Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: POLL - Curious To Know How Many Truthers Here

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 8, 2014, 12:11 p.m. EST by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Choose a number from 1 to 5 depending on whether you think 911 conspiracy theories have some legitimacy. 1 = no legitimacy, 5 = they are absolutely true.

Please, this is not a thread to debate 911 conspiracy theories. Just a poll to see how people stand on the issue. Just write your number with a short comment. I'll give an example.

1 = cometotheparty (formerly Thrasymaque)
3.5 = turbocharger
6! = trashyharry



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by trashyharry (3173) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

I am also curious about what people think on this issue.So I have been asking random people that I encounter-waitresses,garage mechanics,nurses,doctors,police officers,homeless people,EMT's,retired civil servants,social workers,truck drivers,pilots,recycling/solid waste workers,foresters,childcare workers,fast food employees,high school students,college students,travel agents,farmers,merchants &c.I haven't been able to find anyone who believes the Official Story-or even LIHOP-(Let It Happen On Purpose)-for about 5 years.I myself started out not believing a shadowy cabal could have done it.The research I have done convinced me that that is indeed the case-High Treason.We all can agree on one thing-concentrated wealth and power causes shadowy combinations,secretive groups that promote a reactionary agenda,cartels,monopolies,union busting,unwarranted,illegal surveillance and generalized repression.You should probably not bring up the issue of What Happened on 9/11/01 on this forum.I went to NYC for the first #OWS because I didn't believe that it finally was happening.At that time,people were discussing the issue quite a bit.On this forum,we have all kind of agreed that referring to the issue is OK,and getting into discussion and arguments over it is not OK.But do what you think best.It is possible to be censored on this forum for going at it too intensely,because any departure from the Official Story is considered a Conspiracy Theory,and is not allowed.Oh,yeah,um-I will take a 6.


[-] -3 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Thank you for participating. I will tally scores in the OP.

[-] 3 points by turbocharger (1756) 1 year ago


[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 2 months ago


[-] 1 points by grapes (3964) 2 months ago

I haven't examined the evidence in detail but I coughed a lot to clear my throat to no avail after 9/11/2001 and I stared into the cavern where the gruesome work went on at the WTC site. It was very real! Additionally, I had talked with one person in the afternoon the day before he never came back from 9/11/2001. As for conspiracy behind it by the mostly Saudi hijackers, it was absolutely a conspiracy. Osama bin Laden went on ABC Nightline to declare war on all Americans, military or civilian. I watched it and was alarmed. Yes, there was a conspiracy.

I believe in the truth of the official accounting that the twin towers collapsed due to the jet fuel's persistent burning (significant combustion energy in the fuel ready for the transcontinental flights). Collapsing mostly onto their own footprints was entirely plausible (conservation of momentum - airplanes have little mass relative to the towers and by the time they collapsed the kinetic energy of the airplanes had long dissipated through heat).

On a scale of 1 to 5, I give it a 5. A better way is to give ratings for different aspects of the incidence. I certainly would give a 1 for certain official accountings. Nevertheless, the EPA definitely lied about the air quality at the time shortly after the collapse. That official accounting merits a 6.

This brings back some very haunting memories. I remember sitting on the black marble-like one-piece rock benches with shiny golden specks, and seeing the very beautiful red and yellow tulips surrounding the fountain that had a black globe with some golden markings as the sculpture at the center of it. I was tired and dozed off a bit. The spreading of the fountain water over the black marble-like rock was peaceful and calm but somehow that black and golden globe reminded me of the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

I felt as if I were in a peace park memorializing the victims. It was an overwhelming sense of negative energy that I had felt once before while watching airplanes ascend off of the coast of Coney Island, before actually watching the floating remains of TWA flight 800 on television - an immensely dark and weary sadness.

[-] -2 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago

1 - Truthers have not provided any evidence for their wild claims.

[-] 6 points by ImNotMe (753) 2 months ago

If you respect academia and the scientific method, then you are morally obliged to engage with - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fUT7XgLiTY in the very least, never mind the other evidence.

As you may or may not recall: while we were not watching, conspiracy theory has undergone Orwellian redefinition. A “conspiracy theory” no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government’s explanation and that of its MSM pimps.

