While I don't subscribe to the inside job conspiracy, I do find some of the circumstances worthy of discussion:
- the odds of a NORAD training exercise simulating an airliner attack on NYC happening on the same day it actually happens (this also happened in London on 7/7)
- building 7 collapsing and the contemporaneous testimony of Barry Jennings (who was trapped in Building 7).
- shipping off the debris from one of the biggest crimes in world history without (apparently) sufficient study.
- the failures of the NIST report and the stacking of the committee which oversaw it.
Topic: 9/11 derail: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 3. (Read 6216 times)
The truth is about to hit you hard. With one minute google search you will find enough to read to permanently change your thinking about this subject. The condition is, of course, that you have the cognitive ability to understand what you read, and some background in science to verify the hard evidence. But most of people have those. The problem is their brainwash. (Somebody better versed in this area can explain, I lack the correct words.)
It's more about "conditioning".
All humans desire to be loved. Thus, from an early age, they formulate social strategies to receive love. One of the most common strategies is to be accepted by others, thus aligning with the group and the perception of the group: Let's call it "mainstream worldview".
Those who subconsciously believe that they will be rejected by going against the accepted beliefs of the group, depriving them of acceptance (which is subconsciously equated with love) will rather stay in line with the accepted beliefs / mainstream worldview and be the valiant defenders of this worldview, so that they can show their "worthiness" to the other members of the group, and increase their acceptability while at the same time trying to paint the "contrast" of non-acceptability in their "enemies" who are labeled "nuts", "idiots", "irrational" etc. It follows that "less acceptance for them = more acceptance for me" => more love for me.
It is interesting how a motive like wanting to be loved can produce such behaviors. But then again, that's the very pattern that parents use on their kids so that kids will behave according to parents expectations... "be good or else I won't accept you / love you so much".
There are 4 stages of human evolution. They are strength, intellect, perception (this is what we are discussing right now - where one can be smart but also blind to the truth due to cognitive bias / investment in the reality framework that he believes in / perceived cost in disinvestment - like ridicule or lack of love and acceptance) and, a few decades down the road, consciousness.
1. The stage of physical strength
Kind of self-evident: The strong prevail. The weak die or are enslaved and prevented from procreation.
2. The stage of intellect
This is where humanity is in, right now - although it is migrating to stage 3 (perception). Women naturally desire strong and intelligent men to mate with. Some will argue that women want men with money, but this, in itself, is nearly impossible if one isn't intelligent. Thus the money-desire, or things like the desirable property for “humor” are simply camouflaged desires for intelligence.
3. The stage of perception
This is the stage where one's intelligence is allowed to expand by decoupling the associated cognitive biases – thus producing new thoughts that allow the individual to survive when the herd is heading over a cliff.
A human is naturally inclined to align with the group / society, in all ways, including the way he thinks, in order to become more socially acceptable and thus increase his chances of survival and getting love. However, the group-think effect is what undermines the ability of the individual to perceive things that the group chose to overlook. This is a serious handicap that the individual must overcome.
Imagine, for example, the possibility that things like RF frequencies, Genetically Modified food, substances contained in vaccines, etc etc are not so “appropriate” for humans. The establishment and the media create a pattern where people are demonized for going against “progress”. Society, at large, adopts the media claims. In this scenario, an individual speaking against RF frequencies, GM foods or vaccines could be seen as a “weirdo” by others.
By the time the effect of such things is understood, in terms of human biology, a whole sort of biological and reproductive problems (eg sperm count near zero) might have appeared for those engaged in group-think. Thus their ability to procreate and carry their genes forward will have severely been diminished. Those who will be better positioned, in this sense, will be those who are able to perceive the problems and solutions that society overlooks.
A small note regarding the examples given: While things like RF frequencies, GMOs, vaccines etc are issues that have the public opinion debating with some strong support and opposition, there are other issues which are more widely accepted in terms of group-think and only a handful of people are actually perceiving against the effect of group-think.
4. The stage of consciousness
Computer intelligence has so far been "dumb" and conditional through IF-THEN-ELSE programmed routines. A programmer inserts a number of conditions and responses that a program then executes. For example, IF temperature >25C THEN turn on the aircondition. So our houses are "smart" because they can auto-regulate the temperature. But in reality, they are simply running a "dumb" program.
There is another kind of computer intelligence however that is not conditional. Rather, it is based on a simulation of brain neurons and how they fire. These computer programs are called "neural networks" and, as they evolve, they will be able to do all tasks that human can, faster, and better.
