to break the whole spell the MSM is channeling
FAKEPAIN 9 months ago
Here are three of those legitimate questions:
1. How did the Bush Administration know the names of the suspects, and had their photos, less than 24 hours after the attacks?
2. Why did Bush try to stop ANY investigation of the attacks?
3. What about the samples of steel taken from Ground Zero that evidently showed significant levels of thermite and thermate (explosives used in controlled demolition)?
robtran 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It would take vastly more text space than YouTube allows to adequately refute the ludicrous nonsense proferred by this gibbering idiot. But idiot though he may be, his "testimony" is very depressing. There are legitimate questions about 9/11, but those who are seriously pursuing them are undermined by idiots like this.
robtran 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
THIS GUY IS A MORON. guess what? there were several hundred thousand people that witnessed first hand the planes hitting the buildings. are all tose people lying?? wtf? our gov. could not possibly pull off something as complicated as what these people claim.
to throw this guy's question back at him, WHO WILL BENIFIT from such a crazy theory? it's going to distract from the real issues we have to deal with.
djmatty 4 years ago
"Do you know the difference?"
The only difference is mealy-mouthed bullshit. If they covered up the murder of thousands, they collaborated, no matter what the reason. "Fear of losing their jobs" -- what puerile nonsense. You haven't the balls to say that to their face, like most of the conspiracy pansies.
All talk, no gonads.
MsgtSpook 4 years ago
"Understand that fireman and first responders feared loosing their jobs and so kept their testimony to themselves"
You pathetic little cocksucker. Try telling some cop or firemen that thousands of them collaborated in mass-murder and coverup. Go ahead.
HughGQuipment 4 years ago
yeah, do you guys actually think they would rather keep their jobs than saving the lifes of hundreds???? you guys suck
liarbot13 4 years ago
Some will always dot that.
Kenzofeis 4 years ago
"Professor of Philosophy??"
And just exactly what does this ignorant dickweed think he adds to the conversation? The only "gaping hole" this little fruit is qualified to address is located between his boyfriend's ass-cheeks. He can't tell a steel beam from a stovepipe, but he suddenly thinks he's an engineer. And a few gullible assholes will swallow it, too.
HughGQuipment 4 years ago
"first responders feared loosing their jobs"
Lame bullshit. Is that the best you can do? And you really think thousands of cops & firemen are afraid of getting fired? Do you have a clue how big their unions are, and how powerful?
You're full of shit. Almost as much as this idiot McMurtry pansy.
blueshark69 4 years ago
PART 2 Confidential unreleased undercover communication mostly were destroyed between these two demons. Mid east terrorists are HAPPY to cause civil war derision and paranoia to ALL Americans. Do NOT fall for this Arab 'terrorists' ploy. Stand firm and United. Don't play into ALLEGED USA government 9/11 conspiracy spreading American fear, confusion, chaos and cowardice! Keep the faith in USA vigilance!
EGMAG 4 years ago
EGMAG... So why don't you give us references to your "facts". I'll be more than happy to quote references from ex-CIA agents, ex-FBI agents, generals in the US Army, Congressmen, Engineers, Explosive and demolition experts, the Twin Tower designers and builders themselves, the Pilot's association report, to name a few. Let's talk about supported facts.
montiperotti 4 years ago
. I'll be more than happy,,,
Good then stay happy! shitman
EGMAG 4 years ago
eggmac... Shitman? why do i get the same type of responses from people like you when all i ask is a couple of references to your claims? whay does a debate have to become and ongoing insult to people who are trying to discover truth? I don't know the complete truth, nor do you, but there's a difference between trying to find it, and trying not to find it so as not to disrupt what you actually believe. If you don't have any real input, why bother...
montiperotti 4 years ago
because they don't have any references to their claims, so they resort to demoralizing people and tryto steer people away with negative responses.
lofy63 4 years ago
ARAB CONSPIRACY-9/11 IS REAL Osamma stated "It is better than I expected (9/11). He sent his radical martyrs from the training camps to murder innocent people. Saddam said" Your sons and daughters will swim in their blood. There also were undercover communication between these two demons. Mid east radicals are HAPPY to cause civil war derision and paranoia to ALL Americans. Do NOT fall for this Arab ploy. Stand firm and United. Don't play into chaos and cowardice.THE MOON WALK IS FAKE-
EGMAG 4 years ago
ARAB CONSPIRACY-9/11 IS REAL Osamma stated "It is better than I expected (9/11). He sent his radical martyrs from the training camps to murder innocent people. Saddam said" Your sons and daughters will swim in their blood. There also were undercover communication between these two demons. Mid east radicals are HAPPY to cause civil war derision and paranoia to ALL Americans. Do NOT fall for this Arab ploy. Stand firm and United. Don't play into chaos and cowardice.