In other words - as truth becomes uncomfortable for government and its Ministry of Propaganda, truth is redefined as conspiracy theory, by which is meant an absurd and laughable explanation that we should ignore. Therefore if the truth of an event is unacceptable to the existing authorities and to the Ministry of Propaganda that represents the interests of authorities, it is blindly dismissed as a ''Conspiracy Theory'', despite in the case of 9/11, The Official Explanation endorsed by the official media itself, being the most extravagant conspiracy theory in human history, as 19 men with box cutters are able to negate NORAD!

[-] 1 points by grapes (3964) 2 months ago

Yes, with the Hebrew-frank-chomping GOOP-gulping Wiener in [non-]charge, men with box cutters can defeat NORAD. It was de facto defunct then. The transition from Slick Willie's administration to mega-Wiener's administration was an absolute debacle leaving our homeland in disarray. There was NO conspiracy there - only the tragedy of the impotent (overf#cking till the tail wagged the dog) compounded with the incompetent (hitting the ground crippling).

[-] 4 points by ImNotMe (753) 2 months ago

I have no idea what that means to be honest.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3964) 2 months ago

42 X 43 ÷ 2 = 903 < 911

Presidential Inaugural presents from overseas include:

42: WTC casualties in 1993. Impotent - Oct. 2000, USS Cole was suicide-attacked in Aden but stain on Monica's blue dress had led to impeachment after US embassy bombings in East Africa occurred so cruise missiles hit al-Qaeda training camp after Osama bin Laden had left.

43: WTC casualties in 2001. Incompetent - Where did the carpenter go? Jesus, I need my Cabinet built.

[-] 4 points by ImNotMe (753) 2 months ago

I've even less of an idea about what you may mean to be honest but for a more satirical slant in song regarding a Very Important Matter that could to make your friend poof vanish in a wisp of smoke - see this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMq1PiUbf-M and perhaps many a truth in jest applies?

[-] 1 points by grapes (3964) 2 months ago

The externals of WTC1 and WTC2 were just facades. I saw that the inner core of the South Tower was receded some distance back from the facade. In fact, I was rather amazed at how big a space there was in front of the entrance to the subway station. It is plausible that the inner-core's collapse may not be able to span the distance to penetrate the outer facade much.

Open fire may not be able to melt steel but it can soften steel enough to allow deformations or cause thermal expansion. Once deformed and nuts and bolts start slipping out of place, it does not take much to start a chained-reaction collapse of the building with the inner core pulling in and down the tent-like facade.

The airplane attacks on the two towers were real because security communications indicated that personnels were already wondering about the reason for the North Tower's having been hit (the weather was excellent with great visibility that day and radar malfunction was also very unlikely) and camera crews were already there before the South Tower was hit so there were ample video footages captured from many different perspectives. It was too hard to fake that.

[-] 4 points by ImNotMe (753) 1 month ago

No one doubts that planes hit buildings but fires burning for about an hour - are the 9/11 Commission's theory about the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 (completely omitting ANY WTC7 reference) and if that's the case, then Building Construction Codes all around the world have now got to be changed! Also see here ... http://occupywallst.org/forum/poll-curious-to-know-how-many-truthers-here/#comment-1066531

[-] 0 points by grapes (3964) 1 month ago

It was probable that the fires in WTC1 and WTC2 burned for about an hour.

Both airplanes were prepared for their transcontinental flights so they had been filled with huge amounts of aviation fuel. Both airplanes had not burnt much fuel before they hit WTC1 and WTC2 so their fuel tanks had to be nearly full. WTC1 and WTC2 were full of paper pushers so there had to be huge amount of paper ready to catch fire.

WTC7 was the tallest building close to WTC1 and WTC2 so it had the most potential energy stored for a collapse. Once it had been triggered to start collapsing, the chained-reaction release of the potential energy made the collapse nearly total. Being close to WTC1 and WTC2 could mean that the foundation of WTC7 had been damaged.

Building construction codes all around the world should be improved, learning from the collapses of these buildings.