When that happens, and "castles" like creativity fall to Artificial Intelligence, humans will have to re-evaluate their identity. "If the AI program can do all that I do, better, and faster, then what am I missing? What is my qualitative advantage over an AI program?"
In this sense, Artificial Intelligence has the potential to act catalytically in redefining who we are.
Some will simply accept their inferiority and try to merge with technological AI through implanted chips, computers, nanobots etc.
Others will indeed find the differentiating factor that separates them from an AI program. This differentiating factor is the God-spirit within us that has unlimited potential and can be merged to the human biology to upgrade it to a whole different level.
Thus, as Ape + Superior Mind created Humans as a new specie
...2 new species will emerge from Humans:
Human + Technology = Human Cyborgs / Bio-Technological hybrids with increased potential
Human + God-Spirit within = God-Humans with infinite potential
This is where we are heading...
In the meantime, we are migrating towards the stage of perception (stage 3). The Internet has allowed the mainstream worldview to fragment into large pieces of varying world-views. In the 80s or 90s it would be far more difficult for someone to speak out in favor of an alternative worldview, due to the fact that the perception of isolation was stronger - and thus the calculated risk of being penalized by the "group" was higher. But when people discovered they are not alone in thinking "the impossible", they got bolder. Thing is, those who required the Internet to become bolder in what to think and express, are still, in a way, confined to the same problematic mentality that those invested in the mainstream worldview are. They are not really autonomous thinkers - they are just slightly more "aggressive" in how far they are willing to go.
The truth can only be uncovered by one when he is really an autonomous thinker. When he's given himself permission to think the unthinkable, no matter the consequences or what the existing beliefs are in the various subgroups / various worldviews of groups. This will be of essence in the mid-term future. The reason is that the various subgroups or various worldviews can be "gamed" by the establishment through certain mechanisms, that are not so dissimilar from the mechanisms that are used to design the mainstream worldview.
Look, a discussion about 11/9 on my favourite unrelated forum... I will just leave this 5 hours doc work here: http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmM4Tra-rg0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmM4Tra-rg0
Disinformation and gatekeeping ala "Truthers and Shills".
I don't waste my time arguing with people without arguments.
I respected Risto's intellect until I realized on this page that he's another of the 9/11 "truther" idiots.
It's not about intellect. It's other cognitive feature, I'm not sure what to call it. Skepticism? Gullibility? Self-deception? It's compatible with any level of intellect, from very high to very low.Heh. When you respect someones intellect but suddenly lose that respect because you disagree with some conclusions (which were arrived at by a respectable intellect!) you lose that respect? Seems to me this says more about your intellect than his
Anyone who is delusional enough to buy into a massive conspiracy that would necessarily involve tens of thousands of individuals in not only the government, but also aviation, engineering, explosives, and building security... all of whom have kept their mouths shut all this time about the empty airplanes (or the rockets on airplanes... or just rockets or whatever the hell the nuts want to believe now), all the explosives rigged up in the buildings weeks in advance, and the crews who went around the building discreetly planting the explosives in what would be the largest planned demolition of a building ever... all in the goal to kill their fellow countrymen in cold blood...
(this would be the same government, by the way, that couldn't even keep a presidential blow job secret for long) .... yes, I do begin to doubt the intellectual capacities of anyone who could believe in such drivel.
well this is a straw man I'd say. You have cherry-picked the most difficult to believe parts of 9/11 conspiracy theories, yet those are not the only ones in existence. For instance it is possible that the towers indeed collapsed just due to the impacts of the airplanes, yet US gov was aware of the attack.
Anyways I don't see a reason to debate this with you. You seem to have made up your mind already and you have categorized people with a different opinion with certain derogatory labels. In other words, your mind has stopped receiving new signals concerning the subject matter and thus killed any potential for a beneficial discussion.
My point here has always been that absolute belief is dangerous. And it doesn't matter if it is absolute belief in your favorite conspiracy theory, in your government, in your religion or in your conviction that there are no conspiracies. The refusal to consider an idea and the insulting of its proponents reeks of dogma to me and I'm allergic to that shit
Oh and let me take this chance to state my own personal bias: while I don't support ANY dogma, I am much more sympathetic towards people believing their own conspiracy theories than towards people who stand firmly behind the official cultural narrative. It's just a personal aesthetic preference, so take it as such.
I can't help but to cherry pick different aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy theories; every single one of these mouth breathers that I've had the displeasure of meeting in real life or online give different versions of events, or provide links to such scholarly, peer reviewed websites such as rense.com or infowars and suddenly become "experts" on steel, engineering, and airplane crash sites. If I was to include all their bullshit theories in my original post, I would soon exceed some type of forum message length policy.