EGMAG 4 years ago
Listen to uncensored mainstream TV commentators and eyewitnesses, emergency response personnel etc. talking about the numerous explosions going off in the WTC buildings on 911, just watch part 2 of the movie Zeitgeist on Google video. Go to video.google(dot)com and type in "Zeitgeist" in the search bar. It's a long film, 1hr 56min but well worth it. Teaches you the stuff they skipped over in history class. LOL
skimonki 4 years ago
ARAB CONSPIRACY-9/11 IS REAL Osamma stated "It is better than I expected (9/11). He sent his radical martyrs from the training camps to murder innocent people. Saddam said" Your sons and daughters will swim in their blood. There also were undercover communication between these two demons. Mid east radicals are HAPPY to cause civil war derision and paranoia to ALL Americans. Do NOT fall for this Arab ploy. Stand firm and United. Don't play into chaos and cowardice
EGMAG 4 years ago
this John is absolutely absurd
just watching him displays his obvious narcissist tendencies
he goes absolutely nowhere with his premise
shaneshu 4 years ago
And why, pray tell, does anyone think that an academic without the slightest knowledge of any part of this issue (structural engineering, demolition, etc) has a single thought of any particular value to understanding the subject?
Just one more cheesy Stalinist who'd like to replace the prevailing power structure with unproductive, inexperienced propagandists like himself.
Oh ..... we are just SO impressed!
HaywuudJablomie 4 years ago
"who is really being stupid"
Those who claim "coverup," basically stating that the thousands of cops & firemen who helped in recovery at Ground Zero and, obviously, deliberately ignored what must have been massive, clear evidence of explosives on the metal structure. If there were any.
On their behalf, I say -- Fuck You.
ChopperSix 4 years ago
Just to re-iterate, half the US does not know about 7, and of those that do, ~70% believe it should have warranted investigation.
mjd1982 4 years ago
Yes, and I agree with that 70%, that doesn't prove anything.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
Yes it does, it proves that it is the social consensus. Read my posts for why this matters. And IF you are interested in this, read the Pearl Harbour doc I told you about.
Oh, and I dont think PH was an inside job, please rjust read the doc.
mjd1982 4 years ago
Well 70% is not a consensus by definition. And all that 70% are saying is that they want more investigation, like everyone should, but that doesn't mean, or imply, that they believe it was a controlled demo.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
Look up the word "consensus". The definition is "majority of opinion". Hence the consensus on 7, overwhelming, from those who know about it, is that it needs investigation into whether it was blown. This, as I have said to you many times now, is the point of the TM.
mjd1982 4 years ago
well the American Heritage Dictionary definition is "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole" which was my understanding, but there's other definitions that claim it's just a majority decision.
And that 70% still doesn't mean anything, because I want more investigations too, as I've said, but I certainly don't believe it was an inside job. And because I want more investigations doesn't make me part of the "T"M either.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
Vidal and Palast wouldn't claim there was some "undeniable unifying framework" behind it (although both have been known to entertain certain fantasies). They might say something like "we don't know the full story of 9/11, and we'd like to", which is perfectly reasonable.
What McMurtry is saying here is exactly the opposite: "I DO know the full story of 9/11, and it's so undeniable that if you disagree you must be an unwitting tool for the government".
tchicherine 4 years ago
Bingo, and Vidal and Palast are only saying Bush might of let it happen, not that it was an inside job or controlled demo.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
No, they have both said that there is significant probability of government connivance. This is the bottom line of the truth movement.
mjd1982 4 years ago
They are saying things like Cheney might of purposely held back NORAD, etc.. which is significantly different than claiming the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition and Islamic Extremists had nothing to do with it.
