Step 1: Pick a conspiracy.

Step 2: Research it.

Step 3: Go here and shut the fuck up forevermore.

http://www.debunking911.com

ok so... how do they debunk a wtc beam cut at a sharp angle with molten steel on it, exactly? you cant get the molten metal from welding... so... the cleanup crew decided in lieu of welders they would use something else to cut the beam, thermite or something i guess, and figured there was no need to save time or money so they made the cut at that angle?

are people starting to look at facts rather than have knee-jerk reactions when it comes to the coverup that was 9/11?

http://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-to-alternative-911-theories/

notably:
"One in Two Surveyed Have Doubts About Government’s Account of 9/11"

now what they doubted is uncertain. the original account was proven wrong on so many points, and was later amended a few times to try to retain some semblance of plausible deniability... so if they are just doubting some things they were told at first, that was later conceded was false, it is not much. but any critical thinking, and any doubt, in a world where critical thinking is ostracized is a good start.

Idiocy now muted

All of your concerns, including those stated, are answered on that site. I've read every one of those articles.

that website is an insult to intelligence. the media predicted building 7's collapse because it was on fire and we all know buildings collapse due to fire. or actually we do not, because it has never happened before in history.

then they deflect the issue and say why would they kill all these civilians/etc, deflect, ignore the issue at hand because of the implausibility of it.

and of course even if we take this error in judgment (as modern skyscrapers cannot collapse from fire alone) and the stroke of luck that rendered this error prophetic (that the laws of physics somehow took a vacation that day). there is, of course, the issue as to why the laws of physics did take that vacation.

they have some garbage in there, i think the site is old, because it seems to have theories nist put out originally that were systematically disproven... the latest nist theories are still just as implausible but i think eventually they just gave up on coming up with new ideas... but anyway i do not think the latest garbage matches your site.

they say that wtc7's collapse was not perfectly symmetrical, it was slightly off. therefore it was a natural collapse. that is the most pathetic thing i have ever heard. they are really just going after semantics here. they clearly do not understand the engineering terminology if they think that collapse was asymmetric. but i suppose they are trying to convince the average person who has seen some stupid 9/11 youtube and does not really know much about it.

I like MeepMeep better, where's he at?

"...but i suppose they are trying to convince the average person who has seen some stupid 9/11 youtube and does not really know much about it."

I wonder if blankflag was able to type out that last bit with a straight face. I know I couldn't read it with one.

also of note is that HALF the article is discussing whether "pull-it" means demolish the building or pull a contingent from the building. which is really not relevant to anything. except that some 9/11 youtube videos said silverstein was admitting to demolishing the building, for some reason, in a television interview, with the statement...

but hey, why confront the real issues when you know you will lose on them?

Wait, Blankflag is back? When did this happen?

blankflag: "This one beam's kinda weird, so 9/11 was an inside job. Can't you sheeple see?"


Once people get invested in a stupid idea it's very hard to change their minds.

oh wait i just saw that your website has been debunked quite badly. it has an entire section on free fall, why there was no free fall, that never happened. but even nist itself has since admitted free fall. ah, what a shame. all that time spent with bogus pseudo-science trying to say the obvious never happened... and even the propaganda machine gave up that point.

I'd be the first to go for the "propaganda machine" argument. But I'm also the first to question a conspiracy theory even if I want to believe it. You're hypocritical. You pull for all of these crazy conspiracies without questioning them, even though your entire belief system is based around questioning everything. That's why conspiracy theorists never gain any ground; they fail to question their own beliefs because they consider themselves immortal and indestructible.

hm... well... to be honest there is not be much that could change my opinion on building 7 being a controlled demolition. or to be honest even the twin towers. but that is because the laws of physics are laws.

but i think on things that i am less sure on, i do change my opinion... and it is not like i just read some site or watch some video and subscribe to everything in it unquestioningly. that is more the mark of an official theorist rather than a conspiracy theorist.

for example *pull it* meaning demolish the buildings, or the plane at the pentagon being a missile. actually at first i was unsure about the plane being a missile, but then i realized that is ridiculous to claim and has almost no concrete evidence supporting it.

actually i used to always say the cia is behind everything. i never did believe it fully, that was just a generalization. but who knows, fbi, nsa, some intelligence agents from other countries. other government officials. people outside government. there is a lot that i do not know and want to know more about. i try not to say things are definitely true if i do not really know them to be true... who knows.

also i probably do tend to overstate the extent of agents vs just people who are convinced second hand. like i said 9/11 shows government and media and academia working together. but most of the people probably believe the official tale to some extent or another. some may have just been told that you cannot question it because the organization will get ridiculed. so that is one thing i kind of changed my mind a bit on. i think there is more general ignorance than outright assets spreading the propaganda.