[-] 4 points by ImNotMe (753) 1 month ago

Further to the link in my previous reply, also see - http://occupywallst.org/forum/poll-curious-to-know-how-many-truthers-here/#comment-1066546 & then - realise that the kerosene jet fuel went up in the instance of the impact fireball and that fires do NOT and Never Have .. symmetrically collapsed steel reinforced concrete skyscrapers, at free fall speed! Then, ask where the massive aeroplane is at The Pentagon before finding the Pre-9-11-01 US Geological Survey Photos of Shanksville,PA - that show those scars of the old mine workings, which after 9/11 acquire a strange circular crater in the middle, apparently indicating that Flight UA93 had been swallowed up by the ground in its entirety nose first! This after all is The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.Global Building Construction Codes will count for shit when buildings are wired for controlled demolition! Also perhaps see: http://www.ae911truth.org/

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by grapes (3964) 1 week ago

Have you been inside of the WTC1 and WTC2 buildings and saw their architecture? I did. What seemed to be a symmetrical collapse of the South Tower was the external skeleton shell torn inward by the collapse of the inner core. The taller a building is the more potential energy is stored in it to make its collapse closer to a free fall.

[-] 5 points by ImNotMe (753) 1 week ago

Symmetrical Collapses At ''Free Fall Speed''of buildings over engineered to deal with hurricanes which were burning for around an hour - is the point but without any reference to WTC Building 7 .. you won't understand the point perhaps, never mind NO PLANE at 'The Pentagram' or any debris from an actual aeroplane in Shanksville, PA! Feel free to furnish me with photos, evidence, links or anything, to prove otherwise. Again see: http://www.ae911truth.org/ and please do consider re-reading my previous reply.

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by grapes (3964) 1 week ago

I talk about what I know and can only speculate about others. WTC7 might be an intentional takedown due to the insurance profit motive but that is subject to proof. New York has rent control law and other restrictions such as fining for garbage on sidewalks in front of properties. When hassles and depressed rental income make owning and continuing operation worth less than the raw land resale value, the profit motive says Burn! Baby, burn! to collect the high assessed insurance value. How else did New York collect so many burnt-down buildings in the olden days even after accounting for the racial riots and the July 1977 blackout lootings?

[-] 3 points by ImNotMe (753) 1 week ago

Huh? And IF - ''WTC7 might be an intentional takedown due to the insurance profit motive'' then you de facto would have to concede that it was pre-wired with explosives for a controlled demolition to then be triggered! How much of a leap would it then be, to also suggest the same for WTC1 and 2; given all the evidence of eyes, ears and contemporaneous witness reports?!! Perhaps THE Biggest Question for me is - just howTF did 19 Arabs with box-cutters, obviate NORAD on that fateful day in September 2001?!!! Finally, re. ''I talk about what I know..." --- would that then also extend to Iran too?

ad iudicium ...

[-] 2 points by grapes (3964) 1 week ago

I was speculating on a potential motive for the collapse of WTC7 without regard to mechanism. WTC1 and WTC2 had obvious traumas from aeroplane hits. Using Occam's Razor says that the likely cause was just that - aeroplane crashes and the fires afterwards. It is a big leap without corroborating evidence to postulate other causes. Were detonators found in the debris? Were there explosives' residues? Who had the motives to install these in the buildings? Who would have had the expertise to do so? Were there debris bearing traumatic markings? How likely was it that explosives were hidden in the buildings for decades without anyone discovering them?

Regarding Iran, it does not have nuclear weapons yet or it would not have come for the peaceful settlement. It just wants to be a nuclear threshold state to wield the influence without doing the work. That is just fine with me as long as it does not cross over the threshold to make the Middle East into an all nuclear-armed zone. Imagine what that would look like with the n-squared law for nuclear exchanges. Yep, I may yet live long enough to see nuclear conflagrations in the Middle East if the games played by Sadam Hussein are played again.

Iran has the nuclear (not-yet thermonuclear) capability because it has already acquired the nuclear expertise and human capital from the Shah's days when it was a close ally of the U.S. It is only a short stretch to go from intermediate range missiles to intercontinental ballistic missiles so I don't mind talking as if the capability is already in existence. I have no problem with a little stretch beyond the truth as long as I keep it clearly marked in my mind that it is only a hypothesis. Caressing egos is fine for achieving the Good - give the poor rural folks NON-nuclear-generated electricity and pave those dusty roads!

[-] 1 points by grapes (3964) 1 week ago

As for the boxcutters/NORAD item, read up on military, financial histories, and tradeoffs. Minds on vacations cannot grasp reality. Overcollecting peace dividends crashes the enterprise. Managers captured by ideologies have bad listening skills. Desires to look good rather than being good makes suppression of bad news expedient. It was not really much different from other famous SNAFU's - Status Normal!