But tchicherine's point was that they are not fanatical about it or claiming it's "undeniable" like this fraud McMurtry is...
adrianburnett 4 years ago
As I have said, you, like many people make the mistake of equating the Truth movement with the implosion of the TTs. The TM believes there is enough evidence to warrant a new investigation into US complicity. All people who believe that, in whatever strandm subscribe to the same conclusion- Bush et al were complicit in 911. Implosion, no planes, LIHOP- its all the same boat.
mjd1982 4 years ago
It's really difficult to have a productive conversation when you keep resorting to such maximalist positions: "all people who look at the evidence believe in US complicity" and so forth. If you're going to convince sceptical, open-minded people, you have to admit to what you don't know, not claim you know everything and that it fits in an "undeniable unifying framework".
tchicherine 4 years ago
"all people who look at the evidence believe in US complicity"
Its harder to have conversations with people who fabricate such utterly ridiculous comments. Why have u done this?
mjd1982 4 years ago
This is a direct quote:
"The TM believes there is enough evidence to warrant a new investigation into US complicity. All people who believe that, in whatever strandm (sic) subscribe to the same conclusion- Bush et al were complicit in 911."
How exactly am I misrepresenting your argument? You explicitly say that everyone who thinks an investigation is warranted believes that the US was complicit in the attacks.
tchicherine 4 years ago
I say "The TM believes there is enough evidence to warrant a new investigation into US complicity"
You say that I say "All people who look at the evidence believe in US complicity"
An easy distinction
mjd1982 4 years ago
I don't know what I can do here but quote what you wrote once again. You, not me, said that:
"The TM believes there is enough evidence to warrant a new investigation into US complicity. All people who believe that, in whatever strandm (sic) subscribe to the same conclusion- Bush et al were complicit in 911."
Either support your statement or abjure it, but don't claim you didn't make it. It's right there on the screen for anybody to read.
tchicherine 4 years ago
Riiight... well now ur talking about something completely different to wtc7.
So now you want me to prove that the TM believes there is anough evidence to warrant a new investigation into us complicity.
B4 I go into this, will u please tell me, if not that, what you believe the TM does believe in?
mjd1982 4 years ago
I really don't know how I can explain your own arguments to you any more clearly than I already have, let alone debunk them, so I'm going to leave it at this. Feel free to have the last word.
tchicherine 4 years ago
it's not "might of" it's "might have" get it right you illiterate dipshit
homerthompsonman 4 years ago
I know the true believers will rag me, but I could only listen to this one and the next segment before I was shaking my head. McMurtry comes off as knowledgeable but the "undeniable unifying framework" is specious. Ex. other things than bombs can sound like explosions (for heaven's sake). Time to stop fretting and pretending you know all the hidden answers and DO SOMETHING to get the Sun King and his corrupt court out of office.
Verified1 4 years ago
ya.. the "undeniable" part is just a reflection of how dishonest this whole "movement" is. If it were reasonable it would say that some things are suspicious, not that it's completely proved, undeniable, obvious, etc.. and if you don't agree you must be working for the gov't. These guys are frauds.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
Architects and Engineers examine the WTC buildings' collapse, including WTC building 7 (which wasn't hit by a plane). Just do a google search for "architects and engineers for 911 truth" also do a search on "gordon ross wtc collapse".
skimonki 4 years ago
"architects and engineers for 911 truth"
Then count the number of actual structural engineers on board. Padding the list with electrical engrs, chemical engrs, "dental materials" engrs (like Wood), engrs who've only built oil derricks (Pegelow), or Avery -- who claims Jesus turned him into a space alien (no shit).
Get the idea that ae911 is pretty desperate & will happily welcome applicants from the Rubber Room platoon?
By their supporters, ye shall know them.
ChopperSix 4 years ago
I like how it says....final report...more like final lies, just a scam on the American public...
brokencasket 4 years ago
ZeitgeistMovie d0t c0m
chucksheen 4 years ago
Thank you for posting this. We may not be able to wake up those who prefer their dreamworld, but it's important to give everyone the chance to wake up by providing information.
I'm currently reading Webster Tarpley's '9/11 Synthetic Terrorism: made in USA' and I find it very informative. It's available for free in pdf format on the internet - check it out on google
FightTheElite 4 years ago
"Even the firemen who were actually present at the event" are unwittingly complicit in the government-driven cover-up because they're so deeply indoctrinated.