I suppose some of the more moderate -- but still dumb -- truthers will propose that Bush was in on the plot with his buddy Usama bin Laden and allowed him to carry out the attack, or even orchestrated the whole attack themselves. Of course, they can't explain why this supposedly surreptitious government wasn't even bright enough to just plant a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq to justify that particular war. That would have been quite easy in comparison. They really dropped the ball on that one, didn't they?
Look, a discussion about 11/9 on my favourite unrelated forum... I will just leave this 5 hours doc work here: http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmM4Tra-rg0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmM4Tra-rg0
Disinformation and gatekeeping ala "Truthers and Shills".
Look, a discussion about 11/9 on my favourite unrelated forum... I will just leave this 5 hours doc work here: http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmM4Tra-rg0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmM4Tra-rg0
I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.
The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.
Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.
These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.
The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.
Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.
These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.
+1 Exactly.
about the theory in cluesforum, it does not change anything. Wether the powers controlling government and the FED actually did it or whether they made a "movie" pretending it happened amounts to exactly the same thing. Wether such acts are done or simulated creates basically the same trauma in the collective mind and fulfils the same purpose.
I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.
The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.
Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.
These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.
The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.
Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.
These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.
+1
Well said Carlton.
I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.
The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.
Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.
These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.
The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.
Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.
These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.
Thank you for being a much needed voice of reason in this...dare I call it debate?
I bolded what I consider to be the most important message of your post. The founder of General Semantics Alfred Korzybski made the observation that the structure of the language we use influences the thoughts we think and by extension the actions we do and the social institutions we build. I think there is a lot of truth in that observation which is why I keep looking out for the language people use and reminding them to examine the assumptions implicit in the language they are using more closely.
I respected Risto's intellect until I realized on this page that he's another of the 9/11 "truther" idiots.
It's not about intellect. It's other cognitive feature, I'm not sure what to call it. Skepticism? Gullibility? Self-deception? It's compatible with any level of intellect, from very high to very low.Heh. When you respect someones intellect but suddenly lose that respect because you disagree with some conclusions (which were arrived at by a respectable intellect!) you lose that respect? Seems to me this says more about your intellect than his
It's called human nature....
well...
Quote from: wikipedia
In the 1947 preface to the third edition of Science and Sanity, Korzybski wrote, "We need not blind ourselves with the old dogma that 'human nature cannot be changed,' for we find that it can be changed."
Posters, please consider and examine the language you are using.
Quote from: ErisDiscordia
The greater our awareness of the structures of our own nervous systems and the languages we are using grows, the greater freedom and sanity we gain
www.cluesforum.info
It is the only thing you need to know about 911. All credit to Simon and the gang. I read about it first in 2010 and my eyes are now trained well to spot actors and fakes in everyday media stories.
Alex Jones/ Truthers etc are all bullshit to keep everyone disillusioned about the whole charade that has been the main weapon of governments and realms for years and years - Media manipulation and fakery.
Some of you will laugh it out. Some will outright attack me and dismiss me. And then some will be engrossed for the next few weeks and or months as you finally realize how everything works.
Here is a simple, primer video to understand how hoaxes work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYkHAmLw-f8
It is the only thing you need to know about 911. All credit to Simon and the gang. I read about it first in 2010 and my eyes are now trained well to spot actors and fakes in everyday media stories.
Alex Jones/ Truthers etc are all bullshit to keep everyone disillusioned about the whole charade that has been the main weapon of governments and realms for years and years - Media manipulation and fakery.
Some of you will laugh it out. Some will outright attack me and dismiss me. And then some will be engrossed for the next few weeks and or months as you finally realize how everything works.
Here is a simple, primer video to understand how hoaxes work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYkHAmLw-f8
Apologies for bumping my own post. Did anyone get a chance to read a bit on Cluesforum.info ? Thoughts?
Also I deliberately chose to include this 5 min video to see the different reactions. It usually gets a few different reactions although it is just a simple 5 min video of a man narrating his experience. Do not get sucked into reading any of the comments posted on it.
Alex Jones, Truthers, Shills etc are controlled opposition. They want to be your favourite conspiracy theorist, exploiting the inner rebel and conspiracy theories most of us have, and lead us down to the faux roads in order to keep the real media hoax away from common minds and create further confusion and uncertainties about the entire event. More is discussed in the "Truthers and Shills" subforum.
Risto, it appears you were also not aware of cluesforum and have the rebel stance, but have been misled by the controlled opposition.
Cluesforum will change your lives once you spend just a few days researching and reading it.
I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.
The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.
Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.
These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.
The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.
Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.
These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.