[-] 0 points by Nevada1 (5800) 1 month ago

Well Said

[-] 3 points by ImNotMe (753) 1 month ago

The world in general; Americans in particular and even the supporters and sympathizers of Occupy Wall Street - are still in denial and cognitive dissonance over the events of 9/11. A decade and half of Imperial US Foreign Policy and illegal wars has been based upon what is, simply put - a lie. So for just how long can the wilful ignorance continue? For just as long as people decide to keep their heads in the sand but there are many good people trying to gently kick butt and wake us all up,eg. http://www.ae911truth.org/

[-] 3 points by Nevada1 (5800) 1 month ago

Yes, willfully ignorant. That says a lot. Bush-Cheney vs so much evidence by so many magnificent professionals. The willfully ignorant are forever in bed with the Ultimate Scum.

[-] 5 points by ImNotMe (753) 1 month ago

Bush was and still is, a total fool but Cheney is at the epicentre of events on 9/11 and Norman Mineta is testament to that very fact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y It is now up to us to inform ourselves and try to spread the word, so the Architects/Engineers' site^ is an excellent resource for that. Also in this connection, Oliver Stone could be of value: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnFlsjhpGfw

[-] 5 points by turbocharger (1756) 1 month ago

Bush will go down as the worst president in the history of the nation.

9/11, banking collapse, bailout king, never ending war started, grinning and bumbling idiot, Bushisms, etc.

That all probably would have happened if Gore was in there as well, but at least Gore comes off as slightly - just slightly - less of a moron than Bush.

He'd be better at giving that illusion, like Obama lol.

[-] -3 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago

666 number of beast defeated by Jesus of Nazareth. 19 hijackers alive and well, living in hiding with 10 conspiracy theorists from Idaho. 666 - (19 x 10) = 476 number of stairs to first charges in WT7. 5 angels prayed. Firefighter heroes. Demolition crew still at large. Conspiracy theorists make big money from 911, but not victims. Planes were holograms they say.

[+] -4 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago

I am part of academia and take science very seriously, which I why I don't bother with youtube recorded talks. The problem is I am not an expert on all points, only a few. So, to have a scientific understanding of what this man says, I need his information to go through the peer-review channel which is a fundamental and important part of science. My suggestion would be to have his ideas and claims be published in some important journals and have the scientific community criticize his work. Only after this criticism would the real scientific picture of his claims come out. Science does not exist before peer-review.

[-] 6 points by ImNotMe (753) 2 months ago

Your first sentence is devoid of any intellectual merit and is dripping with a pseudo-intellectual conceit, especially as you did not view Prof. Daniele Ganser's video. Hubris and Conservative Orthodoxy is not something restricted to ''leaders'' in society and politics alone but also infects''the scientific community'' too. Some cases in point, would be Galileo, Copernicus and Newton, who gave their evidences against the 'Orthodoxies' of their time and let time and evidence take their course.However your mind is closed as evidenced by your final sentence, which is indicative of both hubris and a faux and ersatz objectivity.

People will need to seek out independent and alternative - unbiased sources on the internet for their information or else we will simply continue to be manipulated by The Corporate Controlled Media. A country whose population has been trained to accept the government’s word and to shun those who question it,is a country without: facts about its past; reason in its present; and so liberty in its future.

[+] -4 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago

I watched actually, to a certain point. I stopped when he started saying we could only believe the guys who wrote the commission report. That's just false. There's 600 pages in that report, full of evidence. The conspiracy theory crowd has never provided anything close to that. It's a mountain of evidence. Nothing to do with trust or believing those guys. They actually published something in detail and put it up for review.

Conspiracy theorists have not published any of their theories in detail. Not even close.

[-] 5 points by ImNotMe (753) 2 months ago

You are looking for any excuse not to watch that video by Professor Daniele Ganser and seem to have found something he did not say or mean, so as to condemn him, that's what ''false''.Unless you accept that ''The 9/11 Commission Report'' does not mention WTC Building Seven - at all, then you'll never get how NOT ''full of evidence'' it actually is.Do yourself a large favor and try to watch the video above in full.

