Page By Category
Blogs - Page 10
Users that have been posting for a while can create their own articles on the fly by using our built-in blogging service. Below are the most recent entries.
Debunking Alex Jones' newest video, "What The NWO doesn't want you to know"
Author: Clock
Date: Mar 09, 2013 at 14:44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qJE5da1r1Cw
It's debunking time once again.
In the beginning of this video, Alex says some very true things, about the the earth and the universe, and how much humanity is capable of creating and doing things. It is actually very made, good job on Alex and his editing team. It all goes well until the 4:00 minute mark in the video above, when he mentions "The Globalists".
As I often say, before you start talking about the NWO or Globalists theory, you need to prove a correlation between the Governments, the industries and the media. If you cannot, then that automatically debunks the whole NWO thing. A good article (http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/...enda-debunked/) discusses this here. It is well worth a read, and lays the smack down on the theory.
Alex Jones: The entire development of these systems [technology] are in the hands of The Globalists, super predators, who have a lustful disdain, and hate for humanity.
Why do they have a hate for humanity? They are humans themselves, and if they want to kill off to kill off half of humanity (or all of it, while you're at it), what's the point? Then, there will be nothing to run and nothing to do. This line is also very silly, it sounds like they are talking about the evil empire in the Star Wars movies.
Alex Jones: Globalists and social engineers talk about the total population like we are animals, and our main use is to be manipulated
-Nothing to say here. This is Alex's typical line of paranoia and opinion
Alex Jones: ...to be controlled, to be tested upon,
If they did not give a damn about us why would they bother testing us? Besides, most scientists test their experiments with rats or mice. If you see in this link, (http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/20...1101taffe.html) the journalists write that the first tests on the rats were successful. They would not test on humans. In an article by the Telegraph, (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3353960/Should-we-experiment-on-animals-Yes.html) they state that testing on lab rats is still the best way to determine to cure or the cause of a disease. Not only that but they are reliable and cheap. Plus, since they have similar genetics as us, humans.
Alex Jones: Foster children have been used to be tested upon by the US Military for the past 60 years
-The only case of humans being tested upon was during the cold war, in St. Louis/ Texas. However, this has been debunked here: http://metabunk.org/threads/888-Army...s-and-St-Louis
The whole "for more than 60 years" line lacks evidence and is false. He does not even bother to give us examples of children used for testing.
Alex Jones: I'm asking humanity to realize that a very small group, of inbred, unhappy, twisted and wicked people, have seized control of human development, and are attempting to establish a total control system of technocratic surveillance systems and de-humanization. It is now that we must begin to struggle against their bureaucracy. Fighting their 1984 system, with liberty and enlightenment and truth, until the levers of technological development, are leveraged from the hands of the globalists. Humanity has a very dark future.
-Technically we all have control of human development. If you look up human development on google, you get this wikipedia page: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_d..._%28biology%29) Sex is human development, it is not only something the "ultra mean globalists" have. And if he is talking about alternating a human gene and cloning it, well think again. Many countries are banning genetic human testing and cloning,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning#Current_law) so this entire statement is false and plain feermongering.
Alex Jones: The real threats facing humanity are not the fake environmental threats that Al Gore and the UN talk about.
-Extremely debatable
Alex Jones: There are unchecked, cross-species genetic engineering. Tens of thousands of biotech companies, universities and governments, randomly splicing viruses, bacteria from plants and animals and then injecting them into other animals, which is already giving a rise to mutated viruses and bacteria and irrevocable vandalization of the genetic code of the planet.
-Although he is right here, it is taken entirely out of context. Mutated virus are created by mistake, in which there is not enough protein in the gene of the substance. If there is a mistake in the mutation, it cannot give any offspring, and if a DNA system is broken, it can be fixed using the DNA Repair system in order to prevent mutation. Although mutations can be problematic, they have lots of benifits as well: for ecample a cell named CCR5 can help delay the AIDS disease from having an effect your body, and people who naturally have mutations in their body can help fight very harmful diseases, such as the mutation CCR5-Δ32 help the human body to be immune from the Bubonic Plague. "...Mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection."-wkipedia Also, Mutations are not unchecked, I am not sure where Alex got that from. They are obviously checked if they know it can cause cancer, as seen in the wikipedia article below.
sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
Alex Jones: High tech chemical and most importantly biological weapons development, unchecked nanotech,
-Unchecked Nanotech is pure fiction. This technology is always checked, and some of the problems that conspiracy theorists say about it (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nanotechnology#In_fiction) are just plain false.
Alex Jones: the artificial creation of black holes,
-Alex pulled that out of his @ss. This is what a physicist has to say about it:
"Not with any current, or remotely feasible technology. The method in use by the universe today; get several Suns worth of mass into a big pile and wait, is a pretty effective way to create black holes.
In theory, all you need to do to create an artificial black hole (a "black faux"?) is to get a large amount of energy and matter into a very small volume. The easiest method would probably be to use some kind of massive, super-duper-accelerators. The problem is that black holes are dense, and the smaller and less massive they are the denser they need to be."
http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/07/q-is-it-possible-for-an-artificial-black-hole-to-be-created-or-something-that-has-the-same-effects-if-so-how-small-could-it-be-made/
Although I see where Alex saw his info about the 2 phycists in china creating a black hole, this is actually what their experiment was about:
"after a related paper was published by researchers at Purdue University, Indiana. The paper proposed a device that could mimic the properties of a black hole in space, causing space-time in the surrounding area to bend and warp and spiral inwards toward the center of the black hole. But unlike a cosmic black hole, this one (hopefully) won't rip us apart."
It mimics the properties of a black hole, the machine does not create a cosmetic black hole.
http://gajitz.com/suck-it-up-first-artificial-black-hole-built-we-survived/
Alex Jones: any matter weapons of the air force, who admits they developed a new viral vaccine that re-engineers the brain by attacking certain gangly i systems in which you could no longer feel emotions.
This is false, a pure fabrication. It you can't find it on google, where can you?
Alex Jones: ...and in the incoming years they are going to override every major life form on this planet without asking you.
Once again this is false, there are many groups that are against human cloning, again, look at the list of countries who refuse human testing.
Alex Jones: That's a trillion times what Monsanto does planting your crops next to yours, and they come and charge in on your property and charge copyright infringement when they polluted your property.
Gmos debunked here: http://metabunk.org/threads/177-GMO-conspiracy-theories
And then... Alex goes on another well spoken about how unethical it is to do all of these transformations. He still says his typical BS of "NWO are trying to distract you" but Alex is actually being a well spoken person in this, and I must say that he is doing a good job. It's really a shame that Alex Jones is a Conspiracy Theorist, as he is pretty well spoken when he is not yelling and screaming like an ape. But then, he goes back to the whole wake up message, which is dumb.
At one point he talks about those times when scientists say the planet would be better off without us. Alex says that is a plan by the NWO to make humanity seem as a disease. And honestly? The Scientists who say so are right in a sense. Michael Crichton once wrote in The Lost World that humans are so destructive, that is so easy for us to manipulate things that we are somewhat like a disease on the earth, and we abuse its resources to hell. And to be fair? we sort of do. Would Climate Change be an issue if we were not extracting oils from tar pits or decomposed fossils? Would have less floods and landslides if we did not cut as many forests down? Alex takes these quotes by scientists way out of context. However, these claims by both Alex and the Scientists should not be taken seriously. They are merely statements and observations of how the human being acts. Nothing more, nothing less.
He says that they are openly planning to release biological weapons in order to kill us all, which is false as the US, UK and Russia banned the developement of stockipiling bio weapons, and they is also a lack of proof that the other countries will launch all of them on us to kill us all.
More rambling on trying to dumb us down. Yawn.
And.. he talks about that for the rest of the vid. I hope you enjoyed this debunking. And now, I will take a nice shower, this guy is giving me a headache!
It's debunking time once again.
In the beginning of this video, Alex says some very true things, about the the earth and the universe, and how much humanity is capable of creating and doing things. It is actually very made, good job on Alex and his editing team. It all goes well until the 4:00 minute mark in the video above, when he mentions "The Globalists".
As I often say, before you start talking about the NWO or Globalists theory, you need to prove a correlation between the Governments, the industries and the media. If you cannot, then that automatically debunks the whole NWO thing. A good article (http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/...enda-debunked/) discusses this here. It is well worth a read, and lays the smack down on the theory.
Alex Jones: The entire development of these systems [technology] are in the hands of The Globalists, super predators, who have a lustful disdain, and hate for humanity.
Why do they have a hate for humanity? They are humans themselves, and if they want to kill off to kill off half of humanity (or all of it, while you're at it), what's the point? Then, there will be nothing to run and nothing to do. This line is also very silly, it sounds like they are talking about the evil empire in the Star Wars movies.
Alex Jones: Globalists and social engineers talk about the total population like we are animals, and our main use is to be manipulated
-Nothing to say here. This is Alex's typical line of paranoia and opinion
Alex Jones: ...to be controlled, to be tested upon,
If they did not give a damn about us why would they bother testing us? Besides, most scientists test their experiments with rats or mice. If you see in this link, (http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/20...1101taffe.html) the journalists write that the first tests on the rats were successful. They would not test on humans. In an article by the Telegraph, (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3353960/Should-we-experiment-on-animals-Yes.html) they state that testing on lab rats is still the best way to determine to cure or the cause of a disease. Not only that but they are reliable and cheap. Plus, since they have similar genetics as us, humans.
Alex Jones: Foster children have been used to be tested upon by the US Military for the past 60 years
-The only case of humans being tested upon was during the cold war, in St. Louis/ Texas. However, this has been debunked here: http://metabunk.org/threads/888-Army...s-and-St-Louis
The whole "for more than 60 years" line lacks evidence and is false. He does not even bother to give us examples of children used for testing.
Alex Jones: I'm asking humanity to realize that a very small group, of inbred, unhappy, twisted and wicked people, have seized control of human development, and are attempting to establish a total control system of technocratic surveillance systems and de-humanization. It is now that we must begin to struggle against their bureaucracy. Fighting their 1984 system, with liberty and enlightenment and truth, until the levers of technological development, are leveraged from the hands of the globalists. Humanity has a very dark future.
-Technically we all have control of human development. If you look up human development on google, you get this wikipedia page: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_d..._%28biology%29) Sex is human development, it is not only something the "ultra mean globalists" have. And if he is talking about alternating a human gene and cloning it, well think again. Many countries are banning genetic human testing and cloning,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning#Current_law) so this entire statement is false and plain feermongering.
Alex Jones: The real threats facing humanity are not the fake environmental threats that Al Gore and the UN talk about.
-Extremely debatable
Alex Jones: There are unchecked, cross-species genetic engineering. Tens of thousands of biotech companies, universities and governments, randomly splicing viruses, bacteria from plants and animals and then injecting them into other animals, which is already giving a rise to mutated viruses and bacteria and irrevocable vandalization of the genetic code of the planet.
-Although he is right here, it is taken entirely out of context. Mutated virus are created by mistake, in which there is not enough protein in the gene of the substance. If there is a mistake in the mutation, it cannot give any offspring, and if a DNA system is broken, it can be fixed using the DNA Repair system in order to prevent mutation. Although mutations can be problematic, they have lots of benifits as well: for ecample a cell named CCR5 can help delay the AIDS disease from having an effect your body, and people who naturally have mutations in their body can help fight very harmful diseases, such as the mutation CCR5-Δ32 help the human body to be immune from the Bubonic Plague. "...Mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection."-wkipedia Also, Mutations are not unchecked, I am not sure where Alex got that from. They are obviously checked if they know it can cause cancer, as seen in the wikipedia article below.
sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
Alex Jones: High tech chemical and most importantly biological weapons development, unchecked nanotech,
-Unchecked Nanotech is pure fiction. This technology is always checked, and some of the problems that conspiracy theorists say about it (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nanotechnology#In_fiction) are just plain false.
Alex Jones: the artificial creation of black holes,
-Alex pulled that out of his @ss. This is what a physicist has to say about it:
"Not with any current, or remotely feasible technology. The method in use by the universe today; get several Suns worth of mass into a big pile and wait, is a pretty effective way to create black holes.
In theory, all you need to do to create an artificial black hole (a "black faux"?) is to get a large amount of energy and matter into a very small volume. The easiest method would probably be to use some kind of massive, super-duper-accelerators. The problem is that black holes are dense, and the smaller and less massive they are the denser they need to be."
http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/07/q-is-it-possible-for-an-artificial-black-hole-to-be-created-or-something-that-has-the-same-effects-if-so-how-small-could-it-be-made/
Although I see where Alex saw his info about the 2 phycists in china creating a black hole, this is actually what their experiment was about:
"after a related paper was published by researchers at Purdue University, Indiana. The paper proposed a device that could mimic the properties of a black hole in space, causing space-time in the surrounding area to bend and warp and spiral inwards toward the center of the black hole. But unlike a cosmic black hole, this one (hopefully) won't rip us apart."
It mimics the properties of a black hole, the machine does not create a cosmetic black hole.
http://gajitz.com/suck-it-up-first-artificial-black-hole-built-we-survived/
Alex Jones: any matter weapons of the air force, who admits they developed a new viral vaccine that re-engineers the brain by attacking certain gangly i systems in which you could no longer feel emotions.
This is false, a pure fabrication. It you can't find it on google, where can you?
Alex Jones: ...and in the incoming years they are going to override every major life form on this planet without asking you.
Once again this is false, there are many groups that are against human cloning, again, look at the list of countries who refuse human testing.
Alex Jones: That's a trillion times what Monsanto does planting your crops next to yours, and they come and charge in on your property and charge copyright infringement when they polluted your property.
Gmos debunked here: http://metabunk.org/threads/177-GMO-conspiracy-theories
And then... Alex goes on another well spoken about how unethical it is to do all of these transformations. He still says his typical BS of "NWO are trying to distract you" but Alex is actually being a well spoken person in this, and I must say that he is doing a good job. It's really a shame that Alex Jones is a Conspiracy Theorist, as he is pretty well spoken when he is not yelling and screaming like an ape. But then, he goes back to the whole wake up message, which is dumb.
At one point he talks about those times when scientists say the planet would be better off without us. Alex says that is a plan by the NWO to make humanity seem as a disease. And honestly? The Scientists who say so are right in a sense. Michael Crichton once wrote in The Lost World that humans are so destructive, that is so easy for us to manipulate things that we are somewhat like a disease on the earth, and we abuse its resources to hell. And to be fair? we sort of do. Would Climate Change be an issue if we were not extracting oils from tar pits or decomposed fossils? Would have less floods and landslides if we did not cut as many forests down? Alex takes these quotes by scientists way out of context. However, these claims by both Alex and the Scientists should not be taken seriously. They are merely statements and observations of how the human being acts. Nothing more, nothing less.
He says that they are openly planning to release biological weapons in order to kill us all, which is false as the US, UK and Russia banned the developement of stockipiling bio weapons, and they is also a lack of proof that the other countries will launch all of them on us to kill us all.
More rambling on trying to dumb us down. Yawn.
And.. he talks about that for the rest of the vid. I hope you enjoyed this debunking. And now, I will take a nice shower, this guy is giving me a headache!
Debunked: Ke$ha forced to sing "we're gonna die young"" (Vigilant Citizen Debunked, Part 1)
Author: Clock
Date: Mar 09, 2013 at 14:08
Once in awhile, I admit, I go on Vigilant Citizen, to see what paranoid assumption they are talking about at the moment. And guess what? it's the music industry! The folks at VC say that having these random signs and other things prove that the NWO exist. (This whole theory has been debunked by a very good debunker, right here : http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/?s=Global+)
Of course, they are not sure why video editors and artists would spend so much time putting in satanic*** symbols (for not even 4 seconds a video on most cases) in music videos in order to supposedly advertise their symbols inside of popular media (as if that will accomplish anything)
***: the satanic symbols that represent symbols of god, but whatever.
This week they decide to attack Ke$ha. Lovely. I decide to dive right in, and, of course, debunk it. It seems to be about a tweet that she made on twitter. This is the article that VC wrote:
Vigilant Citizen: Ke$ha Claims She Was Forced to Sing "Die Young"
In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, radio stations across the country are dropping Ke$ha's single Die Young from their playlist. The song's constant repetition of the words "we're gonna die young" is now apparently deemed inappropriate for airplay. As I've stated in The Illuminati Symbolism of Ke$ha's "Die Young" and How it Ridicules the Indoctrinated Masses, the entire imagery of the video and of the live performances that accompanied the song were about glorifying death and ritual sacrifices. All of this was interlaced with Illuminati symbolism, hinting that the whole thing was yet another way of the elite to push a culture of death on the masses.