Anyone who is delusional enough to buy into a massive conspiracy that would necessarily involve tens of thousands of individuals in not only the government
...because the state is not a conspiracy, right?
"The State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens" - Leo Tolstoy
So this is what if the 'conspiracy theorists' are wrong:
The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2160541
Risto, could you please clean this thread from 9/11 WTC conspiracy theories. If you guys really want to discuss this, do so. But not in a freaking TA thread! The only buildings that may be discussed here, is the Mala castle!
Let them stay. The thread has many readers so regard them as "commercials" that you would have to endure while watching TV. The United States is trying hard to foment an actual, hot, war with Russia at present, and the spreading of lies is going so strong. There must be some truth to balance.
No way the US is provoking war. Otherwise a whistleblower would step up and tell all about that dirty little secret
Deprogramming is hard, and there is no turning back.
Risto, could you please clean this thread from 9/11 WTC conspiracy theories. If you guys really want to discuss this, do so. But not in a freaking TA thread! The only buildings that may be discussed here, is the Mala castle!
Let them stay. The thread has many readers so regard them as "commercials" that you would have to endure while watching TV. The United States is trying hard to foment an actual, hot, war with Russia at present, and the spreading of lies is going so strong. There must be some truth to balance.
Risto, could you please clean this thread from 9/11 WTC conspiracy theories. If you guys really want to discuss this, do so. But not in a freaking TA thread! The only buildings that may be discussed here, is the Mala castle!
Nah, I love these provocations at authority. Few believe the governments story and we define how we use our language. Keep the criminals on their toes.
We shouldn't have to adjust our lives to them, governments serve us and should adjust to us, to serving us. A little cognitive dissonance is in order...
Would be nice to have a Rpietila "The truth behind 911" thread though.
After all,
Its about sharing
Risto, could you please clean this thread from 9/11 WTC conspiracy theories. If you guys really want to discuss this, do so. But not in a freaking TA thread! The only buildings that may be discussed here, is the Mala castle!
It only took a simple Google search to find this in the first few results:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html
Since when does a skyscraper collapse from fire?
A hot enough fire weakens metal. Jet fuel, diesel or heating oil burn very hot. If there is enough fuel to burn for an extended period of time things happen.
What caused the twin towers to collapse? It wasn't the direct hit from the airplanes or the weight of the airplanes on the structure. Without the extended fire from the jet fuel the buildings wouldn't have collapsed.
If you have an extended hot fire at the base of a building it will also cause a structural failure and then there is nothing to hold the building up.
The buildings that collapsed experienced very unique and unusual circumstances.
Truth of the day.
I am much more sympathetic towards people believing their own conspiracy theories than towards people who stand firmly behind the official cultural narrative. It's just a personal aesthetic preference, so take it as such.
And which percentage of them believe in their own conspiracy theories? I'm afraid, anti-official side is as reach with blind believers as the the official one. They just believe in opposite kind of nonsense. oh of course that is what I see as well: full of blind faith on either side of the argument. That's why I mentioned earlier that I find the anti-authoritarian narratives more aesthetically pleasing but that is all.
You rightfully point out that it is not "their own" conspiracy theories people tend to believe: they adopt them. I suspect many of them are driven by the same impulse as hipsters - trying to feel better/smarter than the population in general by being different/believing something different. On the other hand, supporters of official theories dismissing conspiracy theorists as feeble minded delusional paranoids seem to be engaging in pretty similar one-upmanship through making themselves feel better, because they "don't believe in THAT drivel" (instead they believe in other, more popular and widely accepted drivel
)Ah the ways in which we delude ourselves are endless and intelligent discussion is seldom to be found.
WTC steel was tested for 2000 degrees C and the kerosene's open air burning temperature is around 350 degrees C. You can't have a fire that burns at 350 degrees burn something that melts at 2000 degrees.
Bullshit lies: Max adiabatic burn temperature 2,500 K (2,230 °C) (4,040 °F) Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)Bullshit lies #2: Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F)
Do you guys even Wikipedia?!
This is incorrect and what they want you to believe. Yes heat does weaken steal but it doesn't weaken it to the extent that a steal frame would collapse. Especially not in a controlled manner.
Crazy + grammar + ignorance.You should study a bit before you watch too many propaganda videos...
Your resorting to ad hominems speaks volumes.
I am much more sympathetic towards people believing their own conspiracy theories than towards people who stand firmly behind the official cultural narrative. It's just a personal aesthetic preference, so take it as such.
And which percentage of them believe in their own conspiracy theories? I'm afraid, anti-official side is as reach with blind believers as the the official one. They just believe in opposite kind of nonsense. Jump to: