Translation from conspiraspeak:

How dare you cite facts when I'm on a perfectly good fantasy riff!

So what you're saying is all the governments of the world are in on it. Is it any wonder that no one whose opinion matters takes you seriously? :rolleyes:

Ace Baker says:

Are you going with that, too, Steve? Please read my PDF before answering with crap about planting the wrong engine.

LOL. No, I'm not hip to that. Sparks are sparks, not molten metal.

https://911crashtest.org/taboo-truth...g-shanksville/

How 9/11 Missiles Equate to Global Slavery

Why do people believe in conspiracy theories?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...iracy-theories

David Ludden Ph.D.

Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?
The need to find order in a confusing world
Posted Jan 06, 2018


It seems that every family has an Uncle Joe—the guy who goes on and on about conspiracy theories at the holiday dinner table. The 9/11 attack was orchestrated by the government. The moon landing was filmed in Hollywood. Oswald did not act alone in the Kennedy assassination. And don’t get me started on global warming. Record low temperatures this Christmas, and you expect me to believe the world is actually getting warmer? Give me a break.

Maybe we should give Uncle Joe a break, or at least try to understand where he’s coming from. Why do some people believe in conspiracy theories anyway? This is exactly the question posed by British psychologist Karen Douglas and her colleagues in a recent article in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science.

The researchers found that reasons for believing in conspiracy theories can be grouped into three categories:

The desire for understanding and certainty
The desire for control and security
The desire to maintain a positive self-image

And that's not the only thing wrong with it. I counted the number of rivets in the fuselage in that 'scientific' cartoon. Guess what? There weren't any! And where are the shadows?

Do they think we are idiots? The whole thing is a fake from start to finish - not even close to reality. So how did they do it? Examine all the clues and you will come to the same conclusion as me. There is only one possible explanation - they must have made that cartoon on the Moon!

Ye gods. That site is the product of sick mind.

Unlike establishment credentialed self-important psychologists?

Gasp! Run away!

Then HOW did the engine core hit a building, knock down street signs, and come to rest smoking hot at the corner of Church and Murray?

Well it didn't cut through a steel building, that's for sure. So you tell me how it got there.

Yes, without a doubt.

From "Tired of War Without End."

I DID ALREADY, IN THE PDF!

THINK, STEVE! OR MAKE LIKE A TREE AND GET OUTTA HERE.

My apologies, but I must have missed the link.

I get it. You think that because you're clever enough to use a remote control, you deserve the truth to be handed to you on a silver screen. The government is there for your benefit and protection. The CIA likes you. The Bluebird of Happiness lands on your shoulder.

What GlennB said. :eek:

The only rational conclusion that fits the evidence is that all the worlds’ media were and are colluding in this colossal lie. I am well aware of how mind-blowing this conclusion is, but it is what it is, which is (unfortunately) often too much information for some people to process; so much so that it frequently shuts-down anyone weaned on the fantasy of the fourth estate.

No. "The only rational conclusion" is that the author's (and your, and most other conspiracists') interpretation of the evidence is hopelessly flawed and biased. You insinuate that no one listens to you because no one can handle the truth. You ignore the far more likely and reasonable possibility that no one listens to you because you are quite clearly completely wrong.

Well now's your chance to explain how the evidence doesn't fit my conclusion.

Hey Yankee451, I notice you've completely ignored (twice!) my question about the missing aircraft and the people aboard them. There is the fact that four aircraft and 236 people suddenly went missing on September 11, 2001. There's a lot of evidence to show two of these aircraft were crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. If these aircraft were not involved with the attack, what is your explanation for what happened to them and the people who were aboard?

No that's reversed burden Proof it's your theory, and you can not falsify the plane imp!act theory.

Steve's going through a midlife crisis like Gage did. Not sure why he's fixated on 9-11 but he's decided to make this his windmill. He posts here because the Truther boards probably give him the boot since he's too far gone even for them. When asked for supporting evidence all of his links are to his webpage or Youtube channel which suggests that he feels he is the ultimate intellectual authority on the matter even while demonstrating in text and video that he has no clue about the things he talks about.

He stated that he wants to leave a legacy for his grandkids and this suggests that he has failed at many things in his life and blames others for these failures, hence the reflexive distrust and disdain for government. His anger toward professionals is the underlying theme in all of his threads.

The burden of proof is on original claimants, those that insist a jet caused the damage. The lightly damaged cladding and the sharply bent steel at the left of both impact holes are proof that the original claim is false. I have offered an alternative explanation that does fit the evidence. If you think the evidence doesn't support my conclusion, and instead supports the conclusion that it was caused by the head on crash of a 767, please explain.

The story of the planes comes from the most likely suspects.

https://911crashtest.org/how-9-11-mi...lobal-slavery/

It is important to set the historical record straight so that future generations don't get fooled again.

From what I know of Richard Gage, he and I have very little in common.

You haven't provided any evidence. You've provided ridiculous theories.

I understand how they may seem ridiculous to you, but they do match the evidence that was provided. Specifically the lightly bent aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damage and sharp bends to the steel columns, and on the right column from the left of both towers, an inward blasting hole through a box column that was nowhere near where the alleged jet's engine impacted. If you missed the links and photos, please scroll back on the thread.

You keep saying "evidence". I'm sure you believe it's the sharp lines you've drawn on your blurry screen grabs, but it really isn't. Theory isn't evidence, now matter how much you want it to be.