Do you know how stupid this sounds?
Yeah, we've got an "undeniable unifying framework", as long as we exclude all the evidence that doesn't fit in it.
tchicherine 4 years ago
google video "wtc7 the smoking gun of 911", and you will see 1st responder comments that are pretty clear
mjd1982 4 years ago
it would take more than just firemen to pull it off, probably hundreds of thousands of people: both the Republicans and Democrats, all the 9/11 responders, most of the far left, the mass media, most qualified scientists, etc.. etc.. basically everyone is on the conspiracy but the conspiracy theorists.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
Completely wrong. Read Lippmann's "Public Opinion" availble online to read, to see how the opinions of the many are moulded by the few, in the words of one of the few
mjd1982 4 years ago
I'm aware of Lippmann's "Manufacturing Consent" elitism. What does that have to do with who must of been in on a 9/11 inside job in the incredibly unlikely case there was won?
adrianburnett 4 years ago
He illustrates the power and necessity of cultural ideologies in the formation of public opinion. I.e. a foreigner, even scientist, would be more ableto look at implicating evidence re: 911 objectively, since he is not affected by elements such as patriotism, identification, stereotypes etc that would undountedly affect any US observer
mjd1982 4 years ago
Yes Lippmann is a dangerous power worshiper, but as I said, what does that have to do with who must of been in on a 9/11 conspiracy?
Most foreign scientists AND most American scientists with the relevant qualifications believe planes and fires brought down the towers.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
He illustrates how members of a country/culture will susbsrcibe unswervingly to that culture's ideology. This includes the idea that that culture is incapable of being "evil".
Your comment about scientists is true for the TTs, but not for WTC7
mjd1982 4 years ago
Yes, I know about Lippmann, but I don't see the relevance. In fact it looks like Elites are relatively encouraging these conspiracies, quite the opposite to your point.
And the overwhelming majority of the scientific community does not believe that WTC7 was a controlled demo. Which means they must be in on it if it's so obvious and they have watched it.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
1. Give me 1 example of how they are encouraging them. You will note that humiliating them on national tv is not encouraging them.
2. List the non gov scientists who believe 7 was not a CD
mjd1982 4 years ago
1. Giving them lots of airtime (more than any other radicals suspiciously) proliferates the "Truth" industry. Of course they usually make fun of them, that's not the point.
2. There's no polls, but it's obvious that the overwhelming majority don't believe because there's no outcry in the scientific community except a few tiny and insignificant groups like Scholars for "Truth"... and most of their members don't even have the relevant qualifications..
adrianburnett 4 years ago
1. That is PRECISELY the point. They come on the show, and they (the audience) are told that they and anyone who believes them hates their country, supports the terrorists, is a kook and a loon. THIS is why they are brought on.
2. As I have said, hardly anyone knows about wtc7. Bearning in minD the prop model, you will understand tht the fact that 6 yrs post, that no one is aware of the most rudimentary fact of the most newsworthy day of our lives, points to interests being protected.
mjd1982 4 years ago
1. They mock them, but don't even really engage in the material and this gives "Truth"ers so much exposure, a very huge and unusual gift from Foxnews.
2. We do know about wtc7, it's been investigated and it was the fires weakening the steel. That's the scientific community's position, and it's not challenged within the scientific community except by a microscopic fringe.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
1. They already have exposure. Everyone knows about the movement. They dont go into the facts, since they dont want their audience to know them. They just mock the truthers, so that their audience will do likewise.
2. a)That is not the official explanation. b) As Ive asked you before, name me 1 non gov expert who agrees with you.
mjd1982 4 years ago
Television access gives "Truth"ers huge exposure which radicals nearly never get. That's just a fact.