Clock: The tweet that they are talking about can be seen here: http://metabunk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=1262&d=1356494994
Vigilant Citizen: This tweet was later deleted because it probably pissed off her bosses.
But who exactly forced her to sing those lyrics? Why was she credited as a writer of the song? As I stated in the Die Young article:
"In reality, Ke$ha didn't do anything for any LOLs. She did not direct the video. She is just performing what she is told to perform, like most pop stars. The fact of the matter is: Illuminati symbols are becoming more prevalent because that was the plan all along - to gradually make them part of popular culture. The occult elite is revealing itself and the masses are dancing to their tunes."
Pop stars have no control over their careers, they are puppets used to push Agendas. Die Young was all about celebrating the sick culture of death that is prevalent in mass media today. Ke$ha's temporary tweet gave us a small glimpse of the coercive and forceful nature of the music industry and how it imposes content on stars.
It apparently took a mass shooting to make some people realize that there is something sick and unhealthy in popular culture. I am not for censorship of any kind, but for people to wake up and reject the crap that is pushed on them. Let's hope other tragedies won't be needed to make more people see the obvious.
These guys sure are a ball of joy.
OK, first thing's first: I love the fact how Vigilant Citizen loves making assumptions, and jumping to conclusions (Everything someone rich does has to do with the Illuminati or being controlled OMG OMG) in order to fit their own view, that is the only right idea and you are considered stupid and brain-washed if you disagree.
What Ke$ha meant by this tweet:
She responded to many of the conspiracy theorists and fans about her tweet, and this is what she said on her website:
"MESSAGE FROM KE$HA
December 20, 2012
After such a tragic event I was feeling a lot of emotion and sadness when I said I was forced to sing some of the lyrics to Die Young. Forced is not the right word. I did have some concerns about the phrase "die young" in the chorus when we were writing the lyrics especially because so many of my fans are young and that's one reason why I wrote so many versions of this song. But the point of the song is the importance of living every day to the fullest and staying young at heart, and these are things I truly believe."
http://www.keshasparty.com/us/news/message-keha
Now, what she means by forced, does not mean manipulated by someone to sing the song. She was forced, to sing the lyrics as is, because let's face it, that's the song. If someone would make a song about peace and war, having it become a smash single, and then a war breaks out somewhere, well, the artist playing live is going to have to sing the song as is, because that's what people pay to see, sometimes.
Later, VC goes on this tangent about agendas and manipulations. This is entirely debatable and I'm going to prove it, using another popular artist these days, Bruno Mars. He recently released his second studio album, Unorthodox Jukebox.
"This is me going into the studio and recording and writing whatever I want. This album represents my freedom. I've had big record label presidents look me in the face and say, 'Your music sucks, you don't know who you are, your music is all over the place, and we don't know how to market this stuff. Pick a lane and come back to us.' That was disgusting to me, because I'm not trying to be a circus act. I listen to a lot of music, and I want to have the freedom and luxury to walk into a studio and say, 'Today I want to do a hip-hop, R&B, soul or rock record'"
After the success of his first album, Doo-Wops and Hooligans, the record label wanted his 2nd album to be a variation on the same theme, as it is usually the winning formula, and he instead did his own thing. The album follows a variety of styles, from Disco to an Elton John ballad, and finally to a Police-ish rock song.
Some people might say that he is forced to say this, but again, is there any proof of him being manipulated by the "evil" record companies? You probably can't.
There are tons of of artists I could think of that were like this, but Bruno Mars is a great example because he is modern.
There are other people in bands that 'control' a band in a certain way, and these guys are called managers. These guys book, advertise and take care relations between the band and the record label, and to make sure that the artist continues to be successful and make lots of money. ( http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091018085326AAGAwlC )
Vigilant Citizen is a paranoid website that is full of fear mongering, and lack of proper research. They did not bother to prove that she was being controlled by others and that she told to sing this song, which makes no sense considering she wrote the thing.
In the next thread, I will debunk Ke$ha's video "Die Young" and artists commonly recognized for being part of the NWO. (oops! I already did this! You can find it here: http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/5490/the-illuminati-symbolism-kehas-die-young-video-debunked/ )
Until next time,
Clock
Of course, they are not sure why video editors and artists would spend so much time putting in satanic*** symbols (for not even 4 seconds a video on most cases) in music videos in order to supposedly advertise their symbols inside of popular media (as if that will accomplish anything)
***: the satanic symbols that represent symbols of god, but whatever.
This week they decide to attack Ke$ha. Lovely. I decide to dive right in, and, of course, debunk it. It seems to be about a tweet that she made on twitter. This is the article that VC wrote:
Vigilant Citizen: Ke$ha Claims She Was Forced to Sing "Die Young"
In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, radio stations across the country are dropping Ke$ha's single Die Young from their playlist. The song's constant repetition of the words "we're gonna die young" is now apparently deemed inappropriate for airplay. As I've stated in The Illuminati Symbolism of Ke$ha's "Die Young" and How it Ridicules the Indoctrinated Masses, the entire imagery of the video and of the live performances that accompanied the song were about glorifying death and ritual sacrifices. All of this was interlaced with Illuminati symbolism, hinting that the whole thing was yet another way of the elite to push a culture of death on the masses.
Clock: The tweet that they are talking about can be seen here: http://metabunk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=1262&d=1356494994
Vigilant Citizen: This tweet was later deleted because it probably pissed off her bosses.
But who exactly forced her to sing those lyrics? Why was she credited as a writer of the song? As I stated in the Die Young article:
"In reality, Ke$ha didn't do anything for any LOLs. She did not direct the video. She is just performing what she is told to perform, like most pop stars. The fact of the matter is: Illuminati symbols are becoming more prevalent because that was the plan all along - to gradually make them part of popular culture. The occult elite is revealing itself and the masses are dancing to their tunes."
Pop stars have no control over their careers, they are puppets used to push Agendas. Die Young was all about celebrating the sick culture of death that is prevalent in mass media today. Ke$ha's temporary tweet gave us a small glimpse of the coercive and forceful nature of the music industry and how it imposes content on stars.
It apparently took a mass shooting to make some people realize that there is something sick and unhealthy in popular culture. I am not for censorship of any kind, but for people to wake up and reject the crap that is pushed on them. Let's hope other tragedies won't be needed to make more people see the obvious.
These guys sure are a ball of joy.
OK, first thing's first: I love the fact how Vigilant Citizen loves making assumptions, and jumping to conclusions (Everything someone rich does has to do with the Illuminati or being controlled OMG OMG) in order to fit their own view, that is the only right idea and you are considered stupid and brain-washed if you disagree.
What Ke$ha meant by this tweet:
She responded to many of the conspiracy theorists and fans about her tweet, and this is what she said on her website:
"MESSAGE FROM KE$HA
December 20, 2012
After such a tragic event I was feeling a lot of emotion and sadness when I said I was forced to sing some of the lyrics to Die Young. Forced is not the right word. I did have some concerns about the phrase "die young" in the chorus when we were writing the lyrics especially because so many of my fans are young and that's one reason why I wrote so many versions of this song. But the point of the song is the importance of living every day to the fullest and staying young at heart, and these are things I truly believe."
http://www.keshasparty.com/us/news/message-keha
Now, what she means by forced, does not mean manipulated by someone to sing the song. She was forced, to sing the lyrics as is, because let's face it, that's the song. If someone would make a song about peace and war, having it become a smash single, and then a war breaks out somewhere, well, the artist playing live is going to have to sing the song as is, because that's what people pay to see, sometimes.
Later, VC goes on this tangent about agendas and manipulations. This is entirely debatable and I'm going to prove it, using another popular artist these days, Bruno Mars. He recently released his second studio album, Unorthodox Jukebox.
"This is me going into the studio and recording and writing whatever I want. This album represents my freedom. I've had big record label presidents look me in the face and say, 'Your music sucks, you don't know who you are, your music is all over the place, and we don't know how to market this stuff. Pick a lane and come back to us.' That was disgusting to me, because I'm not trying to be a circus act. I listen to a lot of music, and I want to have the freedom and luxury to walk into a studio and say, 'Today I want to do a hip-hop, R&B, soul or rock record'"
After the success of his first album, Doo-Wops and Hooligans, the record label wanted his 2nd album to be a variation on the same theme, as it is usually the winning formula, and he instead did his own thing. The album follows a variety of styles, from Disco to an Elton John ballad, and finally to a Police-ish rock song.
Some people might say that he is forced to say this, but again, is there any proof of him being manipulated by the "evil" record companies? You probably can't.
There are tons of of artists I could think of that were like this, but Bruno Mars is a great example because he is modern.
There are other people in bands that 'control' a band in a certain way, and these guys are called managers. These guys book, advertise and take care relations between the band and the record label, and to make sure that the artist continues to be successful and make lots of money. ( http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091018085326AAGAwlC )
Vigilant Citizen is a paranoid website that is full of fear mongering, and lack of proper research. They did not bother to prove that she was being controlled by others and that she told to sing this song, which makes no sense considering she wrote the thing.
In the next thread, I will debunk Ke$ha's video "Die Young" and artists commonly recognized for being part of the NWO. (oops! I already did this! You can find it here: http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/5490/the-illuminati-symbolism-kehas-die-young-video-debunked/ )
Until next time,
Clock
The Illuminati Symbolism Ke$ha's Die Young Video (Vigilant Citizen Debunked, Part 2)
Author: Clock
Date: Mar 09, 2013 at 14:06
As I promised in a previous thread, I was going to concentrate on Ke$ha's Die Young video, which is a video Vigilant Citizen loves to death because it is full of symbolism. The amount of freemasonry symbolism here is not hard to miss, to the point where it seems to be done on purpose, but, we'll talk about that later. Let's first dive in the wonderful VC article:
Vigilant Citizen : "The Illuminati Symbolism of Ke$ha's "Die Young" and How it Ridicules the Indoctrinated Masses
Ke$ha's "Die Young" is probably one of the most blatant Illuminati videos ever released. While the symbolism is so overt that it is almost ridiculous, there's an underlying message to the video: Even if you're dumb enough to embrace all of that Illuminati brainwash, you're still not part of the elite and therefore, still subject to "Die Young"."
Clock: First off, that is not what the song is about. according to ke$ha, this is what the song is about:
"...But the point of the song is the importance of living every day to the fullest and staying young at heart, and these are things I truly believe."
http://perezhilton.com/2012-12-20-ke...n#.UNr92ndO5QU
Also, it's a shame that Vigilant Citizen never reasearched why all of the symbolism was in it, but be patient, I will cover it soon.
Vigilant Citizen:
Ke-dollarsign-ha has never been the most inspirational singer around. She started her career as an alcoholic party girl that's not too strict about personal hygiene (see the Tik Tok line "Before I leave brush ma teeth with a bottle of Jack") and, for her new album, she turned into some kind of Illuminati witch-type deal. She is far from the only pop star that has gone through this kind of metamorphosis and it was probably pre-planned by her record label. How many singers have gone from an "around-the-way" girl to an Illuminati figurehead? That's what the industry does.
Clock: There's a hole in this paragraph:
Vigilant Citizen: She is far from the only pop star that has gone through this kind of metamorphosis and it was probably pre-planned by her record label
Clock: the hypocrisy of this statement will be revealed right now:
Vigilant Citizen: How many singers have gone from an "around-the-way" girl to an Illuminati figurehead? That's what the industry does.
Clock: VC is now implying that it is something common when before they had said that it is something in common with most pop stars. Can VC actually prove the existance of this illuminati controlling pop music and imposing their "evilllll" message on kids? Fact is, they cannot. They can show you a bunch of symbols that don't mean anything though! That is their proof on the existance of this evil organization; they have lots of symbols of weird things. They cannot however show me a video of a meeting between Ke$ha and the illuminati heads planning her success on the radio nor can they show a paper of it, because quite frankly, it doesn't exist . You can show me a bunch of pictures of Rihanna and Ke$ha doing things all you want, but that's not going to pass on as proof.
Vigilant Citizen: on the untrained eye this kind of transformation is usually somewhat subtle ... Ke$ha's Die Young is anything but. In fact, it is one giant clusterfreak of Illuminati symbols. It is so obvious and in-your-face that it forced mainstream music sources such as Billboard.com to "admit" that the video was all about Illuminati symbols (see their article entitled Ke$ha Shouts-Out Illuminati in 'Die Young' Video). Interestingly enough, not too long ago, these same sites were calling sites like Vigilant Citizen "batshit crazy" for even alluding to the existence of these symbols and describing their meaning. Now these sites say "Yeah, there are Illuminati symbols" in a matter-of-fact way. What happened to the batshit crazy part? However, the mainstream sites still only refer to this concept in an extremely superficial way, not giving any insight on their true meaning and the real Agenda behind it all.
Clock: Lol, Bilboard.com is not admitting, it is stating a fact. Poor Vigilant Citizen, they do not realize that it is making fun of conspiracy theorists, who go batshit crazy when they see symbolism in Music Videos. Now, they were given an entire video full of them, and they went crazy. Also if a major music magazine is advertizing the fact that the video is full of it, it usually means it was done on purpose, and it is a clever advertizement scheme. (shock value =revenue). I am going to quote a quote I used from another thread on Metabunk:
"Ok everyone here goes. I have looked at this site repeatedly and found it to be totally ridiculous. It's very similar to the "Bible Code" hype. If you look hard enough at anything you can find something to try to justify your beliefs. This whole bit about the "Corporate Elite" hiding symbols in music and videos is completely laughable. It is now and always has been just for the shock value. You know, "doing something that your parents will hate". It has always been about having something that the "older generation" is shocked by and the kids will love it.There is no big conspiracy. It's purely for shock and advertising. Something to catch the eye and stand out above the rest. If this guy at VC really believed what he writes he wouldn't hide his true identity.
He says he has been in the music industry for years and sees all of the crap. Crap is what it is. I have been in the music industry for 45 years. It's all about advertising and publicity. Nothing more. No hidden meanings, no mind control, no Satanism. Most of the people that believe this crap are mind numb robots incapable of thinking for themselves. I'm not saying they are stupid because stupidity is something your are born with. They are although ignorant. Being ignorant is something that you do through conscious thought. Most of the people that believe what is on VC have been taught WHAT to think, not HOW to think.
It doesn't matter if the person behind the web site is Christian or not. He has an ulterior motive of some kind otherwise he wouldn't hide his identity.
One last thing I need to mention is the censorship of the site. I have used their VOTING BUTTONS only to find that if I return to the site later that my votes haven't been counted and if I write a reply to any of the postings and don't agree with what has been said by others the my replies mysteriously disappear. I guess he can't handle any opposition because he is afraid of the "Real Truth"."
If the entire thing was done on purpose, why is Vigilant Citizen bothering to cover it? I mean, that's what a shout-out usually means, it was done on purpose, and not meant to be taken seriously. If there is something the people at Vigilant Citizen lack, it's rationality and common sense. everything someone does is suspicious and they analyse the living hell out of it to come to their view (which is always right, by the way.)
Vigilant Citizen: Some might rationalize what is happening by saying: "Ke$ha did it for the LOLs and to make fun of the conspiracies". This is plausible, but this argument is now surfacing every time a video contains Illuminati symbolism. Are all videos now making fun of conspiracies? In reality, Ke$ha didn't do anything for any LOLs. She did not direct the video. She is just performing what she is told to perform, like most pop stars. The fact of the matter is: Illuminati symbols are becoming more prevalent because that was the plan all along: To gradually make them part of popular culture. The occult elite is revealing itself and the masses are dancing to their tunes.