Your use of the phrase ''conspiracy theory crowd'' - belies your position and if you had have finished the video, you would have noted the numerous publications of for example Prof.David Ray Griffin. Your open mind in this matter is in question and your inclination to believe and advocate for ''The Official Narrative'' means that you will actually never accept any evidences presented to you or to your positions of 'faith'.

Your mind has now been made up for you and you are happy about that but never forget that 911 is The Foundational Lie of our times, on which is predicated an entire layer cake of Lies, Deceit and Murderous Wars and then go look for any evidence for an Enormous Aluminium Aeroplane having hit The Pentagon! Finally, from a singular and satirical point of view, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q

[+] -4 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago

Yes, my mind is made up on 9/11.

Why? Because conspiracy theorists have provided no solid peer-reviewed evidence for any of their claims.

The onus is on them to do so.

[-] 3 points by ImNotMe (753) 2 months ago

Your mind has been made up for you and your mind can't cope with the implications of you being wrong.

[+] -4 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago

Wrong. I made up my mind using critical thinking to analyse the information about 911. What I saw is an official story backed by mountains of evidence, the most studied and investigated event in history, vs weak and nonsensical claims by conspiracy theorist which have no evidence at all backing them.

[-] 4 points by ImNotMe (753) 2 months ago

Your establishmentarian allegiance to the ''9/11 Commission Report of the Official Conspiracy Theory'', is comical in its abject refusal to deal with WTC Building 7 (not to mention NoPlane@Pentagon etc.!) - means that you are very malinformed at best or, in conniving denial at worst. In an amusing take on a very serious matter, now consider this short video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMq1PiUbf-M ;)

[+] -5 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago

WTC7 was dealt with in other reports. The comission did the deepest analysis of any event in history, 600+ pages of solid evidence. It has gained an overwhelming support of scientists in various fields. What I find hilarious is when conspiracy theorists spend their time attacking the official reports instead of doing their own investigation. Why don't you publish a detail analysis of what happened to WTC7 instead of complaining it hasn't been done. Or why don't you propose it in politics to redo an investigation. Get the support of a majority of tax payers and you are all set. Or start a kickstarter campaign to raise money for an investigation. Be active and stop cpmplaining. If you have spmething show it. Let the critics review it, then respond to the critics.

[-] 3 points by ImNotMe (753) 1 month ago

No. WTC7 has NEVER been ''dealt with'' and for obvious reasons, because it is not explicable without conceding to the fact that it was brought down by a controlled demolition. Fire did NOT symmetrically collapse three steel reinforced concrete structures, designed to withstand hurricanes. The absence of asymmetry is key. Denial is deep and societal but millions of people know that the Official Conspiracy Theory is a crock. Your silly ''stop complaining'', is the self-acquired voice of someone with Stockholm Syndrome at best or an establishmentarian propagandist at worst. Sort your head out and then let me know what evidence you have for a huge aeroplane at The Pentagon! + see http://www.ae911truth.org/

[-] 3 points by turbocharger (1756) 1 month ago

" Sort your head out and then let me know what evidence you have for a huge aeroplane at The Pentagon!"

Lol exactly. Apparently the apartment complexes I work at have better surveillance than the Pentagon!

[-] 3 points by ImNotMe (753) 1 month ago

It is simply NOT tenable that The Most Secure and Surveilled building on the planet could have been hit by a plane/missile/drone - without a huge amount of CCTV footage showing those ''facts''. All the CCTV footage from surrounding buildings was seized, impounded and then never released. The ONLY footage revealed - does NOT show a very large airliner (which would have exhibited the ''Wing In Ground Effect'' phenomenon) hitting The Pentagon - after making an alleged 270 degree perfect descending spiral turn.

What has been released are four or five sequential stills from footage of Something Far Smaller hitting 'The Pentagram' but still penetrating SIX hugely strong, steel reinforced concrete blast walls. The early footage of impact shows the roof beams still intact above the smaller than a plane, burning entry hole - with NO evidence of the very heavy engines having impacted the exterior of the A-ring of The Pentagon.

We know what airliner crashes look like. This did not look like any such thing. NORAD was nullified but US Ground Defence Radar was NOT switched off - as that would have led to waaay too many questions and an exposed audit trail of a command chain. GWBush's Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta was witness to the facts BEFORE The Pentagon strike and his honest testimony was and still is, really rather clear ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y Also see .. http://www.ae911truth.org/

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 1 month ago

Have you ever read the report?