The NSA can't even keep it a secret that they are spying on people, or how, and they are *SUPPOSED* to spy on people. How do you think the government (multiple governments now), the media and academia could have all covered this up when one spy agency can't hide it's activities.(Snowden thought it was unconstitutional to spy on US citizens, how many people would need to not have a problem with sacrificin US lives for a 'war on terror' - when that doesn't make sense - or a war in Iraq, which proved to be bogus)

Now perhaps you subscribe to the notion that the US government is almost all powerful and could do almost anything! In which case i must refer you to two examples, one the bay of pigs invasion - a disaster of action on the part of the US spy agencies (CIA?) but also a brilliant example of the limits of their capabilities. And second, the massively siccessful evacuation of US citizens from Iran, after the Iranian revolution. These smart citizens hide in the Canadian embassy, and the Canadians agree to conspire to produce fake passports for them - so the CIA snuck into Iran on fake passports, went to the Canadian embassy, carefully trained these Americans to speak with Canadian accents and came up with a cover story (of being a tv/film crew or similar) and the walked out and took a flight home!

That is real spy stuff which was a massive success for the CIA. Also it isn't all that impressive a story. Not particularily sexy or exciting... Barely even made it into a film. But it is an example of the real ability of the CIA (with the cooperation of the Canadian government, because hey, why forge documents when you can ask an ally to make them...)

This does not fill me with courage for their ability to pull off a massive false flag operartion, killing thousands without anyone leaking anything for over ten years.

and yet they were not really successful at covering it up.

we know from congressional testimony that cheney had a stand-down order in place on 9/11. we know there were only 4 fighter jets patrolling the continental us that day when there are normally hundreds. we know that coincidentally exercises were going on at the same time mimicking the attacks with the same targets. we know radar screens were full of crap from those exercises. we know rumsfeld went awol in the critical hours to help on the lawn of the pentagon...

you are not understanding things if you think the entire government was involved. how much of the italian government was involved in the gladio bombings? or how much was the american government involved in iran/contra? or any of these other operations? it is funny that you think the government could not possibly get away with a coverup like this, when it has been documented so many times when they have. some of these coverups arent even known about until the government itself decides to (many decades) later declassify it.

do you know anyone who was in the government when iran/contra happened? ask them why they were involved in the coverup. they will likely tell you that they were not involved and had no idea it was happening. the vast majority of the government was not involved.

if you work for the faa and there are training exercises and dots all over the radar and you do not know what is going on and your boss tells you "do not tell me about any of these blips, there are exercises going on - lets not make fools of ourselves" and refuses to allow you to call for an intercept - and you listen to him, are you involved? if you have a stand-down order and are not allowed to take off and you are not sure why (some bs given to you by a superior, and being easily influenced you buy it) are you involved?

i think we do need to start to really investigate where the levers of power were on that day and who could really have been just listening to orders without understanding them, who could have been deceived by higher-ups and who could have really known something about what was happening. of course i think almost every official was deceived in some way, i think even the bastards who knew a false-flag would happen probably did not expect all those deaths - but we need to figure out what happened.

So take legal action against Cheney, prove your case, there is a system in place to do it.

I just think you're wrong, severally wrong.

It's like religion. How many religions do you think are wrong? And yet the faithful believe in them. Why? Because humans tend to ascribe agency to the random uncaring natural world. And once we subscribe to a theory we tend to stick to it.

It even has benefits, ascribing agency to a stick (which might be a snake, but you can't tell in the dark) could save your life. Imagining a snake is an inanimate object (without agency) is likely to lose you your life.

Also it is psychologically soothing; we think we know what forces affecting our lives are and that we can affect them - by worship or democratic action. If the world is uncaring and filled with unknown terrorists then we can't do much to control them/it. And this is not a comfortable idea. For some then perhaps an all-powerful God is the perfect solution (yes, it was God/Allah, he cause 9/11, to punish America for all the gays! Just ask the Wesboro Baptist church) someone they can pray to no matter what.