Clock: You know what? This is not bad of an argument, good job on Vigilant Citizen. I will hand them that. However, there are mistakes in this paragraph that could not make this argument seem valid: Is there any proof that she is being controlled by anyone else? Can you show a quote, a picture, person, name or video of this going on? Also, If there is all of this craziness going on, why aren't there any whistle blowers? also, if they were so secret, why would they leave clues around? Truly, if something were secret, then they would not be leaving clues behind, and I'm pretty sure that websites like Vigilant Citizen would be taken down for "exposing".
Also, how are symbols becoming more and more prevalent? That is opinion. Usually, if you see one symbol, and you are being told to see more, your brain will likely start looking for these patterns of symbols, and you will therefore start seeing them everywhere.
If their plan was to make some of the symbols of the illuminati as part of pop culture, what in the world would they gain of that? Does that make them Illuminati worshipers? No, they are still mostly Catholic or devout to their own religion, just because the music video that teenagers are listening to contains some symbolism (if you search for them, you might just find them everywhere, and trust me, it's a really creepy experience) Does that make them Satan Worshipers? no.
They then begin to analyze some of the symbols. yaaaayy!
They use the eye of providence a lot, and this makes me very confused. If the illumnati, as VC puts it, is a group of people controlling the government and the music industry. They are said to be Satanic and evil and want to impose a eery plan of New World Order. The NWO on the Thrive Debunked website has been debunked to death already, so I will not even bother with it. Here's my question: If a group that believed in Satanic worship and are working against God and what everybody else thinks, why in the hell is their symbol (the eye of providence) representative of GOD? That makes absolutely no sense.
TO end this, I will use a little copy pasting from Rational Wiki:
"Easter eggs in the media
They also have a tendency to put hidden symbols and clues to their existence around the world, and on money, for no apparent reasons.[5]
Nearly every popular culture icon, including television shows, politicians music artists and any/every celebrity, are said to be somehow connected to the Illuminati in some way from something as normal as a triangle...
Probably the best example of this would be Tupac Shakur, whose last album was entitled "The Don Killuminati: The Seven Day Theory" lead to many theories.[6] Tupac actually chose the title to reference that the album was recorded and mixed in a relatively short period of seven days.The word killuminati (a portmanteau of the words kill and illuminati) that people ironically interpret as Pac saying that he is speaking out against them and killing illuminati. The truth being that he heard about them in prison and used the logic the majority of people lack that "If this organisation is so secret, how the fuck does everyone know about it?" Those aren't his words but it's what he meant, Tupac never believed in the Illuminati. [7] People also begin to distort the truth to form other theories. People have been saying Tupac faked his death and will be coming back since 2003. Every few years when they are obviously wrong people push back the guess a few years. This is mainly because a while before he died Tupac was planning on permanently changing his rap name to Makaveli after the 15/16th century writer Niccolò Machiavelli.
An equally good example would be rapper Jay-Z. He is supposedly very high in the Illuminati's hierarchy of celebrities. The hand gesture that he flashes has been cited as "proof" (in a very, very loose sense of the word) even though it's meant to represent the diamond of Roc-a-fella Records and is thrown up as frequently as the east or west hand signs. He is also accused of being famous for selling his soul and amongst other things. As with Tupac, theorists just turn to lies to prove their points. Quite a few people claimed that the name of his newborn daughter, Blue Ivy, backwards (Yvi Eulb) is Latin for Lucifer's daughter even though there is nothing to imply this. Jay Z has denied all these claims; his response to the conspiracy theorists can be heard in Rick Ross's song, "Free Mason."[8] I assure you when he dies no matter how simple the explanation for the death, someone somewhere will have "evidence" that the illuminati was involved.
It can be very difficult to find anyone who isn't actually connected with the Illuminati. All of the claimed affiliations involve an occult symbol in a music video or photo (usually the "all-seeing eye," the Star of David, or a Pentagram). This is most likely to get people talking and gain publicity. For example, if Rihanna has a newspaper cutout that says "Princess of the Illuminati" in a music video. Millions of people will go watch the video...
Michael Jackson is a very interesting case. One faction of the conspiracy community considers him a member of the Illuminati, employed to brainwash the public. Another faction, however, says that Michael was not a member, but actually was fighting to expose their control of the music industry and media. Michael was supposedly killed for this very reason. Either way the theorists have all the bases covered.
I hope you ennjoyed this debunking. I will next analyze the kesha tweet in which she says that she was forced to sing Die Young!
-Clock
Vigilant Citizen : "The Illuminati Symbolism of Ke$ha's "Die Young" and How it Ridicules the Indoctrinated Masses
Ke$ha's "Die Young" is probably one of the most blatant Illuminati videos ever released. While the symbolism is so overt that it is almost ridiculous, there's an underlying message to the video: Even if you're dumb enough to embrace all of that Illuminati brainwash, you're still not part of the elite and therefore, still subject to "Die Young"."
Clock: First off, that is not what the song is about. according to ke$ha, this is what the song is about:
"...But the point of the song is the importance of living every day to the fullest and staying young at heart, and these are things I truly believe."
http://perezhilton.com/2012-12-20-ke...n#.UNr92ndO5QU
Also, it's a shame that Vigilant Citizen never reasearched why all of the symbolism was in it, but be patient, I will cover it soon.
Vigilant Citizen:
Ke-dollarsign-ha has never been the most inspirational singer around. She started her career as an alcoholic party girl that's not too strict about personal hygiene (see the Tik Tok line "Before I leave brush ma teeth with a bottle of Jack") and, for her new album, she turned into some kind of Illuminati witch-type deal. She is far from the only pop star that has gone through this kind of metamorphosis and it was probably pre-planned by her record label. How many singers have gone from an "around-the-way" girl to an Illuminati figurehead? That's what the industry does.
Clock: There's a hole in this paragraph:
Vigilant Citizen: She is far from the only pop star that has gone through this kind of metamorphosis and it was probably pre-planned by her record label
Clock: the hypocrisy of this statement will be revealed right now:
Vigilant Citizen: How many singers have gone from an "around-the-way" girl to an Illuminati figurehead? That's what the industry does.
Clock: VC is now implying that it is something common when before they had said that it is something in common with most pop stars. Can VC actually prove the existance of this illuminati controlling pop music and imposing their "evilllll" message on kids? Fact is, they cannot. They can show you a bunch of symbols that don't mean anything though! That is their proof on the existance of this evil organization; they have lots of symbols of weird things. They cannot however show me a video of a meeting between Ke$ha and the illuminati heads planning her success on the radio nor can they show a paper of it, because quite frankly, it doesn't exist . You can show me a bunch of pictures of Rihanna and Ke$ha doing things all you want, but that's not going to pass on as proof.
Vigilant Citizen: on the untrained eye this kind of transformation is usually somewhat subtle ... Ke$ha's Die Young is anything but. In fact, it is one giant clusterfreak of Illuminati symbols. It is so obvious and in-your-face that it forced mainstream music sources such as Billboard.com to "admit" that the video was all about Illuminati symbols (see their article entitled Ke$ha Shouts-Out Illuminati in 'Die Young' Video). Interestingly enough, not too long ago, these same sites were calling sites like Vigilant Citizen "batshit crazy" for even alluding to the existence of these symbols and describing their meaning. Now these sites say "Yeah, there are Illuminati symbols" in a matter-of-fact way. What happened to the batshit crazy part? However, the mainstream sites still only refer to this concept in an extremely superficial way, not giving any insight on their true meaning and the real Agenda behind it all.
Clock: Lol, Bilboard.com is not admitting, it is stating a fact. Poor Vigilant Citizen, they do not realize that it is making fun of conspiracy theorists, who go batshit crazy when they see symbolism in Music Videos. Now, they were given an entire video full of them, and they went crazy. Also if a major music magazine is advertizing the fact that the video is full of it, it usually means it was done on purpose, and it is a clever advertizement scheme. (shock value =revenue). I am going to quote a quote I used from another thread on Metabunk:
"Ok everyone here goes. I have looked at this site repeatedly and found it to be totally ridiculous. It's very similar to the "Bible Code" hype. If you look hard enough at anything you can find something to try to justify your beliefs. This whole bit about the "Corporate Elite" hiding symbols in music and videos is completely laughable. It is now and always has been just for the shock value. You know, "doing something that your parents will hate". It has always been about having something that the "older generation" is shocked by and the kids will love it.There is no big conspiracy. It's purely for shock and advertising. Something to catch the eye and stand out above the rest. If this guy at VC really believed what he writes he wouldn't hide his true identity.
He says he has been in the music industry for years and sees all of the crap. Crap is what it is. I have been in the music industry for 45 years. It's all about advertising and publicity. Nothing more. No hidden meanings, no mind control, no Satanism. Most of the people that believe this crap are mind numb robots incapable of thinking for themselves. I'm not saying they are stupid because stupidity is something your are born with. They are although ignorant. Being ignorant is something that you do through conscious thought. Most of the people that believe what is on VC have been taught WHAT to think, not HOW to think.
It doesn't matter if the person behind the web site is Christian or not. He has an ulterior motive of some kind otherwise he wouldn't hide his identity.
One last thing I need to mention is the censorship of the site. I have used their VOTING BUTTONS only to find that if I return to the site later that my votes haven't been counted and if I write a reply to any of the postings and don't agree with what has been said by others the my replies mysteriously disappear. I guess he can't handle any opposition because he is afraid of the "Real Truth"."
If the entire thing was done on purpose, why is Vigilant Citizen bothering to cover it? I mean, that's what a shout-out usually means, it was done on purpose, and not meant to be taken seriously. If there is something the people at Vigilant Citizen lack, it's rationality and common sense. everything someone does is suspicious and they analyse the living hell out of it to come to their view (which is always right, by the way.)
Vigilant Citizen: Some might rationalize what is happening by saying: "Ke$ha did it for the LOLs and to make fun of the conspiracies". This is plausible, but this argument is now surfacing every time a video contains Illuminati symbolism. Are all videos now making fun of conspiracies? In reality, Ke$ha didn't do anything for any LOLs. She did not direct the video. She is just performing what she is told to perform, like most pop stars. The fact of the matter is: Illuminati symbols are becoming more prevalent because that was the plan all along: To gradually make them part of popular culture. The occult elite is revealing itself and the masses are dancing to their tunes.
Clock: You know what? This is not bad of an argument, good job on Vigilant Citizen. I will hand them that. However, there are mistakes in this paragraph that could not make this argument seem valid: Is there any proof that she is being controlled by anyone else? Can you show a quote, a picture, person, name or video of this going on? Also, If there is all of this craziness going on, why aren't there any whistle blowers? also, if they were so secret, why would they leave clues around? Truly, if something were secret, then they would not be leaving clues behind, and I'm pretty sure that websites like Vigilant Citizen would be taken down for "exposing".
Also, how are symbols becoming more and more prevalent? That is opinion. Usually, if you see one symbol, and you are being told to see more, your brain will likely start looking for these patterns of symbols, and you will therefore start seeing them everywhere.
If their plan was to make some of the symbols of the illuminati as part of pop culture, what in the world would they gain of that? Does that make them Illuminati worshipers? No, they are still mostly Catholic or devout to their own religion, just because the music video that teenagers are listening to contains some symbolism (if you search for them, you might just find them everywhere, and trust me, it's a really creepy experience) Does that make them Satan Worshipers? no.
They then begin to analyze some of the symbols. yaaaayy!
They use the eye of providence a lot, and this makes me very confused. If the illumnati, as VC puts it, is a group of people controlling the government and the music industry. They are said to be Satanic and evil and want to impose a eery plan of New World Order. The NWO on the Thrive Debunked website has been debunked to death already, so I will not even bother with it. Here's my question: If a group that believed in Satanic worship and are working against God and what everybody else thinks, why in the hell is their symbol (the eye of providence) representative of GOD? That makes absolutely no sense.
TO end this, I will use a little copy pasting from Rational Wiki:
"Easter eggs in the media
They also have a tendency to put hidden symbols and clues to their existence around the world, and on money, for no apparent reasons.[5]
Nearly every popular culture icon, including television shows, politicians music artists and any/every celebrity, are said to be somehow connected to the Illuminati in some way from something as normal as a triangle...
Probably the best example of this would be Tupac Shakur, whose last album was entitled "The Don Killuminati: The Seven Day Theory" lead to many theories.[6] Tupac actually chose the title to reference that the album was recorded and mixed in a relatively short period of seven days.The word killuminati (a portmanteau of the words kill and illuminati) that people ironically interpret as Pac saying that he is speaking out against them and killing illuminati. The truth being that he heard about them in prison and used the logic the majority of people lack that "If this organisation is so secret, how the fuck does everyone know about it?" Those aren't his words but it's what he meant, Tupac never believed in the Illuminati. [7] People also begin to distort the truth to form other theories. People have been saying Tupac faked his death and will be coming back since 2003. Every few years when they are obviously wrong people push back the guess a few years. This is mainly because a while before he died Tupac was planning on permanently changing his rap name to Makaveli after the 15/16th century writer Niccolò Machiavelli.
An equally good example would be rapper Jay-Z. He is supposedly very high in the Illuminati's hierarchy of celebrities. The hand gesture that he flashes has been cited as "proof" (in a very, very loose sense of the word) even though it's meant to represent the diamond of Roc-a-fella Records and is thrown up as frequently as the east or west hand signs. He is also accused of being famous for selling his soul and amongst other things. As with Tupac, theorists just turn to lies to prove their points. Quite a few people claimed that the name of his newborn daughter, Blue Ivy, backwards (Yvi Eulb) is Latin for Lucifer's daughter even though there is nothing to imply this. Jay Z has denied all these claims; his response to the conspiracy theorists can be heard in Rick Ross's song, "Free Mason."[8] I assure you when he dies no matter how simple the explanation for the death, someone somewhere will have "evidence" that the illuminati was involved.
It can be very difficult to find anyone who isn't actually connected with the Illuminati. All of the claimed affiliations involve an occult symbol in a music video or photo (usually the "all-seeing eye," the Star of David, or a Pentagram). This is most likely to get people talking and gain publicity. For example, if Rihanna has a newspaper cutout that says "Princess of the Illuminati" in a music video. Millions of people will go watch the video...
Michael Jackson is a very interesting case. One faction of the conspiracy community considers him a member of the Illuminati, employed to brainwash the public. Another faction, however, says that Michael was not a member, but actually was fighting to expose their control of the music industry and media. Michael was supposedly killed for this very reason. Either way the theorists have all the bases covered.
I hope you ennjoyed this debunking. I will next analyze the kesha tweet in which she says that she was forced to sing Die Young!
-Clock
Email Exchange with a 9/11 truther
Author: Dave Sorensen
Date: Jul 07, 2011 at 17:53
<!--[endif] -->
We have thousands of blogs from other independent scientists and researchers, podcasts, peer reviewed literature and media from dozens of other countries. There are tons of good sources out there, and not one should be treated as gospel.
"Oh, btw...we've been pretty lucky to have dodged another attack for a decade now! Surely you would think Al QUEDA would want to capitalize on the heels of such a major blow, right? Any fighter will tell you that when your opponent is wobbled, like an animal who smells the blood of its enemy, it is time to pounce."
I suggest you read Michael Scheuer's book on Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden's goal was pretty much to draw us into Afghanistan to lead us to an eventual economic collapse. He also believed that they could defeat us in a similar fashion to the Russian and British armies. Before 9/11 there were three other attacks that aimed to draw us into Afghanistan. The two embassy bombings and the USS cole bombing.
You ask a lot of questions that have been answered, and have been available online for years. 9/11 myths.com and Mark Roberts' website (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/ ) have a lot of great links for info on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The key is to actually read through these websites. You raised the point that you haven't seen any other plane crashes that looked like flight 93. Here is an example of one: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/
Even without this example, you have to ask what other time has a plane crashed into soft soil around 500 mph?