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 2 months ago

Why is the onus on the ones who question the government narrative?

[-] -2 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago

First thry don't just question, they provide their answers. Problem is, they provide no evidence at all for their narrative. Also, they are making accusations of mass murder. That is something someone who cares about democracy and the idea of innocent until proven guilty should not do. You want to tell me that US officials were in on it causing mass murder, you betcha you have the onus to provide evidence for your claims.

[-] 4 points by turbocharger (1756) 2 months ago

Some might say that when proven war criminals make a charge that yet another excuse to go to war and take the lives of hundreds of thousands in the aftermath, they should automatically be written off as the liars they have repeatedly be proven to be.

In all honesty, how many times do you let someone lie to you before you just write them off?

[-] -2 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago

What i do with people who lie to me has nothing to do with how a justice system works. I believe we can't have democracy without having innocent until proven guilty. If we start puttying people in jail for crimes they did not commit by saying they commited crimes before, we have a big problem. In justice, you have to try case by case and always give presumtion of innocence with even the most evil people. Evidence is key every time. As soon as you don't follow this you are doing mob justice which is not democratic.

Is democracy not important to you?

[-] 5 points by turbocharger (1756) 2 months ago

Causation anyone?

[+] -4 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago

Conspiracy theorists often show causation without correlation. If you have proper causation to show, then simply present your evidence.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3964) 2 months ago

There were mass murders committed at the WTC site. Both Slick Willie's and mega-Wiener's administrations knew about the threats and dealt with them inadequately.

It was impotence, negligence, incompetence, malevolence, or any and all of them. None of any of them in isolation or in combination if true was flattering. Even worse yet, there was strong evidence of a cover-up at the EPA about air quality and subsequent suppression of the damaged-health claims of the first and later responders. If these were not conspiracies emanating from US officials, I don't know what if anything can qualify as a conspiracy.

[-] -2 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago

If there is any evidence for that, the people involved should open court cases. Why don't they? Evidence can be presented etc..,

[-] 3 points by grapes (3964) 2 months ago

Ahhh! I can see that you haven't dealt with the courts much. There is the "obstruction of justice" charge but there is also the "obstruction by justice" non-charge.

Common tactics include: making evidence cost much time, money, and effort to obtain, delegating responsibilities to subordinates and getting them to "lose files," outsourcing investigations to fly-by-night operations, disseminating categorically truthy statements, deploying swaggering armed deputies as intimidators to assure quiescent outcomes, etc.

Do these ring bells? Who has gone to jail for 9/11 attack, Iraq Invasion, Great Recession, etc.? Thousands did for the substantially smaller scale Savings and Loans financial frauds. This is not the same U.S.A. of the olden days anymore - we are now protected by the Federal Bureau of Incompetence and the new criminal law enforcement process known as "obstruction by justice." Get Enema or Lynch!


[-] 2 points by grapes (3964) 2 months ago

You seem to have a bent for sticking to concrete things while ignoring the changes in people's minds. Even when nothing outwardly perceptible has changed, the internal perceptions of people may have changed greatly.

It may be hard to perceive the fullness filling up the grapes destined for the great winepress of God's wrath but it is real and has external consequences.

Here I quote from the Bible: "The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. They were trampled outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1600 stadia."

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (32516) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 months ago

I will say this - I saw the 2nd airplane drive into the 2nd world trade center main tower.

How it all came to happen? I do not know.

Do we have safe zones around each and every main city? "I" do not know.

At what point that these aircraft were noticed to be off course - could they have been shot down and protect innocents on the ground? "i" do not know.

Was it a conspiracy to allow an attack so that interests could be pursued overseas? "I" do not know.

But consider the decades of war gaming on every scenario that could "possibly" happen during the cold war years - and then consider what did happen on 911 - and it just stinks that something like the world trade center attacks could happen successfully let alone a successful attack on the pentagon.


[+] -5 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago
  • You are looking for any excuse not to watch that video by Professor Daniele Ganser

It's actually the other way around. I would need an excuse to watch it. We don't have time in life to watch and read everything. If Professor Daniele Ganser wants my time, he should do like all the other Professors and publish his findings so that they are peer-reviewed by his peers. Once they do this, if interest remains, then I would spend my time watching it.

As stated before, I'm not an expert. So, I follow scientific consensus on issues.