And your other point is an obvious trick question, i.e. name me one non-government scientist who says the moon landing actually happened.. you probably can't..
adrianburnett 4 years ago
1. Exposure, when given to ridicule, is negative exposure. This has been explained.
2. You said that all scientists agree with you. I asked you for one example. You couldnt find one.
The moon landing is somethign considered by all people to be real. The collapse of 7, is believed by most people who know about it, to be an implosion. Hence the 2 examples are miles apart.
mjd1982 4 years ago
Secondly, I pointed out the sophistry of your question precisely so you and others could see that its unspoken premises are far beyond what you explicitly claim. Nevertheless, when you ask a question like that, you are making an implicit claim that all non gov scientists agree with you. If that's your claim, the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not on me to give you a name. But here's one anyway: Zdeněk P. Bažant. Look it up.
tchicherine 4 years ago
No, that is your inference, and is totally untenable. My point is very clear- a number of qualified, independent people, have commented on 7, and there is an overwhelming consensus. Oh, and thanks for the name- he has written a paper, with Zhou, on 1+2. We are talking about 7.
mjd1982 4 years ago
What exactly is the "overwhelming consensus" about 7? That there are questions that remain unanswered? Or that the attacks in their totality were undeniably a false flag operation organised and executed by the US government? And what exactly is your evidence for this "consensus" anyway? Have their been studies of peer-reviewed journals?
tchicherine 4 years ago
There are 4 foreign experts to have commented on 7. Fontana, Bachmann, Schneider and Jowenko. They are all of the opinion that it was imploded.
Their not peer reviewing their assertions does not invalidate them.
mjd1982 4 years ago
mjd1982, when you ask a question like "name me 1 non gov expert who agrees with you", what you are really saying is that every non gov expert out there thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Which is totally ridiculous. When you ask a question, one of the things you need to do to examine its legitimacy is reverse the terms. Its simple logic, everybody learns it in the first year of college, and it disproves and delegitimates the vast majority of your arguments.
tchicherine 4 years ago
That is so far from what I have said, it is quite astonishing. Go back and read. I have said that the overwhelming majority of people do not know about 7, since it has been censored by the MSM. Hence the dearth of commentary from the scientific community. What there has been, has been pretty unanimous.
You learn logic in 1st yr college; you learn reading in 1st yr school.
mjd1982 4 years ago
It hasn't been censored, "Truth"ers are on TV all the time, with more exposure than most radicals. This is an obvious point and your barely coherent excuses for it are completely ridiculous. Everyone knows about WTC7, everyone was watching on 9/11.
And you couldn't even find and name a single non-government scientist who believes we landed on the moon.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
Can we stop going round in circles? Truthers come on TV, in the main, to be ridiculed and told they hate their country. Agree or not? If not, show me where
Our landing on the moon is something accepted by most people who know about it. 7 being imploded is accepted by most (70%) of people who know about it. Hence if silence on scientists part indicates support for the general consensus, it is clear what they think
mjd1982 4 years ago
Yes.. they are attacked, but it still gives their views a huge amount of exposure which they otherwise wouldn't get, which is why they decide to go on, because it's greatly beneficial overall.
Of course the moon landing is obvious, but you can't NAME a single non-government scientist, and neither can I, because it's a trick question, which was my point.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
Ok, well if you think that, e.g. Tarpley's appearance on H&C, or Fetzers on O reilly was good for the TM, then we will have to agree to disagree.
You missed the point about the moon landing. The social consensus of those who know about it is taht the moon landing was real. The social consensus about those who know about 7, is that it was imploded. Thus if silence means non objection to the consensus, things re 7 become clear.
mjd1982 4 years ago
Why do "Truth"ers keep going on TV if it's hurting them then?
And you can't find a single non-government scientist who believes we landed on the moon, regardless of what the consensus is. But that doesn't prove we didn't land on the moon. That was my point I clearly made.
And it's not a social consensus that WTC7 imploded, in fact "Truth"ers are only a small fringe of the population... by definition not a consensus..
adrianburnett 4 years ago
1. Because they want to try and get their point across. They want to try and succeed. But they are set up to fail.
2. Nor can I find a single scientist who has written a paper on how the Earth is round- this is because it is generally accepted by most people. Likewise with 7, 70% of people who know about it, believe it was imploded.
mjd1982 4 years ago
"1st responder comments that are pretty clear"
Yeah, they heard loud noises that sounded like explosions. What a freakin' surprise, considering the massive amounts of jet fuel, generators, transformers blown, hi-volt elec lines severed ... not to mention floors & ceilings collapsing.
Dumb fuck. Got any real proof of explosives, not "explosions?"
ChopperSix 4 years ago
So, you mean that after an hour there were jet fuel exploding (hey, it's kerosene, paraffine..!) and that there were generators running and magically EXPLODING and that the buldings were powered up during the collapses? Floors collapsing will crash, not explode!