"Then, please have him explain how the third WTC building fell, blocks away, half a day later, while buildings between them remained untouched. "
There is going to be some resistance, but the floors were not designed to hold weights in excess of 3 times the static weight. When you have several floors collapsing, the force increases by several times due to gravity. In the case of the towers, the weight coming down was about 30 times the static weight. For example, when you place a 15 pound weight on your foot, you won't feel any pain. But when you drop it from twelve feet, you foot is pretty much destroyed. The best way to think of this is to imagine the collapse as 30 floors vs. 1 floor. After that floor collapses you have 31 floors vs. 1 floor etc. The bottom part of the structure is not just a hunk of steel, it's made of millions of small parts capable of failing due to excess weight. If a critical column or structural component of a building fails due to fire, you can get partial or total collapses. If you acknowledge this point there's nothing strange about the collapse. It was on fire for seven hours without firefighting and was seen with a large bulge around 3 pm by several structural engineers using transits. Also the fires started on multiple floors, unlike most office fires which would just start on one. The collapse was also a progressive one. The east penthouse collapsed first. Overall the collapse took around 16 seconds. NIST did an extensive state of the art investigation into the collapse of building 7. Have you read any of it?
"How about the perfectly diagonal cut through what remained as the stub of the infrastructure?"
This was done post collapse by a clean up crew. http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
"Or did each side burn through to give way at the exact same moment, thus causing an uncanny symmetrical collapse?"
The collapse was not symmetrical. It actually fell across the street damaging a bank to the point where it was feared it too might collapse .http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911d.htm
"I would love to see somebody build a scale model of the scene and re-enact the alleged tragedy in a controlled environment, but for now I'll stick with common sense."
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Why would they have to build a physical model of the structure and fly a plane into it when you can do computer models? These have been done and show that everything is consistent with the videos. This includes a computer simulation created by an engineer who was skeptical of the collapse initiation hypothesis offered by NIST. (But not a supporter of CD) http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/
"The list goes on and on, but please keep in mind that I have absolutely no motivation other than the truth."
I hope you really mean this. As for the "list" you speak of, I suggest reading my article which goes into the "long list effect." http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/blog/2010/05/23/conspiracism-explained/ Once you realize nearly all of the claims are false, your position becomes untenable. It is this that is the difference between us. I reject all of your premises, and can tell you why. If you can show where I went wrong, by all means do.
"I'm getting tired, and I'm not sure Winston will read this because it doesn't agree with his beliefs"
This is pretty funny. I think Edward is aware of every claim you've made in this post. If you think you've come up with some new arguments, you must be living in the year 2004. Try googling "X debunked" or browsing the jref forums. This is all really old, and has been debunked ad nauseam.
"THIS WAS NOT SOME ROGUE ACT BY A TERRORIST BECAUSE THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM!!!!"
This I agree with. Again Michael Scheuer gives six reasons for why extremist groups hate us.
""An anti-U.S. defensive jihad was mandatory for six reasons:
1. The U.S. military and civilian presence in the Prophet's homeland on the Arabian Peninsula
2. Washington's protection and support for tyrannical Muslim governments
3. Washington's unquestioning and unqualified support for Israel
4. Washington's support for countries that oppress Muslims, especially Russia, China, and India
5. U.S. and Western exploitation of Muslim energy resources at below market prices
6. The U.S. military presence in the Muslim world outside the Arab Peninsula"
There are a lot of great books available that answer all of your questions and put them into context. If your interested I suggest reading "The Looming Tower" and "Ghost Wars" for starters. The challenge for you is to be willing to reject your current beliefs based upon new information and more reliable evidence. This is the rational thing to do. In my opinion, Conspiracy theories work in the exact opposite way. They rely upon the least reliable evidence (anomalies, quote-mining, junk science) and ignore what the vast majority of academia and what the consensus of relevant scientists has to say.
"I thank you for taking the time to acknowledge my post, but I am afraid your arguments are set out to debunk a film, rather than seek truth. "
If I weren't interested in the truth I wouldn't take the time to study this stuff. The point I cannot stress enough is that you are still convinced that a lot of these claims are correct. I hate to think of this as picking sides of a fence...
"A commission appointed BY BUSH himself, comprised of his political pals. The fact that these three have controlled American politics for over three decades. These are the things I am concerned with. Real life things, not a point-counter-point."
I think there is a big misconception about the 9/11 commission. They got their information from over 93 different agencies, almost half of were nongovernmental. There were thousands of experts and forensic scientists who studied the evidence extensively. The commission was not just Bush and his buddies making stuff up. There was four years of independent and governmental investigations that were brought together to form the conclusions of the 9/11 commission report. Just out of curiosity, have you read it?
"I told you that from 2001 to around 2006, I was a staunch Bush supporter. At one point, I told my mother that he will go down as the greatest president in history. I had to eat a lot of crow when i admitted that I was blind. "
I understand this. I think our political beliefs generally sway us into other belief systems. To say Bush was a bad president is one thing, to say he took part in the conspiracy of the century without any supporting evidence is another. I think Michael Shermer said it best. The best reason to doubt that Bush did 9/11 was that it worked. : )
There's nothing wrong with using wikipedia as source, as long as its coming from the secondary or primary source. The wiki article itself could be inaccurate, but must of the time they're pretty good. The parts I thought were inaccurate I addressed, and those are not on wikipedia. Some points you made I agreed with such as the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the extremist groups do not hate us because of our freedom fries. And just to clarify I am not a very big supporter of our system of government, or the people who run it. If there was evidence for any of these grand conspiracies I would pick them up and run with them. And so would all of the big US critics such as Noam Chomsky. Chomsky's take on 9/11 conspiracy theories. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc
"Weell, certainly, you mean every floor. That's over a hundred floors! lol So, mathematically speaking, it COULD NOT fall at free fall speed."
None of the buildings did fall at free fall speed. Even the Architects and Engineers for 911 truth have dropped that claim. Now their big anomaly is that Building 7 was in for free fall for 2.1 seconds. I don't think I was very clear about the crushdown effect. Did you see the verinage demolition videos? They work by pulling out structural members with cables, causing the upper portion of the building to crush the bottom half. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
"What about symmetrically? Do you not see this? You can not say, "there would be SOME resistance, BUT....." That's it. There would be resistance, hence adding time to the 10 second free fall, yet that was not the case. the building was detonated. Period."
They didn't collapse symmetrically. They all ended up hitting surrounding buildings, severely damaging them. Both the towers tilted before collapse. To see this very clearly, watch this video. It shows the perimeter columns bowing to the point of buckling. http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/34/bMZ-nkYr46wYoure making a bald assertion there when you say the buildings were detonated period. There is no evidence of loud explosions on any audio or video or seismographs, no cases of deafening or blast lung which we would expect, no fatalities from flying glass, and no evidence of detonation cords or bombs in the rubble. If there were bombs in the trade center buildings people would have been able to hear them from about a mile and a half away. Here is what a demolition sounds like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ&feature=related
You don't have to take my word for it but I've looked at both sides of the argument and have concluded the CT claims are pretty much all wrong. There was no conscious effort to try to believe the official story. And I'm pretty well read on the conspiracy theory literature. I just honesty don't find any of it compelling. That isn't to say that there aren't real conspiracies out there. (There are!) I came to my position after carefully evaluating both the quality and context of the long list of conspiracy claims, which took a while. I highly recommend reading through the debunking sites I posted, and to check out some of the videos when you get the chance. There's a lot to learn and "unlearn" so by all means take your time. I used to believe in some of this stuff too, so I understand where you're coming from. But in all seriousness it's important to read up on both sides of any debate, if your looking for truth. While it may be painful to spend hours reading material you may not agree with, it's important, and gives you a better understanding for how thinking can go wrong.
"So, you will continue using the word "Conspiracy Theorist," a blatant tactic of propagandist throughout history."
I don't think this is always a pejorative term. It's taken to be offensive to people who believe some of the more plausible conspiracy theories because they are lumped in with the nutty ones. I agree it says nothing at all about a person's actual beliefs, but it's the same with the word "debunker." I usually switch between "true believers" and "Cts". I am simply referring to some one who believes in a conspiracy theory. A great definition of a conspiracy theory is given by Oxford philosopher Steve Clarke.
"A theory that traces important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal, and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their theory, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society."
"They do dirt, questions are raised, the pretend they are "investigating" it using their political buddies, slowly we forget about it, the book is closed, and anyone who doesn't buy it is called a Conspiracy Theorist or a Bush-Basher. Same playbook, Dave."
But the 9/11 commission was largely based on dozens of other investigations. Including books by investigative journalists, scientific reports and thousands of other investigators who have looked into the backgrounds of the hijackers, the collapse of the towers etc. I think you're point goes both ways. I can be called a sheep or a shill for accepting the "official story." It's not about accepting one view or the other, it's about understanding the difference between a strong and weak theory, and which one describes the theory at hand. But in order to criticize one side or the other, you need to understand what they actually believe.
This reminds me of a point you raised in a previous email.
"pointing me toward books is meaningless to me, because there are books that both conflict and support what I am saying. There are talented writers and spin-meisters for both sides. "
Are you saying it's too difficult to tell whether someone is being honest? All you have to do is check their sources, or see if their work is corroborated by other evidence or scholars.
9/11 CT advocate David Ray Griffin is a great example of someone who writes well, but when you fact check him, you realize he's either an incompetent researcher or a liar. For instance, he claims that there were no muslim names on the passenger manifests. What is his source? A "9/11 victims list" from CNN.com. Now around that time the Boston Globe had released the passenger manifests with all of the hijacker's names on them. How is it that Griffin has failed to acknowledge the Boston Globe article all of this time, while also ignoring criticism of his book pointing out that he was not referring to the source he claimed to have been?
"Nobody wants to believe such heinous things."
I actually disagree with this. There are a lot of people I have spoken to who believe 9/11 was an inside job, who really do want to believe it because they feel like they possess secret knowledge, and that everyone else is just sheeple. Like I said before I have no dog in this hunt, and have believed in some Cts before. A lot of what Noam Chomsky discusses in terms of government and military conspiracies, is far worse than 9/11 being an inside job. He said in an email chat with Kevin Barrett that even if 9/11 was an inside job, it wouldn't make it in the top 100 atrocities list. So I don't think this is a valid reason for why people debunk things in most cases. In most cases people debunk things because they don't think there's any validity to the claims they are debunking, and they explain why that it is so.
"I am very familiar with being blinded by your ideals, which in this country, in this age, are very much pre-determined by us and molded by propaganda at a level beyond expert. They mold our brains like play-doe."
I agree with this. John Loewen summarizes all of the myths and problems with the American history curriculum in his book "Lies My Teacher Told Me." Our history textbooks all portray the US as the good guys, omit a lot of the horrendous things we did (ex. our interactions with the Native American), generally tell the story from the perspective of a white christian male, and gets kids to memorize "facts" instead of building critical thinking skills. I think the lack of a course on critical thinking for the high school level is the biggest problem with our education system. We are also heavily influenced by the mainstream media like you said. If you haven't done so already you should watch Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. It's still on google video.
"Are you not suspicious of Dick, George, and Don?"
Well.. they're politicians. I'm skeptical of all politicians and what they say. That isn't to say that they lie about everything. We know Bush and his gang lied about the WMDs so it is not inconceivable that they lied about other things. The reason we know about this is because of the leaked manning memo.
But I think the Bush Administration was inarguably one of the most incompetent, so there is a heavy burden of proof to be met when one claims they managed to pull off a rather large scale conspiracy. If they couldn't just plant WMDs in Iraq, how could they manage to coerce thousands of people into orchestrating 9/11?
I have to ask this again. If they could pull off 9/11, why not just plant WMDs in Iraq. That would involve far less people, and would much a million times less risky. Would benefit them greatly. Unless presented with some evidence, I find it really hard to believe that the Bush Administration orchestrated the attacks. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I also find it hard to believe that any group would be dumb enough to take such risks. All it would take is to have one detonation cord discovered, or one of the demolition guys telling his girlfriend what he was doing.
I have yet to even hear a coherent narrative to how they would have even done it. There is an absence of evidence that would have to be there, you'd have thousands of people who would have to silenced for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, we have a convergence of evidence that shows who the real perpetrators were and a coherent narrative to how they did it. I think the big problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories is that they do not take into account the history of US and middle east relations. We can speculate all we want about what happened, but it won't get us to the truth. If one rejects what virtually all scientists and scholars agree on, and reject in wholesale everything the government says, you are just going to wind up chasing down rabbit holes. And this brings up another point.
If 9/11 was an inside job, we are left with two scenarios. Either they (US) did it and covered it up. Or they did it and left behind incriminating evidence. If A, then we can't really do anything about it, they got away with the perfect crime. If B, I'm all for exposing them. Bringing up past examples of suspicious behavior or even some valid points about political figures that I agree with is not going to say anything about what happened on 9/11. What you're doing is just asking questions. We're far past that stage, it's been 11 years. There are answers, they're just not as appealing as a bombs being planted by cia agents, voice morphing etc. The reality is we got caught with our pants down. And all it took was the purchase of nineteen plane tickets with months of prep work on how to take over the planes.
"I ask you again, don't seek out to debunk a stupid movie. I will hand you one half of that movie, ok? Let's say I looked it all over and I admit right now that the film was overzealous in their presentation of certain facts and were not totally accurate on some of the quotes, dates, figures, facts, and there were a few things they presented that were not completely corroborated and may very well have been false."
I've been over the zeitgeist movies for a while now. Most of my articles are about specific claims and CTs, not about the zeitgeist movies. They are as inaccurate as they ever were and don't care too much about them. I would actually say it's closer to 90% of the info is inaccurate.
It seems like you misunderstand my position. I don't doubt that the government and military have carried out conspiracies in the past. Noam Chomsky is someone I believe exposes a lot of them, most worse than 9/11. (In terms of fatalities) For example, our support for the atrocities committed in East Timor during the 70's and onward.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199910--.htm
I don't present Chomsky's take on East Timor as fact, but bring it up as a example of a conspiracy I find somewhat plausible, that is worse in scale than 9/11.
What I doubt is strictly the points I bring up in the Zeitgeist movies. (nearly all of them) This says nothing about my views about our foreign policy or government. It says nothing else about me in general. All I care about is what's true. And the best I can do at finding it, is making sure my scholarship is sound, and that my logic is valid. Looking at both sides of the debate, I've found that the books and articles which argue for a government conspiracy lack the kinds of scholarship you would expect, and are largely illogical. For instance, if we wanted to get into Iraq and Afghanistan for oil, why not make the hijackers come from those countries? The choice of hijackers from Saudi Arabia makes no sense.
"I ask you again, don't seek out to debunk a stupid movie. I will hand you one half of that movie, ok? Let's say I looked it all over and I admit right now that the film was overzealous in their presentation of certain facts and were not totally accurate on some of the quotes, dates, figures, facts, and there were a few things they presented that were not completely corroborated and may very well have been false."
OH no, Dave Don't blatantly cut my quotes out of context now. Finish what I said there.
Such actions, like qouting out of context show your agenda. It is the same reason you abbreviate CT, because it is used so much. You have stuck religiously to your talking points, all of which I have already seen on your site. I want you to answer my questions, not fit your 9-11 debunking where it works.
I want to know WHEN THE ANGLO's WHO SIGNED THE DECLARATION AND WHO OBVIOUSLY CONTROLLED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE BETTER PART OF OUR FIRST CENTURY WITH 6 guys ENDING WITH jOHN QUINCEY ADAMS (interesting, huh? that the son of a founding father would be elected?
When did they relinquish autonomy in the white house and allow an african american nobody to control things?
Are you telling me that the same handful of men owned the white house and all of its dealings, including the initiation of their own central bank, simply "stepped down" at some point?? When?? And is it not a coincidence that they are back in charge in the year 2000? Or do you deny that the Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld family lines trace RIGHT BACK TO The Kights Templar, or to keep it less CT, 12th century England?
If you want to be honest, the bloodlines go back to ancient Egypt (King Ramses (alternate spelling of rumsfeld)
I have to go and there's no sense continuing if you don't see the obvious.
I dont care about an independant film. I want to talk Bush-Windsor. founding fathers, Anglo Protestent rule, and democracy. Let's talk that and how inconcievable it is that these men manipulate the world.
Such actions, like qouting out of context show your agenda. It is the same reason you abbreviate CT, because it is used so much. You have stuck religiously to your talking points, all of which I have already seen on your site. I want you to answer my questions, not fit your 9-11 debunking where it works."
