WTC 7-Video shows explosions bursting out windows

This is why it is always a very important reason for someone to say:

"Synchronize your watches."

Especially if it is a really secret mission.

edit: one more question, what is the speed of sound?

 

They had only been in office less than 9 months prior to 9/11. Way too early to tell about a second term.

 

Don't try to speak logicically to conspiracy theorist.

 

You honestly think that the number of people that would be required to pull off a government job would all remain silent?

In this day and age, a low level aide to a congressman can't break wind without CNN and FOX and a zillion other outlets being all over it.

There is a 0% chance that the hundreds of people it would take to pull this off would have all remained mum. Hell, somebody would already have negotiated a book deal.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is actually correct.

 

I understand your logic, but you have to understand the nature of how the world really works, especially as it pertains to secret organizations and black ops mercenaries.

You simply can't blow the whistle on something like this because A) you're getting highly paid to do the job B) the media is owned and run by very powerful men who wouldn't let that info out in the mainstream and C) you'd be killed if you opened your mouth.

There's a lot more reasons why stuff like this gets suppressed all the time, the media's job is NOT to tell you the truth, only to tell you what they're paid to tell you.

 

Back the times when 95% of the world was taught to believe the world was flat, those who came out publicly and announced that it was round were hung in the gallows and stoned to death by the public.

The world really works about the same way today, 95% of the public lives in one reality and the other 5% decipher the information they're taught and realize it is a load of baloney. The difficult part is learning one version of reality, then decoding that information to discover there is another reality.

Once you learn the mechanisms to decode what is going on, this is all really easy to understand, and you figure out that you'll never be able to 'disprove' the official 9/11 (which can't be done), coming to the realization that it is an exercise in futility. The actual science or standard proof/disproof method simply will not work as well as the higher knowledge of how the world ( 'The Matrix' ) really works.

Very few people understand how or where to begin learning how to decode and analyze the reality we live in, but once you have, your mind changes its perception of reality. So while this sounds complex, when people bash what you might call CT'ists, they're not realizing that their mind simply cannot grasp the reality that the CT'ist has entered.

If this does not make any sense please let me know and I will attempt to expound a bit more.

 

Stop it, you're killing me. That's really funny.

You almost sound like you really believe everything that is being said in this thread.

From a too-long to post article that is a must read: http://www.newscientist.com/article...nsible-people-reject-the-truth.html?full=true

How to be a denialist

Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who also studies denial, has identified six tactics that all denialist movements use. "I'm not suggesting there is a manual somewhere, but one can see these elements, to varying degrees, in many settings," he says (The European Journal of Public Health, vol 19, p 2).

1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
2. Use fake experts to support your story. "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.

 

What's 'funny' is how dead on sure you're correct on this, and backing yourself up using a level 1 propaganda piece whose format has been used for ages.

If you turn off your television, read these books and come back with the same viewpoint, then I'll give your posts more credibility.

Carroll Quigley: 'Tragedy and Hope', 'Anglo American Establishment'

Bertrand Russell: 'The Impact of Science on Society', 'The Scientific Outlook'

It's a little insulting that you can debase someone's viewpoint without putting in thousands of hours of research. Unfortunately, you've been trained quite well to preemptively disbelieve the 5% of 'wackos' without putting in the work, just like every society for centuries.

 

lol...

"Never mind that the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering. A group of obscure European politicians concocted this conspiracy theory, and it is now doing the rounds even in educated circles."

Omg thousands died of the flu! That never happens in any given normal year.

"Greg Poland, head of vaccines at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and editor in chief of the journal Vaccine, often speaks out against vaccine denial. He calls his opponents "the innumerate" because they are unable to grasp concepts like probability. Instead, they reason based on anecdote and emotion. "People use mental short cuts - 'My kid got autism after he got his shots, so the vaccine must have caused it,'" he says. One emotive story about a vaccine's alleged harm trumps endless safety statistics."

Notice how they use 'one emotive story' to lead you into the state of mind you already want yourself to be in. Notice how the guy being quoted is HEAD OF VACCINES?? Any conflict of interest there?

I personally know three people who have had serious issues shortly following being vaccinated, including myself. Furthermore, vaccines are like saying God made a mistake and they also haven't been around very long. It is so crazy that I don't trust them?

Please read at least one of those books and start using your mind, not parroting someone else's just because you do not want to begin learning a subject that might make you have to admit you were not completely correct about everything you knew in life.

 

I have a reasonable suspicion that most of the people you are talking down to are probably quite a bit more well read than you.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wc...wAQ#v=onepage&q="suspicious thinking"&f=false

[rquoter]
Suspicious people, in general, do not ignore a piece of data; on the contrary they examine it quite carefully. But they examine it with an extraordinary prejudice, dismissing what is not relevant to their suppositions and seizing on anything that confirms them. The fact is, furthermore, that their dismissal and disregard of anything that does not confirm their prior supposition is and active and intentional process. They do this on principal, since they operate from the outset on the assumption that anything that does not confirm their expectation is "mere appearance." Thus, they would say that they are interested in penetrating the sham, the pretense, and the superficial; they want to get at the heart of the matter, the underlying truth. But this need not prevent us from noticing that the underlying truth invariably turns out to be precisely what they expected it to be in the first place.

[/rquoter]

 

The world being flat part wasn't going on at large. There were many people who were supsersticious and believed that to be the case, but most people in authority knew it was indeed round. Globes had been made by the Greeks long before Columbus' journey, and a European map maker had made a globe model of the earth years before Columbus. He was not stoned or hung in the gallows.

You've bought into the myth.

 

That type of thinking is escapist at best but leads to things like Heaven's Gate and Jim Jones at worst.

 

I would venture to say that based upon our combined time living on terra firma you would not fair well in any comparison of scholarly research hours.

Whether it be the pseudo-sciences of conspiracy theorists or real scholarly research.

 

This makes it sound like I grew up reading and learning 'outside the box'. I went through college learning what I was trained to, watching television and reading newspapers. Then I came to the conclusion that something 'wasn't right', and began studying older works and listening to the minority opinion.

I'm not sure what 'well read' is, as it might pertain to a belief system that I am not necessarily a part of.

 

What 'myth'? Who profits from me writing this? Who profits from top leaders and mainstream media telling you what you've been told? Who is more likely to lie?

The world went from flat, to round, to flat, to round again. History is always changing. The only myth is the perception of the individual who does not know himself and the world around him.

 

It leads to me not believing the same indoctrinations that you might believe in, I don't see anyone making threats here, nor should they. It is a DANGEROUS society when the individual who goes against the majority opinion is derisively labeled as some kind of thought criminal. Nothing new throughout history, folks.

 

What does this have to do with anything? I am not trying to compete with you, just offering you an alternate perception of reality, which is not as linear as some may believe. Why do people constantly attack those that are trying to help them?