Kenzofeis 4 years ago
9/11 conspiracy theories are the new aliens. People are using them to distract themselves so they don't have to do the real work it takes to discover and oppose the actual crimes the United States is committing in the real world.
Agent Mulder's mantra -- "I Want To Believe" -- fits McMurtry and others like him perfectly.
tchicherine 4 years ago
You belief is only true with an astonishingly low/bad level of research. Start of with this:
911 blogger dot com node/7022
Then get back to me
mjd1982 4 years ago
great post, really appreciate you doing this. I just made a video talking about 9/11 truth aswell. I think its very important we stick to things we can argue...not try to say we know for sure what hit the pentagon, or what kind of plane hit the towers...talk about the molten steel, the near free fall speed of building 7. Some things we CANT know for sure...because the investigation was never done. REOPEN 9/11 Vote Ron Paul 2008!
KIDiotequeA 4 years ago
Piss the fuck off you god damn Ron Paul bot!
DirtCheap 4 years ago
Not a bot, just a big fan...cheers douche.
KIDiotequeA 4 years ago
the communism theory is so dead on
i'm personally proud to be a conspiracy theorist
i feel sorry for the sheeple
and how deeply their minds have been programmed
metedude1 4 years ago
actually, Elites are purposely encouraging 9/11 conspiracies to delude and distract the population away from real Republicrat crimes. Notice how much press and media attention they are increasingly getting compared to real dissidents like Zinn, Chomsky, Fisk, Klein, etc.. etc..
adrianburnett 4 years ago
And have a look at the kind of coveragre they are getting. Watch any fox/msnbc interview, the BBC/Sky coverage of it, NY Times/Post... Chomsky's Propaganda Model is 100% congruent with this. The MSM cannot ignore the online media, so they come out to actively decry it
mjd1982 4 years ago
Of course it's mostly dismissive, but just the fact they get so much press is suspicious. i.e. How many times has Chomsky been on Foxnews? Zero. How many times have Jones, Fetzer, Barrett been on? Many times.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
Explain WTC7 after watching the collapse, lots of clips to choose from on youtube. Go check if those eyes n ears are working because i can clearly see 'controlled demolitions' at work not the act of fires. Then look at the clips on youtube showing the close-up shots of WTC1 & 2 collapsing, you can clearly see those floors poping out! What Osama pulled that trick off as well. All Lies n fake wars, military industrial complex some call it.
CrypticTimes 4 years ago
I've looked at the footage, it's just the windows shattering as the building collapses and smoke and debris pouring out. Try showing a little skepticism. This conspiracy nonsense is just that.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
Do be so daft! The simple fact Building 7 collapsed into a neat little pile is a miraculous event and a scientific wonder. You really do have your blinkers up, wow its not a surprise they pulled the wool over every ones eyes with an attitude like yours. WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed with no resistance just like WTC 1 & 2. And was the third concrete & steel building to collapse due to fire, a new world record as its never happened before, but three within 6 hours....wake up sleepy!
CrypticTimes 4 years ago
"free-fall speed" - ah, has ever such a phrase been so miss-used before?
alterofshame 4 years ago
Has such ignorance on this level been witnessed before? Your in denial if you think WTC7 was anything other than controlled demolitions, do you naysayers still think an office fire can totally demolish each and every floor of a modern building and melt & cut all 42 steel core columns, each one being 4" thick x4 sides per column. Hello brain working yet, its just not phisically possible, the most obvious reason is 'controlled demolition', = prior kneledge of 9/11!
CrypticTimes 4 years ago
you do understand how WTC7 was built, right? "melt & cut all 42 steel core columns" - You know this to be true, of course? and, how do you explain the fitting of the explosives? look into demoltition of buildings of the same size - hello brain working? guess all the office workers were in on it too.
oh, and anyone who came into contact with the building.
*sigh*
lets just say, how big a "conspiracy" is it?
alterofshame 4 years ago
Chomsky can be ignored since he is not a significant factor in middle america. Jones et al are. Hence they MUST be demonized.
mjd1982 4 years ago
What I shooud have said was that NC is not a factor to the America that watches Fox, whereas JOnes et al are more so, potentially. More of those people have heard of Loose Change than have the Propaganda Model, deleterious tho both are to the Establishment
mjd1982 4 years ago
There's nothing unusual about the "official" science or there'd be an uproar of scientists throughout the world over 9/11, which there clearly isn't (but of course all those millions of scientists around the world must be on the Illuminati payroll).
And if the 9/11 "conspiracy" was real, why not censor Jones et al. instead of Chomsky especially if Chomsky is against the theory?
CTs just don't add up.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
as I told you, 99% of people dont even know about wtc7. There is a reason for this, and it is explained well by Chomsky in MC. If it were, THEN there would be mass uproar.
Chomsly doesnt need to be censored, since his views do not touch the Fox audience. Those of Jones et al do, hence they attack him
mjd1982 4 years ago
Chomsky is the most articulate proponent of far-leftism, that's why he's censored. The reason that Jones, Fetzer, and other CTers get more coverage on Fox than most of the leading voices on the far-left (Zinn, Cockburn, etc..) is because Elites want to encourage the 9/11 conspiracy and censor the real left.
The propaganda model accurately predicts that conspiracies will pass through the mainstream media filters as they do.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
Chomsky can get ignored because he poses no danger. Most Fox viewers wont even know who he is. Ditto Zinn et al.
911 cant get ignored, because even without MSM coverage, 36% of US believed it.
The CM, if written today, would predict that internet news, detrimental to power, will get lynched by the MSM. 911 illustrates this perfectly.
mjd1982 4 years ago
Chomsky is more dangerous to the Fox audience than 9/11 CTers that's why he's censored (and why they haven't heard of him), if he was no threat they would have him on. And most people never heard of Fetzer, Jones, but they suspiciously get plenty of mainstream coverage.
If there was some credence to 9/11 CTs, then all the CTers would be more censored than Chomsky, which isn't the case.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
But this is the same point. Chomsky's views would be a threat IF PEOPLE KNEW ABOUT THEM. The Fox audience in general doesnt, so he is not a threat.
911 on the other hand is a threat, since the Fox audience does know about it. So it must be lampooned as vigorously as possible. This is precisely what is happening now.
mjd1982 4 years ago
Yes, Chomsky's views would be very threatening if people knew about them, that's precisely why he's censored.
And the media wouldn't let the most articulate advocates for the 9/11 CT on if it was real, they would use strawmen. In fact, they invite them on to lampoon the far-left by using CTers as strawmen...
adrianburnett 4 years ago
As ive told you, that he's censored is irrelevant, cos that audience doesnt know who he is in the 1st place. If they did, he would come on and be lampooned, just like the TM.
The media isnt using the best advocates, it uses the worst- Fetzer, Tarpley et al. Better would be Vidal, Mcgovern, Palast et al.
mjd1982 4 years ago
Look, the Fox audience hasn't heard of any of those figures either... Chomsky's views would be quite popular if he wasn't censored.. this is an obvious point.
And Vidal, McGovern, and Palast don't say it was a controlled demo or an inside job, just that Bush let it happen and restricted NORAD, etc..
adrianburnett 4 years ago
1. They have heard of the movement. These people are being purported as the heads of the movement. Thats all that matters.
2. If Bush let is happen, then it was an inside job, and he will be put in front of a firing squad. No different to is he blew up the TTs. The positions are effectively, identical.
Dont get confused as to the meaning of the truth movement- simply that there is sufficient evidence of gov connivance to warrant a new investigation into such.
mjd1982 4 years ago
I mean an inside job in the sense of the principle actor who caused the towers to collapse, which was Al-Qaeda and not the government.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
As explaine, that is ONE scenario for the inside job. There are too many to detail; but they all fall under the umbrella of US connivance. For one example you may like, google "Kabir Mohabbat Counterpunch". Also, read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" on the PNAC website.
mjd1982 4 years ago
That's the MAIN scenario, that it was a controlled demo. There are all sorts of ridiculous conspiracies, like it was really done by Reptilians, but I'm talking about the leading scenario.
Those two references have nothing to do with what we're talking about.
And just for the record, I would also like another investigation too, like most people. The Bush Admin's incompetence that day is probably deeper than is known, but it doesn't follow that I'm in the "Truth" Movement then.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
This is the belief of most people who know about it. It is the social consensus, and you have let to find 1 scientist who disagrees with this.