There is really no agenda, but I guess I understand your point on that quote. If you read my full response, you would see I addressed those points later on. My analyses of the Zeitgeist films and 9/11 Cts are of just that. I have never written an article about George Bush, Big Oil or anything about the evil bloodlines. By default, you assume I reject all of it because I take fault with what I've written about. Why is that? I have yet to make any assumptions about you, and have not even referred to you as a CT. And BTW I explained why I use the abbreviation CT, and that I do not define it as "crazy person." It shouldn't be such a big deal. If you take it as an ad hominem attack, ignore it and deal with the other points I make.
"I want to know WHEN THE ANGLO's WHO SIGNED THE DECLARATION AND WHO OBVIOUSLY CONTROLLED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE BETTER PART OF OUR FIRST CENTURY WITH 6 guys ENDING WITH jOHN QUINCEY ADAMS (interesting, huh? that the son of a founding father would be elected?
When did they relinquish autonomy in the white house and allow an african american nobody to control things?"
Again, you are just asking questions. You contacted me to ask about how you can add corrections to the articles on CS, and now we are talking about bloodlines and george bush's past. Neither of which are covered on CS, and neither of which are relevant to the criticisms of other theories.
"If you want to be honest, the bloodlines go back to ancient Egypt (King Ramses (alternate spelling of rumsfeld) "
This is pretty interesting if true, but I couldn't find a source for this.
"I dont care about an independant film. I want to talk Bush-Windsor. founding fathers, Anglo Protestent rule, and democracy. Let's talk that and how inconcievable it is that these men manipulate the world."
Ok so we are done talking about the material covered on CS?
Sean's post in it's entirety:
OK, Dave, I understand being young and pasionate about politics. You are much smarter than I who voted for Ross Perot at 21, and this is the first and last time I will mention your age, because it doesn't mean anything except, in MOST cases a person's politics at a young age is usually the opposite of what it ends up. Also, I mention that because part of the reason I'm doing this, besides looking for the truth, is because you can still change. I'd never crack an older person like my mother. lol (I try)
Ok, take your time, but one more thing. Let me put everything in perspective for you. This is not conspiracy vs. no-conspiracy. I'm am right down the middle, with NO partisan agenda whatsoever (especially since they dont exist), it just so happens that the conspiracy side has been going strong for about three years now, and I am at the point where the burden of proof is on the debunkers.
As I watched the film (again haha I cant get enough) with my brother-in law who, up to a few months ago was a hard-lined conservative who told me that I should be in a tin-foil hat when I mentioned these films, and who now invited me to watch a new film, simple looked at each other and laughed. It was funny, but maddening, hysterical, but disturbing; it was all of these things, but never did we think it was uncertain. This is a matter of fitting a square into a triangle....
So, anyway, do what you gotta do. This would be impressive. I'm not sure how we could score it, but let's see if it makes it out of the edit room first.
OH wait, your questions. I'm sorry. Whistle-blowers? I could probably gather about 20 if I had a second, but off the top of my head, umm, Wesley Clark....hey wait a minute, Dave. Why does this sound familiar? Dave, are you using talking points, Dave? I'm sorry, man, but I am being to see a white spy vs. black spy going on. I'm trying to be neutral and you are hitting me with talking points, or should I say hot button topics. lol
Come on, Dave....OK since the answer to that question is everywhere, I'll pick the first place I see and give you that list. I'm sure I knew many of them already.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17961
and the strongest piece of evidence? How much time you got, buddy? (quick DaveChapelle) No, seriously, I don't want to ruin anything for you so I'll say numbers one through thirty (1-30) are on the film you are going to watch. Beyond that off the top of my head:
and in no particular order-
-the look on George Bush's face when they whispered in his ear that morning, a morning which he prayed would not happen, but like Jesus on that last night in Jerusalem, knew it would. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.....so, yeah, the close-up of him in high def.
-while we're on George W (poor kid) and that seven minutes in front of the kids....that seven minutes in front of the kids. Totally inexcusable. (Although, like I said, I almost feel bad for GW.)
-and I promise to leave him alone after I lump together the buckets full of misspeaking, fumble words, saying obviously rehearsed things, looking as nervous as a whore in church, as if he stood to get a beating for f---ing up. OK that's it for Little George, as Saddam Hussein called him, and rightfully called him. Is it odd for your dad's good to call you little ---------?
-- One more Bush thing. The fact that he insisted on taking questions from congress only with uncle don and not recorded and no hard questions....etc lol All of these concrete things glued together by the crystal clear body language of all involved, from Ari Fleesher to the head of FBI with the big cartoon face who got canned quickly, and of course, GW, who all but had a sign up saying My father made me do it! I just want my baseball team back. I can't wait for this eight years to be over. My dad's gonna set me up and.........lmao Dave, I wish that were more of a joke.
-Of course there is all the stuff I talked about with those three family crests and their power. That too, reads like a child's encyclopedia as to what is going on.
-Now, all of those things are heavy claims that I know to be true, but everyone has to find their way. However, more physical proof, that is there for all to see include
--The disappearing airlines at two crash sites. I have not see as much as a seat, or one of those rolse royce engines that are 8 feet in diameter.
-the pictures of the pentagon-----where do I start??
--the fact that the pentagon is one of the most secure building in the world, supposedly, with security camera lining the entire circumference, yet there is only ONE surveillance camera, and it just happens to have the wrong date, but forget that end piece, one camera, out of a hundred or more. There was ONE other tape, a gastation across the street but FBI officials were there immediately to confiscate it.
---Did I say pictures at the pentagon? and in Shanksville.
--Odd report made in cincinnati and put on their website that a plane had an emergency landing in cleveland due to a bombthreat, flight 93.
--hundreds and hundreds of eyewitnesses, there on the scene or shortly after claiming the heard explosions going off down the building as they ran down. Hundres on the scene or shortly thereafter who claim that it definitely was not a commercial airliner.
---Every photo or video taken of the scene, either showing a mysterious shape under the belly of the plane, from all angles, and it's uncanny resemblence to an armed military plane. The flash of light obviously seen before the impact, from all angles,
--Oh sorry George---there was only one tape that had caught the first impact at all on video. It was a french film group doing some little thing on the NYC fire fighter coincidently, when it happened they got it. It wasn't seen until later, yet George Bush says clearly, in response to what he thought when he saw the footage, "I remember seeing that first plane hit and thought......"
--The 911 comission being a joke from the start. (believe me, I was there during the whole thing. It was a joke.)
--Bush=oil=Bin Laden=Saudis
--The owner of the building 7 stating that they made the decision to "pull" the building, meaning it was rigged with devices.
--The symetrical free fall collapse of the towers.
---Did I mention the pics of Shankesville and pentagon? Also the manuever that this pilot would have had to make being a poor to moderate flyer.
---The molten steel at the bottom of the scene that was omitted.
--The blatant suppression of news.
---Building 7
--NORAD blunders
--lack of evidence that Osama Bin Laden did it. In fact, much less evidence that Osama did it then THEY did it.
----I could write until morning, but all of that, plus that film, plus the fact that I know this is a government capable of decimating people, countries, and races without blinking an eye.
(The above is a perfect example of a "proof by verbosity)
Here are two sites to look over about the pentagon claims: http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
Whistleblowers
Note that none on that list had direct knowledge of a conspiracy on 9/11. The closest is Sibel Edmonds who claims to have read about the US military working with Taliban forces like the mujahedeen in the 1980's. This would be pretty big if true, but there is no evidence for this, and unlikely to have been in the hands of a Turkish translator. She could have just been remembering something else, or confused about what she was reading. After all it's been 9 years since she's worked there. The main point is that this has nothing to do with 9/11 or foreknowledge.
On Plane Site:
At first discovering the documentary is from 2004, and includes some of the older sillier claims left out in the more recent truth documentaries, I didn't see a point in debunking it frame by frame. This has been done for the more recent films. But since this is a movie you're familiar with, and since I accepted the challenge, I'll do a point-by-point analysis. Since the film focuses a lot on the Pentagon theories, I will give a quick summary of the evidence for Flight 77 crashing there.
-Light Pole and generator damage is consistent with Flight 77's trajectory
-Engine, FDR, black box among other plane parts were recovered. http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentagonDebrisMontagecopy1.jpg
-100+ eyewitnesses who saw the plane
-Radar evidence
-Subsequent analysis by Purdue University and dozens of structural engineers, independent investigators and forensic experts.
-Testimony from first responders who handled passenger remains
-Forensic experts positively identified the passengers DNA, and personal effects were recovered and sent back to the families.
-Airphone and cellphone calls made by passengers tell us that the planes were hijacked
-Damage to the pentagon is consistent with plane crash. When light aluminum crashes into a reinforced concrete wall, you wouldn't expect much to survive. The plane is not going to make a cartoon cutout into the building. Check out what happens to a F-4 phantom when it hits a reinforced wall at 500 mph.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8
Here is a video simulation of the plane's trajectory, and outlines the areas of the Pentagon that were damaged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
Answer this: You say it was hot enough, due to building materials + jet fuel to cause river of molten steele to flow at the base of the towers, and in the pentagon enough to vaporize a jetliner within seconds (which is preposterous) So, is it not fishy that the terrorist's passport, wallet, and the koran were found blocks away from the towers!!??? ARE YOU KIDDING? lol
How could you say, with a straight face (lol) that the damage to the pentagon was consistent with that of a 767??? How?? Where's the tail, the wings, the two engines, 8feet in diametr??? Where are they? Why was a wooden desk left unsinged on the second floor, yet an entire plane vaporized?? It's insane for you to argue this, Dave. It looks very poor.
I don't know what to do if you can look at this picture. THIS PICTURE. Not the ones you carved out. This link, the video at 0:03, pause it look point blank at that hole moments after a supposed plane crashed into it and tell me that a 767 hit it. Did you even look at the cartoon you showed me? You are telling me that your cartoon, which is surrounded on youtube by cartoons showing it to be impossible, is more substantial than this actual photograph taken on the scene??
That crazy, and I GUARANTEE that if we got 10 random people and showed them one of my real life pictures versus one of your real life pictures (frames, movies...whatever) and put one of my cartoons versus one of your cartoons. We would average aroun 9.5 in my favor by the end of the day. lol I mean that, We'll go shot for shot, I'll pick mine out of a hat, and you carefully grab the most disproportionate little gif animation flash cartoon you can. I'll take anyone of the camera angles. One is more obvious than the last.
By the way, your cartoon mentions the security camerA, what about the cameras lined up around the entire perimeter, plus the satelitte coverage. Are you telling me that the most secure building in the world, our nations PENTAGON, only had ONE camera????!!!!! The same number of cameras that the gas station across the street had. So, our surveillance is on par with an average citgo????
Actually, lets stay on that one for a while. lol Let's talk security cameras, Dave. One camera? As Bill OReilly would say, "What say you?" One camera? The Pentagon?? WSY??
Where's the gas station video? Why was it initially not released?? What were they covering up?? Why Cheney and Bush together before congress? Were they afraid Bush would say something wrong?? Why would there be anything wrong to say if they didn't do anything??
My response:
Here's an early photo of the crash site, before the fires were put out. Is this consistent with a missile?
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/01749r.jpg
You keep asserting that planes can't vaporize upon impact of a reinforced wall, but I've provided you with a video of an F-4 phantom that shows this can happen. What gives?
You keep jumping around from claims about the towers to shanksville, let's stick with one for now. And I really want to hear what you think about the list of evidence i presented. Is it all fake? All the eyewitnesses and forensic investigators are in on it too? This is where CTs get to the point where they are unfalsifiable, and where I lose interest in them. By this logic you can make a CT about anything.
You do not have to be a pyschiatrist to know that to get angry like that is a certain sign of frustration, like a cheating spouse.
You see that during our entire talk I have not once resorted to so much as a mild insult. My "note" was very straightforward and very valid, yet these political science majors could only muster up that I am a jerk off? That is embarrassing, Dave. You HAVE NOT given good answers to any of them. The photos dont add up. You cant tell me why there is no surveillance at the pentagon. You cant tell me why they refused to be alone or under oath before the commission....
oh yeah and you never answered how tower 7 fell a block away, 8 hours later.
and I forgot to say that you were only ten years old when this happened. lol Just kidding. Why is it that I can carry on this discussion without a drop of animosity or hostility toward you or anyone accross the aisle from me, yet your group instantly spews venom?? At least it is obvious who the NICER people are out of CT's and debunkists."
The reason why a lot of members are acting like that is because they can see you are obsessed with this stuff. If you were to ask one question at a time without coming off as closed-minded or sarcastic, they would actually respond. Most of the people I've talked to on CS really do know their stuff. They just don't feel like debating people on it they believe will never change their beliefs. And I hate to say it but I understand why. Every answer I've given you, is according to you, not good enough. This is not my problem. When I hear about the list of evidence for Flight 77 crashing there (plane debris, DNA, radar, eyewitnesses etc.) is no reasonable doubt that it crashed there. You apparently think this is either meaningless or fabricated evidence because we don't have a video. Since you keep asking about the video, I will give you the answer once again in a slightly different way. The cameras at the Pentagon would be pointed towards the ground, not up at the sky. Like I've said before, most of these cameras were not set up to record and had security guards stationed in rooms watching them 24/7. Other problems with capturing the plane on a security video camera, is the fact that they record at a frame rate too slow. The reason why they don't release a video is because the video you want doesn't exist. If you believe that the list of evidence I cited was all fabricated, why wouldn't the conspirators just fake a video too? Think about this for a while. I know you have not said this, but in order for you to be consistent in your assertion that Flight 77 didn't crash there, you would have to believe:
-Plane parts from a Boeing 737 were planted inside a burning building
-Hundreds of actors were hired to fill in as eyewitnesses for the plane
-Hundreds of forensic investigators who identified DNA from all of the passengers were paid off
-Structural engineers from esteemed universities published reports they knew to be false
-Radar technicians were paid off to claim that they tracked the plane
-Light poles and a generator were damaged in some way to make it look like a plane flew through that area. And this was done without anyone else noticing.
-All of this but the conspirators fail to come up with a faked video.
If you can believe all of that, our minds must be wired up differently.
Not only are your demands unreasonable but you move the goalposts. First you asked for a piece of debris that resembled coming from a plane. When I post dozens of pictures of plane parts and debris you then say "Where's a video?" The thing is this typically never ends. If I showed a video you'd probably say it was photoshopped or something. This is why people don't like debating CTs. Not because they're afraid of the truth or ignorant of CT claims. But because most of the time it's pointless. Here's a quote from Vincent Bugliosi's book on the Kennedy assassination sums this up nicely.
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence"
If you probe every little detail of any historical event, you'll end up with some unanswered questions or find some weird stuff. This does not mean everything is a conspiracy.
"Lastly, I have been very polite not to point out that in reality, you are still very young and inexperienced, and that every man, to a T, will say that he knew nothing at the age of 21, so please do not speak with a tone of "I used to be like you, but......" or suggest that I suffer from some sort of mental disorder. "
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I am not trying to say you are inexperienced or dumb, I am saying that I believe you are making some mistakes in your logic and scholarship that I made in the past. I am aware of all of the claims you are making, and have a few years of research into the debunker's counter arguments. My conclusion: debunkers make far more compelling, logical arguments, and refer to actual evidence, not just some anomalies that laypeople find baffling.
"oh yeah and you never answered how tower 7 fell a block away, 8 hours later. "
I did discuss this earlier in our conversation. If you want a technical report, there is the NIST report on building 7 which concluded the building resulted in a progressive collapse due to fire. Despite what a lot of CT sites claim, the fires were large and on at least 16 floors, making it one of the largest, if not the largest office fire in history.(based on area of the building) The building showed signs of weakening around 3 pm, and was deemed unstable by structural engineers who assessed it on site. If you read the firefighter testimony, it all corroborates NIST's hypothesis. If you want to argue that explosives or thermite were used, you need to provide some evidence. To say "I don't understand how the building collapsed, therefore it was x", you are making an argument from ignorance logical fallacy. If you don't want to read NIST's conclusions or read any of the material on "debunkoid" sites, I did show you a video of another building that collapsed from fire. This should be sufficient to establish that building can be weakened by fire, and can in fact collapse.