Never-the-less, you now seem to be claiming that some US official knew the attack was coming and ordered the airforce to stand down (or into a training exercise in the north of the continent to fight off an invading russian air attack?) What does that have to do with thermite??

well it is pretty obvious that some people in power knew a false-flag was going down. cheney included. but yeah, it is probably helpful to gather all the evidence on each individual. but like i said, just knowing they were in on the coverup does not say what they knew was happening.

but how often are cases solved just merely by laymen gathering public information? cheney, for example, has not even explained everything that happened publicly. bush and cheney gave their testimony to the commission behind closed doors, refused to be interviewed individually (had to be together) it was not under oath and it was off the record. ...

and i do not have the resources to go out and contact people around that event. and even if i did they might not talk to fear of losing their status/job whatever. (not to mention a lot of them died in different ways, many suspicious) if there were a real criminal investigation where police could interview people involved, and bring the power of the state to it, that would make it easier.

but it is funny how many use circular logic.

we know coverups cannot be hidden from us because all the coverups we know of have been exposed!

my original post was on the diagonally cut beam (which would not be cut that way during cleanup operations) but it got derailed by myself and others.

but yes, how much did cheney know about the buildings collapsing, or was he just told by someone to order a stand-down without questioning why? or did he think there would be a fake hostage crises with hijacked planes and the administration would swoop-in and save the day (like the somewhat faked iran hostage crisis where they could have been released earlier but were not for political reasons) or did he know the people on the plane would die, or that people in wtc would also die... i would like to know exactly what he knew and what he thought. i would not be surprised at any of those possibilities.

First, blankflag returns to the forum. Suddenly, the gibberish quotient on the forum skyrockets.

Seems like an innocent coincidence, right?

BUT IS IT REALLY?

@blankflag - it is important for people such as you to be sceptical of everything. It means that when cover-ups there are people who tirelessly try and expose them. Being tenacious and investigating every detail are healthy attributes. This does not mean you're right, of course, just because you seek a to undercover a cover up doesn't mean you will be able to expose it either because you lack resources or because there was no cover up to expose.

I want you to use your investigative skills and tenacicity to find out what the column in your picture was originally for. I think you are assuming that it wasn't Cut at that angle when the building was built. Imagine if it formed part of an arch type structure. You would expect that type of cut to be present. Imagine hen that the piece it was joined to collapsed and sheered off in the collapse and the fire then raged. Would you be able to get that picture after the events I discribe?

Blankflag, have you considered that the 9/11 conspiracy is itself a government conspiracy in an attempt for the U.S. government to appear to have way more control over the course of human events than would seem humanly possible? The absolute proof is right here for all to believe without questioning.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s10e09-mystery-of-the-urinal-deuce

so you mean the towers defied the laws of physics, and fell at free fall speed from fires. and then... what? the government noticed that people typically believe in science, so capitalized on this miraculous event by arguing that the government secretly took them down?

i think they are cutting back, but the propaganda machine was going all-out with poisoning the well type stuff. space rays and planes not hitting the towers and all this other crap. so they do come up with crap. but this is to distract from obvious truth.

maybe your flaw is that you think i am assuming a conspiracy then arguing for it, when the obvious would be no conspiracy. but actually i am looking at the evidence, seeing clearly that those buildings did not come down by fire, and then trying to understand what happened.

You're right. They didn't come down because of fire. They came down because two massive planes hit them. They came down because they kept burning and because they weren't built to withstand that impact. Usually people don't account for planes hitting buildings when they go up, but even in this case, they actually did - just not big enough.

Blankflag - if you seek evidence find out what they beam looked like BEFORE the attack. Then you can draw conclusions.

ok but the propaganda machine uses fire as the primary cause of all collapses. and building 7 was never hit by any plane.

that is one that maybe you can explain to me, how you believe it when they screwed up so badly. there were 4 planes, and 4 targets. sounds good enough. oh but wait, flight 93 was taken down before it could make its way back to new york. so building 7 was never even hit by a plane. but it fell down like that anyway, and you believe it?

'Usually people don't account for planes hitting buildings when they go up, but even in this case, they actually did - just not big enough.'

I think there are enough example of planes hitting skyscrapers to assume they accounted for it. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash ) And their accounting failed.

Also, building 7? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_7#9.2F11_and_collapse
maybe you should also read the talk article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:7_World_Trade_Center

none of the three collapses can be explained by science. but i guess they figured the academic community was so stupid and/or controlled that this would not be an issue. so all they worried about was convincing the public. planes hitting into them seems like a plausible excuse. even though they would not cause a symmetric total collapse like that at that speed. but anyway the average person does not know physics so maybe i can forgive the average person there.

but building 7... yeah what happened there? nist admits free fall, claims it was due to office fires... and the general public does not even have the fake excuse of a plane hitting it. why people still believe the official story after more than a decade is saddening.