He should simply follow the scientific channels like other professors.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3964) 2 months ago

Science does not progress without seemingly heretical ideas. All great breakthrough ideas start out as heresies and end up as orthodoxies before being discarded as garbage. Newton's idea of universal gravitation's instantaneous actions at a distance was such an idea.

"Speak to the Earth and it shalt teach thee," says the Bible. Hypotheses are what we call seemingly heretical ideas covered up with muck.

[-] -1 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago

Absolutely correct. Heretical ideas are important. And, it's really important to do like Newton, Einstein and all other great scientists when they have new ideas. They publish them and enter into a dialogue with the other scientists of their time. It's call being open to criticism, and going through the peer-review process. An extremely important step if you want something to be scientific. Scientific consensus can then be achieved after a thorough and lengthy peer-review process.

Unfortunately, the conspiracy theory crowd doesn't do that.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3964) 2 months ago

Peer review is important but so is peer support.

Newton suppressed his discoveries for years precisely because of his distaste for the peer-review process. If it were not for Edmund Halley's urging and Christopher Wren's financial support for Newton's publication of the Principia, the world would have missed the Newtonian Revolution in science for at least decade(s), or perhaps centuries. The Enlightenment inspired by it might not have happened. Perhaps the daring principles and ideas enshrined in the U.S. Constitution would not even be written by the Men of the Enlightenment.

Newton probably suspected his universal gravitation's actions at a distance to be potentially garbage but the arrival of Halley's Comet could not wait for a more reasonable theory.

Yes, imperfect theories should still be published and the community of reviewers should encourage and support their publications in addition to doing serious and thorough reviews of them without regard to their creator(s).

Chicken Little's having been hit by an acorn to discover, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" still qualified it as a Giant of Science to be honored like Newton was (purportedly hit by a [facetious] apple). The moon is falling. The sun is falling. Mars is falling. Venus is falling. Jupiter is falling. Jupiter's moons are falling. Chicken Little got the motions of the sky objects right!

[-] -2 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago

Yes, of course. Peer support comes after peer review. If the peers review and mostly agree with the idea, theory, hypothesis, etc... then you get peer support, which is also called scientific consensus.

The peer-review process didn't really exist in Newton's time. Bad comparison. Not like it exists now anyhow, with a formalized method and many peer-review journals.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3964) 2 months ago

It takes a peer advocate to even give a novice a chance to gain peer support.

Peer review certainly existed in Newton's time, perhaps not as well-developed as these days centuries after. Have you heard of the Royal Society of London? That was where Newton was admitted due to his invention of his reflective telescope with no chromatic aberration. It was a body of peers alright.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3964) 2 months ago

Behind Newton there were Edmund Halley (who suspected periodicity of the great comet eventually named in his honor) and Christopher Wren (architect of the revered St. Paul's Cathedral). Behind Einstein there was Max Planck. Behind Bose there was Einstein.

Can you be a supporter of the review like the revered advocates named above? Volume does NOT prove truth. There is so much volume coming from Russia and North Korea. I will certainly revise my view if North Korea or Russia were to become the desired destination of the refugees.

[-] -2 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago

Volume from a serious scientific community does have weight. Scientific consensus is important. It's part of the scientific method. If you eschew scientific consensus, you don't have much left. You aren't really doing science.

Behind Einstein there wasn't only Max Planck. Possibly at first, but if his ideas would not have been vetted by the scientific community and have achieved a strong scientific consensus, we wouldn't hear much of Einstein these days.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3964) 2 months ago

Without Max Planck's advocacy of Einstein's ideas, the scientific community would not have vetted them. They would have been lost or languished in obscurity until much later when someone rediscovers the expressway entrance ramp missed by the whole scientific establishment.

Without Max Planck, you and I would not even be able to communicate in this medium and much of our modern economy would not even exist.

If you are in academia and know science, do some advocacy work for others. It can contribute to the advancement of science.

[-] -3 points by poof (-10) 2 months ago

I already do advocacy for those I believe have interesting ideas.

I do the opposite (fight against) those who have bad ideas, i.e. conspiracy theorists.

[-] -3 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 1 year ago


911 conspiracy theories are make believe fantasy that profit from the macabre events of 911 in order to sell books, DVDs, talks, and amass funds through donation programs.