"WHY DID HE REFUSE TO GO UNDER OATH???? You also failed to answer that. because there IS NO ANSWER!!!!!!! Except to hide and pretend it didn't happen!"
I'm beginning to think you do not read my entire posts. I have addressed this already. This is speculation on my part, but couldn't it just be that Bush didn't know wtf was going on at the time, and that going under oath could result in perjury charges for something he might say out of ignorance or confusion? And like I pointed out before, if these conspirators were going to plan this all out, wouldn't they know that at some time they would have to testify? Why wouldn't they write out a script for Bush to memorize or something. There's another possibility I think even you would consider. Maybe there is something Bush knew beforehand about the attacks. Whether it was some small details or that he knew about everything. (LIHOP scenario) I personally doubt that is the case, but it is a far more believable scenario than Bush and his cronies orchestrated the whole thing.
I waon't hold my breath for an answer, however, all of the wack, looney, conspiracy theory sites are always more than willing to engage in a discussion and hurl evidence at you. (An abundance of unanswered questions does give a person the look of obsession I guess. lol
You can never really win over a true believer when it comes to debating the details of a conspiracy theory. The best you can do is to try and show where they went wrong with a particular claim and hope that they start to see on their own their bad thinking. When shown the evidence requested, Sean either moved the goal post or found some other way to discount the evidence, by implying it was faked, or by ignoring it entirely. The answers I gave make a lot of sense to me, and are backed by the evidence and expert opinion. If asked to ever do something like this again, I would decline. There are plenty of reasonable people out there who are sincere when they ask questions about 9/11 or JFK and those are the people I'd like to have a conversation with. When someone asks dozens of questions at a time or dismisses all counter arguments as rubbish without any explanation, they are simply concerned with "winning the debate." Plenty of young earth creationists win debates with scientists, but that doesn't make them right. Our best way of finding the truth is science, and if we throw out what the world's leading experts have to say, all we are left with is our own ignorance.
<div style="width: 1px;height: 1px;overflow: hidden"><!--[if !mso]> <! v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} --> <!--[endif] --><!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <! /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} --> <!--[endif] -->
Over the past few weeks, I have had an email exchange with a true believer in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, amongst many others. Initially his concern was with some of the content or lack of on this website, but soon the conversation branched off into about a million other things including Bush bloodlines and the Rockefellers. I tried my best to address his claims about 9/11 conspiracy theories but in the end failed to convince him. The purpose of posting this exchange here and not in the hate mail section is to highlight all of the logical fallacies and the absurd reactions to conflicting evidence one encounters when debating a true believer in conspiracy theories. One may read on with a sociological lens, or like I expect many to do, read on for entertainment. The article begins with my response of a "note" Sean wrote about the CS website. It may be hard to follow at first, but the note itself really goes all over the place with that familiar "just asking questions" style. It then continues to follow the email exchanges, some of which will be in their entirety. The text in green are his words. Here is that exchange.
Dave: To start off I'd like to you to consider you the possibility that most of what you've read about 9/11 and the other conspiracy theories is false. I'm not telling you what sources to believe or how to think, but to just keep in mind that you are human just like me, are prone to many biases and are defensive about your own beliefs like anyone else. Admitting that you've been wrong and that much of what you currently believe is also wrong is one of the best things a true skeptic could admit. The trouble is not knowing which beliefs we hold are false. As for your post...
"My name is Sean. I was wondering why your conspiracy-busters site does not allow comments. Are you telling me that you "screen" your callers, so the speak (you know, the same technique that makes talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity look like geniuses)??"
I'm all for allowing constructive criticism. But most of the time I just hear a series of easily answerable questions and arguments from personal incredulity. Edward's "Hatemail" section provides one with dozens examples of such responses. There is the CS facebook group and a forum to discuss corrections. If you are logged in, you can even leave comments below the articles. I'm willing to discuss any one point at a time, but typically I will be bombarded with a fallacious "proof by verbosity" argument. In young earth creationism debates, proponents will deliver a shotgun like approach to argumentation in which the skeptic will only be able to give meaningful answers to one or two of the claims, whereas the creationist makes 10. In the minds of the true believers, the claims that are not discussed or refuted are thought of as valid points. I will address many of the points you've raised, (not all of them...) and show why I find them to be invalid. None of the conspiracy theory claims I've looked into have held up to careful scrutiny. It's important to be skeptical of not just the government but of all sources. This includes internet documentaries and conspiracy websites.
"You may or may not be affiliated with a political party, but the agenda is obvious."
What is the agenda exactly? Like I mentioned before, I try to be as objective as I can but am limited in some ways because of things like confirmation bias etc. (http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney )I look into each claim to see if they are accurate or make sense. Accepting the claims of zeitgeist or loose change at face value is no different than accepting the claims of the mainstream media or Oprah at face value. You would then be just picking and choosing things that fit in to your worldview. In order to better understand what happened, it would be wise to read up on both sides of the argument. The best I can do is to make sure my scholarship is sounds and that my logic is valid. From my experience very few conspiracy theorists have read the documents they cite as evidence for their theory, or have a grasp of the criticisms provided by skeptics, scientists and "debunkers".
"In other words, finally we have the ability to hear news outside of the three major networks; finally a film dares to ask questions that nobody dare ask before. However, instead of discussing it in an open forum, he writes a piece in which his only goal was OBVIOUSLY to convince people it is false, and does so with truly paper thin arguments....... without taking questions!!!!"
We have thousands of blogs from other independent scientists and researchers, podcasts, peer reviewed literature and media from dozens of other countries. There are tons of good sources out there, and not one should be treated as gospel.
"Oh, btw...we've been pretty lucky to have dodged another attack for a decade now! Surely you would think Al QUEDA would want to capitalize on the heels of such a major blow, right? Any fighter will tell you that when your opponent is wobbled, like an animal who smells the blood of its enemy, it is time to pounce."
I suggest you read Michael Scheuer's book on Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden's goal was pretty much to draw us into Afghanistan to lead us to an eventual economic collapse. He also believed that they could defeat us in a similar fashion to the Russian and British armies. Before 9/11 there were three other attacks that aimed to draw us into Afghanistan. The two embassy bombings and the USS cole bombing.
You ask a lot of questions that have been answered, and have been available online for years. 9/11 myths.com and Mark Roberts' website (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/ ) have a lot of great links for info on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The key is to actually read through these websites. You raised the point that you haven't seen any other plane crashes that looked like flight 93. Here is an example of one: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/
Even without this example, you have to ask what other time has a plane crashed into soft soil around 500 mph?
"Then, please have him explain how the third WTC building fell, blocks away, half a day later, while buildings between them remained untouched. "
This isn't true. There are videos showing large chunks of debris hitting building seven. Building Six had a 4 story partial collapse, and several other buildings were so damaged they had to be taken down afterwards.
Building 7:I will agree that on first look without any context, edited videos of the collapse of building seven looks like a CD. (Though it sounds nothing like one... ) But logical problems arise when you try to think of a motive for blowing up a building hardly anyone has heard of hours after being on fire. I have an article on CS about this very point. This doesn't bother most truthers as they will often say something like "who cares why they did it, they just did it!" The quickest way to understand the collapse of building seven is to look at another building that collapsed from fire.
"Also please show me a building that has ever collapsed in history, from something other than a detonation, that fell onto itself perfectly at free fall speed." *Correction: They didn't collapse at free fall speed!"
Ok.. how about the Delft University Building in Holland. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCAQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.liveleak.com%2Fview%3Fi%3Dff1_1210707903&ei=vajsTeqBFKji0QH_stmYAQ&usg=AFQjCNGwNKZ9-dw4Cl1GxDT75Le_AJukTQ
They look quite similar. While it is not 47 stories like Building 7, it's 13 stories and collapsed from fire alone. You also have to ask yourself "what would a building collapse look like?" Some have suggested the building should have fallen over like a tree, but this is a scientific question. This is a scientific question that has an answer. The answer is that the path of least resistance is straight down. In France, there is a demolition technique called Verinage. Check out some of the videos on youtube. The collapses are initiated by a "crushdown" effect similar to the collapse of the towers.
"First of all, there would be resistance at EVERY floor. That means it would have been momentarily stopped 120 times, especially early in the collapse. "
There is going to be some resistance, but the floors were not designed to hold weights in excess of 3 times the static weight. When you have several floors collapsing, the force increases by several times due to gravity. In the case of the towers, the weight coming down was about 30 times the static weight. For example, when you place a 15 pound weight on your foot, you won't feel any pain. But when you drop it from twelve feet, you foot is pretty much destroyed. The best way to think of this is to imagine the collapse as 30 floors vs. 1 floor. After that floor collapses you have 31 floors vs. 1 floor etc. The bottom part of the structure is not just a hunk of steel, it's made of millions of small parts capable of failing due to excess weight. If a critical column or structural component of a building fails due to fire, you can get partial or total collapses. If you acknowledge this point there's nothing strange about the collapse. It was on fire for seven hours without firefighting and was seen with a large bulge around 3 pm by several structural engineers using transits. Also the fires started on multiple floors, unlike most office fires which would just start on one. The collapse was also a progressive one. The east penthouse collapsed first. Overall the collapse took around 16 seconds. NIST did an extensive state of the art investigation into the collapse of building 7. Have you read any of it?
"How about the perfectly diagonal cut through what remained as the stub of the infrastructure?"
This was done post collapse by a clean up crew. http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
"Or did each side burn through to give way at the exact same moment, thus causing an uncanny symmetrical collapse?"
The collapse was not symmetrical. It actually fell across the street damaging a bank to the point where it was feared it too might collapse .http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911d.htm
"I would love to see somebody build a scale model of the scene and re-enact the alleged tragedy in a controlled environment, but for now I'll stick with common sense."
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Why would they have to build a physical model of the structure and fly a plane into it when you can do computer models? These have been done and show that everything is consistent with the videos. This includes a computer simulation created by an engineer who was skeptical of the collapse initiation hypothesis offered by NIST. (But not a supporter of CD) http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/
"The list goes on and on, but please keep in mind that I have absolutely no motivation other than the truth."
I hope you really mean this. As for the "list" you speak of, I suggest reading my article which goes into the "long list effect." http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/blog/2010/05/23/conspiracism-explained/ Once you realize nearly all of the claims are false, your position becomes untenable. It is this that is the difference between us. I reject all of your premises, and can tell you why. If you can show where I went wrong, by all means do.
"I'm getting tired, and I'm not sure Winston will read this because it doesn't agree with his beliefs"
This is pretty funny. I think Edward is aware of every claim you've made in this post. If you think you've come up with some new arguments, you must be living in the year 2004. Try googling "X debunked" or browsing the jref forums. This is all really old, and has been debunked ad nauseam.
"THIS WAS NOT SOME ROGUE ACT BY A TERRORIST BECAUSE THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM!!!!"
This I agree with. Again Michael Scheuer gives six reasons for why extremist groups hate us.
""An anti-U.S. defensive jihad was mandatory for six reasons:
1. The U.S. military and civilian presence in the Prophet's homeland on the Arabian Peninsula
2. Washington's protection and support for tyrannical Muslim governments
3. Washington's unquestioning and unqualified support for Israel
4. Washington's support for countries that oppress Muslims, especially Russia, China, and India
5. U.S. and Western exploitation of Muslim energy resources at below market prices
6. The U.S. military presence in the Muslim world outside the Arab Peninsula"
There are a lot of great books available that answer all of your questions and put them into context. If your interested I suggest reading "The Looming Tower" and "Ghost Wars" for starters. The challenge for you is to be willing to reject your current beliefs based upon new information and more reliable evidence. This is the rational thing to do. In my opinion, Conspiracy theories work in the exact opposite way. They rely upon the least reliable evidence (anomalies, quote-mining, junk science) and ignore what the vast majority of academia and what the consensus of relevant scientists has to say.
Excerpts
"I thank you for taking the time to acknowledge my post, but I am afraid your arguments are set out to debunk a film, rather than seek truth. "
If I weren't interested in the truth I wouldn't take the time to study this stuff. The point I cannot stress enough is that you are still convinced that a lot of these claims are correct. I hate to think of this as picking sides of a fence...
"A commission appointed BY BUSH himself, comprised of his political pals. The fact that these three have controlled American politics for over three decades. These are the things I am concerned with. Real life things, not a point-counter-point."
I think there is a big misconception about the 9/11 commission. They got their information from over 93 different agencies, almost half of were nongovernmental. There were thousands of experts and forensic scientists who studied the evidence extensively. The commission was not just Bush and his buddies making stuff up. There was four years of independent and governmental investigations that were brought together to form the conclusions of the 9/11 commission report. Just out of curiosity, have you read it?
"I told you that from 2001 to around 2006, I was a staunch Bush supporter. At one point, I told my mother that he will go down as the greatest president in history. I had to eat a lot of crow when i admitted that I was blind. "
I understand this. I think our political beliefs generally sway us into other belief systems. To say Bush was a bad president is one thing, to say he took part in the conspiracy of the century without any supporting evidence is another. I think Michael Shermer said it best. The best reason to doubt that Bush did 9/11 was that it worked. : )
"And regarding your claim that I've raised points that are innaccurate or false, again, my information comes from wikipedia, so if you believe that wikipedia delivers false information, that is a different argument."
There's nothing wrong with using wikipedia as source, as long as its coming from the secondary or primary source. The wiki article itself could be inaccurate, but must of the time they're pretty good. The parts I thought were inaccurate I addressed, and those are not on wikipedia. Some points you made I agreed with such as the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the extremist groups do not hate us because of our freedom fries. And just to clarify I am not a very big supporter of our system of government, or the people who run it. If there was evidence for any of these grand conspiracies I would pick them up and run with them. And so would all of the big US critics such as Noam Chomsky. Chomsky's take on 9/11 conspiracy theories. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc
"Weell, certainly, you mean every floor. That's over a hundred floors! lol So, mathematically speaking, it COULD NOT fall at free fall speed."
None of the buildings did fall at free fall speed. Even the Architects and Engineers for 911 truth have dropped that claim. Now their big anomaly is that Building 7 was in for free fall for 2.1 seconds. I don't think I was very clear about the crushdown effect. Did you see the verinage demolition videos? They work by pulling out structural members with cables, causing the upper portion of the building to crush the bottom half. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
"What about symmetrically? Do you not see this? You can not say, "there would be SOME resistance, BUT....." That's it. There would be resistance, hence adding time to the 10 second free fall, yet that was not the case. the building was detonated. Period."
They didn't collapse symmetrically. They all ended up hitting surrounding buildings, severely damaging them. Both the towers tilted before collapse. To see this very clearly, watch this video. It shows the perimeter columns bowing to the point of buckling. http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/34/bMZ-nkYr46wYoure making a bald assertion there when you say the buildings were detonated period. There is no evidence of loud explosions on any audio or video or seismographs, no cases of deafening or blast lung which we would expect, no fatalities from flying glass, and no evidence of detonation cords or bombs in the rubble. If there were bombs in the trade center buildings people would have been able to hear them from about a mile and a half away. Here is what a demolition sounds like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ&feature=related
You don't have to take my word for it but I've looked at both sides of the argument and have concluded the CT claims are pretty much all wrong. There was no conscious effort to try to believe the official story. And I'm pretty well read on the conspiracy theory literature. I just honesty don't find any of it compelling. That isn't to say that there aren't real conspiracies out there. (There are!) I came to my position after carefully evaluating both the quality and context of the long list of conspiracy claims, which took a while. I highly recommend reading through the debunking sites I posted, and to check out some of the videos when you get the chance. There's a lot to learn and "unlearn" so by all means take your time. I used to believe in some of this stuff too, so I understand where you're coming from. But in all seriousness it's important to read up on both sides of any debate, if your looking for truth. While it may be painful to spend hours reading material you may not agree with, it's important, and gives you a better understanding for how thinking can go wrong.
"So, you will continue using the word "Conspiracy Theorist," a blatant tactic of propagandist throughout history."
I don't think this is always a pejorative term. It's taken to be offensive to people who believe some of the more plausible conspiracy theories because they are lumped in with the nutty ones. I agree it says nothing at all about a person's actual beliefs, but it's the same with the word "debunker." I usually switch between "true believers" and "Cts". I am simply referring to some one who believes in a conspiracy theory. A great definition of a conspiracy theory is given by Oxford philosopher Steve Clarke.