Incidentally, if you are suspicious of the Bush admin's incompetence, are you aware that they called for a new Pearl Harbour in sept 2000? Where does that leave u?
mjd1982 4 years ago
It is not the social consensus and you can't back that up. And your "find 1 scientist" thing is a trick question. But to answer it anyway, Forman Williams debunks 9/11 myths and he's not a government scientist.
And are you claiming Pearl Harbour was an inside job too? I hope not.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
Hahaha... buddy, believe me when I tell u I know far more about this than you.
Google "zogby 911"
mjd1982 4 years ago
I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. And that poll doesn't prove anything. It says the Gov't "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act"..
I agree with that too, given the August 6th PDB "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" and how Bush knew US policies in the ME were empowering terrorists. That doesn't show New Yorkers believe it was an inside job though..
adrianburnett 4 years ago
You are illustrating yourtotal misundestanding of the TM. I am an active member of it. The premise is there is sufficient evidence of gov complicity to warrant a new investigation. This is what and y the poll asks. If this is right, then Bush has committed a capital crime. If you agree that they knew in advance, then you are also a truther, and you should be pressing for a new investigation into the murder of 3000 people, rather than arguing against it for the sake of implosion
mjd1982 4 years ago
This man's mental illness becomes apparent at 7:45.
lourak 4 years ago
Is this guy a democrat or something?
lourak 4 years ago
Its great to hear someone speaking out in an impartial way, I am looking forward to the next instalments.
Stuntdogfish 4 years ago
What an outlandish video.. 9/11 "truth" is not scientifically proven, the overwhelmingly majority of qualified scientists says the CT "science" doesn't add up.. and there's a distinction between a criminal conspiracy, which is what 9/11 was, and paranoid unsubstantiated conspiracy theory
adrianburnett 4 years ago
What is outlandish is people like you who won't open their eyes and see what really happened.
sailyn55 4 years ago
I have opened my eyes and that's the problem, because all of the evidence presented is so thin how could you expect a reasonable person to accept it?.. I'm sorry, I'm going to be believe my lying eyes instead of what the CTers assert..
adrianburnett 4 years ago
for starters you spell like a moron, conclusion moron.
as a ironworker with thirty years under my belt,with demo experience; wtc was a rigged demo. you can burn that steel with k-1 from now until hell freezes it will never melt.
the best thing we could do for national security is open all of the dulles/bush gang files, if they weren't sadly blown up in 7.
yesgyes 4 years ago
hah. I didn't make a single spelling error and even if I did that's so pedantic and desperate it's interesting you say it. Why haven't hundreds of thousands of qualified experts across the world come out against this "controlled demo" if it's so obvious? because it's pure fantasy, that's why..
adrianburnett 4 years ago
i think i will go with the people who were actually there, in "idea" you can prove anything to be, just as you could prove it to not be true. What i will believe is what people who were there say and its not what you would like us to believe. I mean... unless your saying these "qualified experts" actually made a building twin of the two towers and rammed an air craft into the building just so perfectly that the experiment can be seen as being perfectly done!
DirtCheap 4 years ago
The TTs is one thing, but WTC7 is hardly known by anyone, and all the non US experts who have spoken on it that i am aware of are unequivocal that it was a CD.
mjd1982 4 years ago
Look, there are hundreds of thousands of scientists who are qualified to understand the science of 9/11 in the US alone, and the overwhelming majority of them don't support 9/11 conspiracies. All there is for a conspiracy are tiny groups like "Scholars for Truth" which are negligible and not peer-reviewed.
adrianburnett 4 years ago
The pattern is very clear. US researchers either do not speak about WTC7, or are hazy about it. Those outside the US are unequivocal. Again, if you read Lippmanns text, you will understand why.
mjd1982 4 years ago
"the best thing we could do for national security is open all of the dulles/bush gang files, if they weren't sadly blown up in 7."
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RP 08 FTW
11Jamie11 4 years ago
Ridiculous. Firstly what evidence is there that "all of the dulles/bush gang files" were in WTC7? Zero.
And if you are claiming hundreds of thousands of scientists are being shut up in the US, you're really off the rails. It would be impossible to prevent something from leaking.
adrianburnett 4 years ago