In order for you to advance any of your theories, you have to come to terms with the following, for starters -

1. United Flight 11 was hijacked by terrorist cowards and deliberately crashed into WTC1.
   
2. American Flight 175 was hijacked by terrorist cowards and deliberately crashed into WTC2.
   
3. Flight 77 was hijacked by terrorist cowards and deliberately crashed into The Pentagon.
   
4. Flight 93 was hijack and was forced to crash in Shanksville, PA before the terrorist cowards reached their intended target.

Not one no-planer has ever refuted these facts.

They lied, as evidenced by every video and photograph in the public domain.

That's your opinion, which isn't a refutation.

By the way Steve, if every video and photograph in the public domain is a lie, then your "evidence" is based upon that lie.

Think about it.

How do suppose "they" recruited these "certain corrupt members of the police and fire departments" willing to risk prison for "a few extra bucks"? :boggled:

Did they post notices on the station bulletin boards? :rolleyes:

They who? Names so we can get to the bottom of your fantasy version of 9/11.

No lies from "they", only a failed fantasy you failed to provide more than nonsense as your evidence.

The burden of proof is on you.

This thread is kind of nostalgic - I used to participate around 2010 in massive debates in a popular Finnish forum about "controlled explosions" and "free fall" and WTC7 and other nonsense. I guess some were finally convinced but for the diehards it's a religion and there is no evidence, no logic, no mathematics that will convince them.

It's a weird state of mind. One of my best friends had 9/11 as his gateway conspiracy and now he believes the weirdest, the most unplausible things, rages about Rothchilds and Windsors and Jews. Thinks that Hitler was a decent man who didn't want war. And he is basically intelligent, very artistic - and not much understanding of natural science and math. But I think the most important thing for him is to feel smug, like superior to all the sheep who believe. He really thinks he is critical of evidence, whereas he is the most uncritical and naive person I know.

So, actually not really that nostalgic. It's just sad proof of the vast reaches of gullibility and blindness and illogic that human nature is capable of.

I have a new theory that a giant walked up to the building and poked holes in it with his giant fingers, then squeezed, poked and twisted some more until he had made a pleasingly plane-shaped hole.

He then breathed fire into the hole because this kind of giant breathes fire.

I understand how this may seem ridiculous to you, but it does match the evidence that was provided. Specifically the lightly bent aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damage and sharp bends to the steel columns, and on the right column from the left of both towers, an inward blasting hole through a box column that was nowhere near where the alleged jet's engine impacted.

I can probably draw you a picture if you think that would be cool. I can't decide if he should have a hat. Do giants wear hats?

Several people, I among them, have noted that the most stunning take away from 9/11 is about "mass psychology". We've see this before in cults like Scientology which to this day count tens of thousands of members. All cults share some common attributes and among them is that we are told lies and the cult offers the truth. People seem to value truth above anything... even when it is a falsehood. They cling to these beliefs like a dog to a bone. We see this in religious followers who clearly suspend their critical thinking to accept all manner of "made up tales" to explain the divine and how that relates to humans.

There are many people who respect critical thinking and scientific rigor and yet still see that the explanations for a very complex event such as 9/11 may be "incomplete" in the details. That explanation attempts to reconstruct a detailed history which was not recorded second by second in minute detail.

Cult like thinkers are asking people to take a leap of faith into their fantasy of events. Some will follow because they believe, and rightly so, that we are constantly fed all manner of spin, marketing, and even deception to achieve some aim or hidden agenda. However lies have short legs and don't get very far like the WMDs and so on. Truther stuff is essentially made up out of whole cloth and disguised as rational science and critical thinking. Steve and Gage and all the other truthers share this. And they are incapable of stepping outside their belief systems to see how flawed they are. Like cult members you cannot change them with rational arguments.

Relevant to tubers only.
 

Actually my school nickname was Chip Butty. :p

First Question yes.
Second Question no, the front connection of the wing spar to the fuselages will fail as it makes contact first.
3 the dragging to the right is that evidence You just don't understand the link between Connections strength and physics of impact, the Connections will determine the path of energy flows in a building or an airplane wing.

I've been just pointed at this article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3703523/
in connection with discussion of another conspiracy theory. Anybody interest in the psychology of there freaks will find a lot of useful information there.

No it isn't, a Jet was observed to make the strike by withnesses so you have to disprove the Evidetuary if you can't your theory is Falsified because a better theory is already in Place with a logical chain of events.
That's your problem not mine I see nothing I would not expect in your so called evidence from a planes impact, on to steel columns which were pretty weak to substain such a high energy impact on the most deformable side..

Well you say that, but the video which would originally have shown a fire breathing giant was faked by someone pressing the "fake video" button on their , umm, complicated technical TV machine.

And of course any actual eyewitnesses were bamboozled by the fake video because ordinary people, unlike me, are so stupid that if they see something on TV they discard what they already know and substitute that instead. And I'm pretty sure there's a rumour of an early account of someone who said they thought they might have heard "Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum" before one of the impacts.

So you just have to explain why having a plane shaped hole made by a fire breathing giant doesn't explain the evidence of the plane shaped hole when it's an exact fit for that narrowly-isolated bit of the evidence.

And before anyone says fire-breathing giants weren't in service in 2001, remember that accounts of giants go back through pantomime history for generations. And don't forget Judy Woods research into massive space beanstalks. So, you know, that.

You know that's silly, everyone knows it was the giant Spaghetti Monster, I mean doesn't that hole look like a Giant spaghetti monster hole?