"A theory that traces important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal, and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their theory, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society."
"They do dirt, questions are raised, the pretend they are "investigating" it using their political buddies, slowly we forget about it, the book is closed, and anyone who doesn't buy it is called a Conspiracy Theorist or a Bush-Basher. Same playbook, Dave."
But the 9/11 commission was largely based on dozens of other investigations. Including books by investigative journalists, scientific reports and thousands of other investigators who have looked into the backgrounds of the hijackers, the collapse of the towers etc. I think you're point goes both ways. I can be called a sheep or a shill for accepting the "official story." It's not about accepting one view or the other, it's about understanding the difference between a strong and weak theory, and which one describes the theory at hand. But in order to criticize one side or the other, you need to understand what they actually believe.
This reminds me of a point you raised in a previous email.
"pointing me toward books is meaningless to me, because there are books that both conflict and support what I am saying. There are talented writers and spin-meisters for both sides. "
Are you saying it's too difficult to tell whether someone is being honest? All you have to do is check their sources, or see if their work is corroborated by other evidence or scholars.
9/11 CT advocate David Ray Griffin is a great example of someone who writes well, but when you fact check him, you realize he's either an incompetent researcher or a liar. For instance, he claims that there were no muslim names on the passenger manifests. What is his source? A "9/11 victims list" from CNN.com. Now around that time the Boston Globe had released the passenger manifests with all of the hijacker's names on them. How is it that Griffin has failed to acknowledge the Boston Globe article all of this time, while also ignoring criticism of his book pointing out that he was not referring to the source he claimed to have been?
"Nobody wants to believe such heinous things."
I actually disagree with this. There are a lot of people I have spoken to who believe 9/11 was an inside job, who really do want to believe it because they feel like they possess secret knowledge, and that everyone else is just sheeple. Like I said before I have no dog in this hunt, and have believed in some Cts before. A lot of what Noam Chomsky discusses in terms of government and military conspiracies, is far worse than 9/11 being an inside job. He said in an email chat with Kevin Barrett that even if 9/11 was an inside job, it wouldn't make it in the top 100 atrocities list. So I don't think this is a valid reason for why people debunk things in most cases. In most cases people debunk things because they don't think there's any validity to the claims they are debunking, and they explain why that it is so.
"I am very familiar with being blinded by your ideals, which in this country, in this age, are very much pre-determined by us and molded by propaganda at a level beyond expert. They mold our brains like play-doe."
I agree with this. John Loewen summarizes all of the myths and problems with the American history curriculum in his book "Lies My Teacher Told Me." Our history textbooks all portray the US as the good guys, omit a lot of the horrendous things we did (ex. our interactions with the Native American), generally tell the story from the perspective of a white christian male, and gets kids to memorize "facts" instead of building critical thinking skills. I think the lack of a course on critical thinking for the high school level is the biggest problem with our education system. We are also heavily influenced by the mainstream media like you said. If you haven't done so already you should watch Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. It's still on google video.
"Are you not suspicious of Dick, George, and Don?"
Well.. they're politicians. I'm skeptical of all politicians and what they say. That isn't to say that they lie about everything. We know Bush and his gang lied about the WMDs so it is not inconceivable that they lied about other things. The reason we know about this is because of the leaked manning memo.
But I think the Bush Administration was inarguably one of the most incompetent, so there is a heavy burden of proof to be met when one claims they managed to pull off a rather large scale conspiracy. If they couldn't just plant WMDs in Iraq, how could they manage to coerce thousands of people into orchestrating 9/11?
"And after holding three of the top positions of power in the world for the better part of four decades, do you honestly question the ability of these men to orchestrate 9-11?? Are you serious? Danny Ocean could pull that off, Dave. Those three men could rearrange the seasons if they wanted too, Dave. They could even make their kids president!"
I have to ask this again. If they could pull off 9/11, why not just plant WMDs in Iraq. That would involve far less people, and would much a million times less risky. Would benefit them greatly. Unless presented with some evidence, I find it really hard to believe that the Bush Administration orchestrated the attacks. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I also find it hard to believe that any group would be dumb enough to take such risks. All it would take is to have one detonation cord discovered, or one of the demolition guys telling his girlfriend what he was doing.
I have yet to even hear a coherent narrative to how they would have even done it. There is an absence of evidence that would have to be there, you'd have thousands of people who would have to silenced for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, we have a convergence of evidence that shows who the real perpetrators were and a coherent narrative to how they did it. I think the big problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories is that they do not take into account the history of US and middle east relations. We can speculate all we want about what happened, but it won't get us to the truth. If one rejects what virtually all scientists and scholars agree on, and reject in wholesale everything the government says, you are just going to wind up chasing down rabbit holes. And this brings up another point.
If 9/11 was an inside job, we are left with two scenarios. Either they (US) did it and covered it up. Or they did it and left behind incriminating evidence. If A, then we can't really do anything about it, they got away with the perfect crime. If B, I'm all for exposing them. Bringing up past examples of suspicious behavior or even some valid points about political figures that I agree with is not going to say anything about what happened on 9/11. What you're doing is just asking questions. We're far past that stage, it's been 11 years. There are answers, they're just not as appealing as a bombs being planted by cia agents, voice morphing etc. The reality is we got caught with our pants down. And all it took was the purchase of nineteen plane tickets with months of prep work on how to take over the planes.
"I ask you again, don't seek out to debunk a stupid movie. I will hand you one half of that movie, ok? Let's say I looked it all over and I admit right now that the film was overzealous in their presentation of certain facts and were not totally accurate on some of the quotes, dates, figures, facts, and there were a few things they presented that were not completely corroborated and may very well have been false."
I've been over the zeitgeist movies for a while now. Most of my articles are about specific claims and CTs, not about the zeitgeist movies. They are as inaccurate as they ever were and don't care too much about them. I would actually say it's closer to 90% of the info is inaccurate.
It seems like you misunderstand my position. I don't doubt that the government and military have carried out conspiracies in the past. Noam Chomsky is someone I believe exposes a lot of them, most worse than 9/11. (In terms of fatalities) For example, our support for the atrocities committed in East Timor during the 70's and onward.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199910--.htm
I don't present Chomsky's take on East Timor as fact, but bring it up as a example of a conspiracy I find somewhat plausible, that is worse in scale than 9/11.
What I doubt is strictly the points I bring up in the Zeitgeist movies. (nearly all of them) This says nothing about my views about our foreign policy or government. It says nothing else about me in general. All I care about is what's true. And the best I can do at finding it, is making sure my scholarship is sound, and that my logic is valid. Looking at both sides of the debate, I've found that the books and articles which argue for a government conspiracy lack the kinds of scholarship you would expect, and are largely illogical. For instance, if we wanted to get into Iraq and Afghanistan for oil, why not make the hijackers come from those countries? The choice of hijackers from Saudi Arabia makes no sense.
Sean's response in its entirety:
"I ask you again, don't seek out to debunk a stupid movie. I will hand you one half of that movie, ok? Let's say I looked it all over and I admit right now that the film was overzealous in their presentation of certain facts and were not totally accurate on some of the quotes, dates, figures, facts, and there were a few things they presented that were not completely corroborated and may very well have been false."
OH no, Dave Don't blatantly cut my quotes out of context now. Finish what I said there.
Such actions, like qouting out of context show your agenda. It is the same reason you abbreviate CT, because it is used so much. You have stuck religiously to your talking points, all of which I have already seen on your site. I want you to answer my questions, not fit your 9-11 debunking where it works.
I want to know WHEN THE ANGLO's WHO SIGNED THE DECLARATION AND WHO OBVIOUSLY CONTROLLED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE BETTER PART OF OUR FIRST CENTURY WITH 6 guys ENDING WITH jOHN QUINCEY ADAMS (interesting, huh? that the son of a founding father would be elected?
When did they relinquish autonomy in the white house and allow an african american nobody to control things?
Are you telling me that the same handful of men owned the white house and all of its dealings, including the initiation of their own central bank, simply "stepped down" at some point?? When?? And is it not a coincidence that they are back in charge in the year 2000? Or do you deny that the Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld family lines trace RIGHT BACK TO The Kights Templar, or to keep it less CT, 12th century England?
If you want to be honest, the bloodlines go back to ancient Egypt (King Ramses (alternate spelling of rumsfeld)
I have to go and there's no sense continuing if you don't see the obvious.
I dont care about an independant film. I want to talk Bush-Windsor. founding fathers, Anglo Protestent rule, and democracy. Let's talk that and how inconcievable it is that these men manipulate the world.
Dave's response
"OH no, Dave Don't blatantly cut my quotes out of context now. Finish what I said there.
Such actions, like qouting out of context show your agenda. It is the same reason you abbreviate CT, because it is used so much. You have stuck religiously to your talking points, all of which I have already seen on your site. I want you to answer my questions, not fit your 9-11 debunking where it works."
There is really no agenda, but I guess I understand your point on that quote. If you read my full response, you would see I addressed those points later on. My analyses of the Zeitgeist films and 9/11 Cts are of just that. I have never written an article about George Bush, Big Oil or anything about the evil bloodlines. By default, you assume I reject all of it because I take fault with what I've written about. Why is that? I have yet to make any assumptions about you, and have not even referred to you as a CT. And BTW I explained why I use the abbreviation CT, and that I do not define it as "crazy person." It shouldn't be such a big deal. If you take it as an ad hominem attack, ignore it and deal with the other points I make.
"I want to know WHEN THE ANGLO's WHO SIGNED THE DECLARATION AND WHO OBVIOUSLY CONTROLLED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE BETTER PART OF OUR FIRST CENTURY WITH 6 guys ENDING WITH jOHN QUINCEY ADAMS (interesting, huh? that the son of a founding father would be elected?
When did they relinquish autonomy in the white house and allow an african american nobody to control things?"
Again, you are just asking questions. You contacted me to ask about how you can add corrections to the articles on CS, and now we are talking about bloodlines and george bush's past. Neither of which are covered on CS, and neither of which are relevant to the criticisms of other theories.
"If you want to be honest, the bloodlines go back to ancient Egypt (King Ramses (alternate spelling of rumsfeld) "
This is pretty interesting if true, but I couldn't find a source for this.
"I dont care about an independant film. I want to talk Bush-Windsor. founding fathers, Anglo Protestent rule, and democracy. Let's talk that and how inconcievable it is that these men manipulate the world."
Ok so we are done talking about the material covered on CS?
Sean's post in it's entirety:
OK, Dave, I understand being young and pasionate about politics. You are much smarter than I who voted for Ross Perot at 21, and this is the first and last time I will mention your age, because it doesn't mean anything except, in MOST cases a person's politics at a young age is usually the opposite of what it ends up. Also, I mention that because part of the reason I'm doing this, besides looking for the truth, is because you can still change. I'd never crack an older person like my mother. lol (I try)
Ok, take your time, but one more thing. Let me put everything in perspective for you. This is not conspiracy vs. no-conspiracy. I'm am right down the middle, with NO partisan agenda whatsoever (especially since they dont exist), it just so happens that the conspiracy side has been going strong for about three years now, and I am at the point where the burden of proof is on the debunkers.
As I watched the film (again haha I cant get enough) with my brother-in law who, up to a few months ago was a hard-lined conservative who told me that I should be in a tin-foil hat when I mentioned these films, and who now invited me to watch a new film, simple looked at each other and laughed. It was funny, but maddening, hysterical, but disturbing; it was all of these things, but never did we think it was uncertain. This is a matter of fitting a square into a triangle....
So, anyway, do what you gotta do. This would be impressive. I'm not sure how we could score it, but let's see if it makes it out of the edit room first.
OH wait, your questions. I'm sorry. Whistle-blowers? I could probably gather about 20 if I had a second, but off the top of my head, umm, Wesley Clark....hey wait a minute, Dave. Why does this sound familiar? Dave, are you using talking points, Dave? I'm sorry, man, but I am being to see a white spy vs. black spy going on. I'm trying to be neutral and you are hitting me with talking points, or should I say hot button topics. lol
Come on, Dave....OK since the answer to that question is everywhere, I'll pick the first place I see and give you that list. I'm sure I knew many of them already.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17961
and the strongest piece of evidence? How much time you got, buddy? (quick DaveChapelle) No, seriously, I don't want to ruin anything for you so I'll say numbers one through thirty (1-30) are on the film you are going to watch. Beyond that off the top of my head:
and in no particular order-
-the look on George Bush's face when they whispered in his ear that morning, a morning which he prayed would not happen, but like Jesus on that last night in Jerusalem, knew it would. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.....so, yeah, the close-up of him in high def.
-while we're on George W (poor kid) and that seven minutes in front of the kids....that seven minutes in front of the kids. Totally inexcusable. (Although, like I said, I almost feel bad for GW.)
-and I promise to leave him alone after I lump together the buckets full of misspeaking, fumble words, saying obviously rehearsed things, looking as nervous as a whore in church, as if he stood to get a beating for f---ing up. OK that's it for Little George, as Saddam Hussein called him, and rightfully called him. Is it odd for your dad's good to call you little ---------?
-- One more Bush thing. The fact that he insisted on taking questions from congress only with uncle don and not recorded and no hard questions....etc lol All of these concrete things glued together by the crystal clear body language of all involved, from Ari Fleesher to the head of FBI with the big cartoon face who got canned quickly, and of course, GW, who all but had a sign up saying My father made me do it! I just want my baseball team back. I can't wait for this eight years to be over. My dad's gonna set me up and.........lmao Dave, I wish that were more of a joke.
-Of course there is all the stuff I talked about with those three family crests and their power. That too, reads like a child's encyclopedia as to what is going on.
-Now, all of those things are heavy claims that I know to be true, but everyone has to find their way. However, more physical proof, that is there for all to see include
--The disappearing airlines at two crash sites. I have not see as much as a seat, or one of those rolse royce engines that are 8 feet in diameter.
-the pictures of the pentagon-----where do I start??
--the fact that the pentagon is one of the most secure building in the world, supposedly, with security camera lining the entire circumference, yet there is only ONE surveillance camera, and it just happens to have the wrong date, but forget that end piece, one camera, out of a hundred or more. There was ONE other tape, a gastation across the street but FBI officials were there immediately to confiscate it.
---Did I say pictures at the pentagon? and in Shanksville.
--Odd report made in cincinnati and put on their website that a plane had an emergency landing in cleveland due to a bombthreat, flight 93.
--hundreds and hundreds of eyewitnesses, there on the scene or shortly after claiming the heard explosions going off down the building as they ran down. Hundres on the scene or shortly thereafter who claim that it definitely was not a commercial airliner.
---Every photo or video taken of the scene, either showing a mysterious shape under the belly of the plane, from all angles, and it's uncanny resemblence to an armed military plane. The flash of light obviously seen before the impact, from all angles,
--Oh sorry George---there was only one tape that had caught the first impact at all on video. It was a french film group doing some little thing on the NYC fire fighter coincidently, when it happened they got it. It wasn't seen until later, yet George Bush says clearly, in response to what he thought when he saw the footage, "I remember seeing that first plane hit and thought......"
--The 911 comission being a joke from the start. (believe me, I was there during the whole thing. It was a joke.)
--Bush=oil=Bin Laden=Saudis
--The owner of the building 7 stating that they made the decision to "pull" the building, meaning it was rigged with devices.
--The symetrical free fall collapse of the towers.
---Did I mention the pics of Shankesville and pentagon? Also the manuever that this pilot would have had to make being a poor to moderate flyer.
---The molten steel at the bottom of the scene that was omitted.
--The blatant suppression of news.
---Building 7
--NORAD blunders
--lack of evidence that Osama Bin Laden did it. In fact, much less evidence that Osama did it then THEY did it.
----I could write until morning, but all of that, plus that film, plus the fact that I know this is a government capable of decimating people, countries, and races without blinking an eye.
(The above is a perfect example of a "proof by verbosity)
My response
Here are two sites to look over about the pentagon claims: http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
Whistleblowers
Note that none on that list had direct knowledge of a conspiracy on 9/11. The closest is Sibel Edmonds who claims to have read about the US military working with Taliban forces like the mujahedeen in the 1980's. This would be pretty big if true, but there is no evidence for this, and unlikely to have been in the hands of a Turkish translator. She could have just been remembering something else, or confused about what she was reading. After all it's been 9 years since she's worked there. The main point is that this has nothing to do with 9/11 or foreknowledge.
On Plane Site:
At first discovering the documentary is from 2004, and includes some of the older sillier claims left out in the more recent truth documentaries, I didn't see a point in debunking it frame by frame. This has been done for the more recent films. But since this is a movie you're familiar with, and since I accepted the challenge, I'll do a point-by-point analysis. Since the film focuses a lot on the Pentagon theories, I will give a quick summary of the evidence for Flight 77 crashing there.
-Light Pole and generator damage is consistent with Flight 77's trajectory
-Engine, FDR, black box among other plane parts were recovered. http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentagonDebrisMontagecopy1.jpg
-100+ eyewitnesses who saw the plane
-Radar evidence
-Subsequent analysis by Purdue University and dozens of structural engineers, independent investigators and forensic experts.
-Testimony from first responders who handled passenger remains
-Forensic experts positively identified the passengers DNA, and personal effects were recovered and sent back to the families.
-Airphone and cellphone calls made by passengers tell us that the planes were hijacked
-Damage to the pentagon is consistent with plane crash. When light aluminum crashes into a reinforced concrete wall, you wouldn't expect much to survive. The plane is not going to make a cartoon cutout into the building. Check out what happens to a F-4 phantom when it hits a reinforced wall at 500 mph.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8
Here is a video simulation of the plane's trajectory, and outlines the areas of the Pentagon that were damaged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
Sean's response in its entirety:
No. not at all. That's ludacris, Dave. I am afraid you are comfortable in your niche and won't change. I will not let you calmly lay these talking points out anymore. I think we should just move obn. You can continue preaching to your choir. No hard feelings.
I say that Dave because I feel myself getting all uptight and it's a worthless argument. You and your associates have "covered all the bases" , huh? I will not have you say that there's nothing there.
Where's the damage to the roof from the tail? If the tail fell off where was it? Where was the plane?? My God, Dave, did you see the wall?? Where was the plane??
Where was the plane in Pennsylvania?? Where, Dave? I do NOT see a plane or anything beklonging to a plane anywhere at the scene. What about the computer monitor on the third floor of the pentagon, untouched??
You are truly hypnotized of you are telling me that a passenger jet hit that building.
So, you refute ALL of that video footage. The flash from every angle, the bumped belly of the plane, the eyewitness reports of explosions....why did the owner silverstein admit that they "pulled" the building???
But the big one.....where's the plane??? Where are the planes?? Did they disappear?? Where is the plane that hit the pentagon, underground? Where was it in the first shiot when they arrived on the scene?? Where are all of the video surveillance footage?? The PENTAGON???!! One tape?? Why did they confiscate the gas station so quickly? Why did George W say he saw the first plane hit the building when NOBODY did?
is that the only picture of a plane???
Dave, listen to me Dave. Planes Don't Just Disappear!! They do not vaporize into thin air, Dave.
This is one of those things where it doesn't matter what the talking points are or what lone picture or explanation you turn to, because I saw it with my own eyes. No plane.
My response:
And so what, is the list of evidence I presented all faked?? You are making an argument from personal incredulity. It doesn't matter whether you don't believe a plane crashed there because it did. Most of the plane was found inside the building, because that's where it crashed. What was left was a bunch of small pieces inside the building which I have presented. When you send a plane at 500+ mph into a reinforced concrete wall, this is what happens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
I know I gave you too much to digest there, and it's clear from your response that you're going into denial mode. I listed plenty of evidence that Flight 77 crashed there, the burden of proof is on you to say how you can make sense of the crash scene without a plane being involved. We don't need a video to know it crashed there, we have plenty of other physical evidence, corroboration from experts, and eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit the building. To reject all of this out of hand would be irrational. The reason why we don't have a good video is because the plane was flying in too fast to capture on the shutter speed of security cameras, and because typically you face security cameras towards the ground, not up at the sky. There is not one shred of evidence for a missile or bomb, and not one eyewitness reported seeing a missile. You have nothing. And I already provided an instance of an open field plane crash that resembled Shanksville. The reason why you don't see large parts of the plane is because most was recovered after they dug it up. Some pieces were found 30 feet deep. I'm curious to hear what you think happened to Flight 93. If it was shot down by a missile, wouldn't you expect large pieces of plane scattered over large distances. What do you think the debris field in Shanksville was, if not a plane that crashed into the ground?
Sean's response:
hahaha. First of all, that is a computer re-enactment, the only shot was a lightpole that could've been in front of my house! But what's great is that they show this cartoon, then flash to a real life scene that shows NO PLANE!! Where is the plane?? I don't care about light poles. The plane!!
Answer this: You say it was hot enough, due to building materials + jet fuel to cause river of molten steele to flow at the base of the towers, and in the pentagon enough to vaporize a jetliner within seconds (which is preposterous) So, is it not fishy that the terrorist's passport, wallet, and the koran were found blocks away from the towers!!??? ARE YOU KIDDING? lol
How could you say, with a straight face (lol) that the damage to the pentagon was consistent with that of a 767??? How?? Where's the tail, the wings, the two engines, 8feet in diametr??? Where are they? Why was a wooden desk left unsinged on the second floor, yet an entire plane vaporized?? It's insane for you to argue this, Dave. It looks very poor.
I don't know what to do if you can look at this picture. THIS PICTURE. Not the ones you carved out. This link, the video at 0:03, pause it look point blank at that hole moments after a supposed plane crashed into it and tell me that a 767 hit it. Did you even look at the cartoon you showed me? You are telling me that your cartoon, which is surrounded on youtube by cartoons showing it to be impossible, is more substantial than this actual photograph taken on the scene??
That crazy, and I GUARANTEE that if we got 10 random people and showed them one of my real life pictures versus one of your real life pictures (frames, movies...whatever) and put one of my cartoons versus one of your cartoons. We would average aroun 9.5 in my favor by the end of the day. lol I mean that, We'll go shot for shot, I'll pick mine out of a hat, and you carefully grab the most disproportionate little gif animation flash cartoon you can. I'll take anyone of the camera angles. One is more obvious than the last.
By the way, your cartoon mentions the security camerA, what about the cameras lined up around the entire perimeter, plus the satelitte coverage. Are you telling me that the most secure building in the world, our nations PENTAGON, only had ONE camera????!!!!! The same number of cameras that the gas station across the street had. So, our surveillance is on par with an average citgo????
Actually, lets stay on that one for a while. lol Let's talk security cameras, Dave. One camera? As Bill OReilly would say, "What say you?" One camera? The Pentagon?? WSY??
Where's the gas station video? Why was it initially not released?? What were they covering up?? Why Cheney and Bush together before congress? Were they afraid Bush would say something wrong?? Why would there be anything wrong to say if they didn't do anything??
My response:
Here's an early photo of the crash site, before the fires were put out. Is this consistent with a missile?
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/01749r.jpg
You keep asserting that planes can't vaporize upon impact of a reinforced wall, but I've provided you with a video of an F-4 phantom that shows this can happen. What gives?
You keep jumping around from claims about the towers to shanksville, let's stick with one for now. And I really want to hear what you think about the list of evidence i presented. Is it all fake? All the eyewitnesses and forensic investigators are in on it too? This is where CTs get to the point where they are unfalsifiable, and where I lose interest in them. By this logic you can make a CT about anything.
"Answer this: You say it was hot enough, due to building materials + jet fuel to cause river of molten steele to flow at the base of the towers, and in the pentagon enough to vaporize a jetliner within seconds (which is preposterous) So, is it not fishy that the terrorist's passport, wallet, and the koran were found blocks away from the towers!!??? ARE YOU KIDDING? Lol"
Well there was no tests done on the molten metal flowing, so by default it was probably aluminum, brass or zinc. (among other metals) You are confused. Flight 77 did not partially vaporize due to heat, but due to the collision of a lightweight aluminum jet flying at the speed of a bullet into a reinforced concrete structure. Similar to the F4 phantom crash. It broke up into a bunch of small pieces, which can be seen littered on the lawn, and larger pieces penetrated the building and were later found inside. The passport and other personal effects were ejected from the plane upon impact. Other personal effects such as luggage, seats, letters, passengers' body parts were also found on the street at the time.
Excerpts:
"An F4 is hardly a 767. Why the Jamie McCintire lies. This is just going to go back and forth. So, I'll let you get back to the CT's on the web. I'm done. You dont want to believe so you will never believe. I'll leave you with two questions to ask yourself.
1. This is a lot of BS you have to dig through for something that is so innocent, ain't it? I mean, why not release ALL the tapes? Why not appoint a truly independabnt commission? Why not testify separate and under oath?? (THat is indefensible)"
But you said planes can't vaporize. And besides both are made of aluminum. You are now making an appeal to perfection logical fallacy. Take the time to read over what I said, and take into consideration that you could be duping yourself into believing all of this. It's called cognitive dissonance. You continue to ask a bunch of questions, I have provided good answers to a lot of them. Instead of just asserting that my answers aren't good enough or that they are "thin", you need to catch up and read the debunking sites. Your claim that I just don't want to believe in any of this fails for reasons I've already mentioned. I used to be a CT, I fell for it just like you are doing right now. The further you travel down these rabbit holes, the further you'll be from reality. I believe I have been very patient and respectful so far, but I am beginning to lose interest. You are smart enough to answer all of the questions you've raised, but fail to because you'd rather have all of the "secret knowledge" you've acquired, then to start from scratch and discover that the 9/11 commission report is accurate. I understand why this is and I hope you reconsider your views.
"Dave Dave your site, conspiracy science has shown itself to be a group of frauds, political science majors and politician groupies who, when faced with straightforward questions, resort to vile name-calling.
You do not have to be a pyschiatrist to know that to get angry like that is a certain sign of frustration, like a cheating spouse.
You see that during our entire talk I have not once resorted to so much as a mild insult. My "note" was very straightforward and very valid, yet these political science majors could only muster up that I am a jerk off? That is embarrassing, Dave. You HAVE NOT given good answers to any of them. The photos dont add up. You cant tell me why there is no surveillance at the pentagon. You cant tell me why they refused to be alone or under oath before the commission....
oh yeah and you never answered how tower 7 fell a block away, 8 hours later.
and I forgot to say that you were only ten years old when this happened. lol Just kidding. Why is it that I can carry on this discussion without a drop of animosity or hostility toward you or anyone accross the aisle from me, yet your group instantly spews venom?? At least it is obvious who the NICER people are out of CT's and debunkists."
The reason why a lot of members are acting like that is because they can see you are obsessed with this stuff. If you were to ask one question at a time without coming off as closed-minded or sarcastic, they would actually respond. Most of the people I've talked to on CS really do know their stuff. They just don't feel like debating people on it they believe will never change their beliefs. And I hate to say it but I understand why. Every answer I've given you, is according to you, not good enough. This is not my problem. When I hear about the list of evidence for Flight 77 crashing there (plane debris, DNA, radar, eyewitnesses etc.) is no reasonable doubt that it crashed there. You apparently think this is either meaningless or fabricated evidence because we don't have a video. Since you keep asking about the video, I will give you the answer once again in a slightly different way. The cameras at the Pentagon would be pointed towards the ground, not up at the sky. Like I've said before, most of these cameras were not set up to record and had security guards stationed in rooms watching them 24/7. Other problems with capturing the plane on a security video camera, is the fact that they record at a frame rate too slow. The reason why they don't release a video is because the video you want doesn't exist. If you believe that the list of evidence I cited was all fabricated, why wouldn't the conspirators just fake a video too? Think about this for a while. I know you have not said this, but in order for you to be consistent in your assertion that Flight 77 didn't crash there, you would have to believe:
-Plane parts from a Boeing 737 were planted inside a burning building
-Hundreds of actors were hired to fill in as eyewitnesses for the plane
-Hundreds of forensic investigators who identified DNA from all of the passengers were paid off
-Structural engineers from esteemed universities published reports they knew to be false
-Radar technicians were paid off to claim that they tracked the plane
-Light poles and a generator were damaged in some way to make it look like a plane flew through that area. And this was done without anyone else noticing.
-All of this but the conspirators fail to come up with a faked video.
If you can believe all of that, our minds must be wired up differently.
Not only are your demands unreasonable but you move the goalposts. First you asked for a piece of debris that resembled coming from a plane. When I post dozens of pictures of plane parts and debris you then say "Where's a video?" The thing is this typically never ends. If I showed a video you'd probably say it was photoshopped or something. This is why people don't like debating CTs. Not because they're afraid of the truth or ignorant of CT claims. But because most of the time it's pointless. Here's a quote from Vincent Bugliosi's book on the Kennedy assassination sums this up nicely.
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence"
If you probe every little detail of any historical event, you'll end up with some unanswered questions or find some weird stuff. This does not mean everything is a conspiracy.
"Lastly, I have been very polite not to point out that in reality, you are still very young and inexperienced, and that every man, to a T, will say that he knew nothing at the age of 21, so please do not speak with a tone of "I used to be like you, but......" or suggest that I suffer from some sort of mental disorder. "
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I am not trying to say you are inexperienced or dumb, I am saying that I believe you are making some mistakes in your logic and scholarship that I made in the past. I am aware of all of the claims you are making, and have a few years of research into the debunker's counter arguments. My conclusion: debunkers make far more compelling, logical arguments, and refer to actual evidence, not just some anomalies that laypeople find baffling.
"oh yeah and you never answered how tower 7 fell a block away, 8 hours later. "
I did discuss this earlier in our conversation. If you want a technical report, there is the NIST report on building 7 which concluded the building resulted in a progressive collapse due to fire. Despite what a lot of CT sites claim, the fires were large and on at least 16 floors, making it one of the largest, if not the largest office fire in history.(based on area of the building) The building showed signs of weakening around 3 pm, and was deemed unstable by structural engineers who assessed it on site. If you read the firefighter testimony, it all corroborates NIST's hypothesis. If you want to argue that explosives or thermite were used, you need to provide some evidence. To say "I don't understand how the building collapsed, therefore it was x", you are making an argument from ignorance logical fallacy. If you don't want to read NIST's conclusions or read any of the material on "debunkoid" sites, I did show you a video of another building that collapsed from fire. This should be sufficient to establish that building can be weakened by fire, and can in fact collapse.
"WHY DID HE REFUSE TO GO UNDER OATH???? You also failed to answer that. because there IS NO ANSWER!!!!!!! Except to hide and pretend it didn't happen!"
I'm beginning to think you do not read my entire posts. I have addressed this already. This is speculation on my part, but couldn't it just be that Bush didn't know wtf was going on at the time, and that going under oath could result in perjury charges for something he might say out of ignorance or confusion? And like I pointed out before, if these conspirators were going to plan this all out, wouldn't they know that at some time they would have to testify? Why wouldn't they write out a script for Bush to memorize or something. There's another possibility I think even you would consider. Maybe there is something Bush knew beforehand about the attacks. Whether it was some small details or that he knew about everything. (LIHOP scenario) I personally doubt that is the case, but it is a far more believable scenario than Bush and his cronies orchestrated the whole thing.
Sean's response in its entirety:
"Give me a break, Dave. IM NOT THE ONE WITH A WEBSITE!! You are obseessed. But it's like marching for a cause or picketing a labor dispute, putting up a sign and chanting, but when someone asks why you are doing this, you walk away.
Because they see how obsessed I am?? What a lame excuse. When I champion a cause, I can't wait to be engaged, obsessed or not.
It is the same reason Bush would testify under oath or alone.
All you had to do was answer ONE of my questions, but you see the intelligent responses I recieved. You would think the Bush administration (or any) wouldn't leave their supporters high and dry, forced to answer CT's with a blurry picture of a cadillac bumper to support their story!
JUST remember one thing. YOU are the one with the website. They are the ones who came up with the boxcutter story, not me.
hahaha I must remember that. They couldn't answer my questions because they see how obsessed I am. That is hysterical. Since you're on such a roll, or should I say, spin, maybe now would be a good time to adress the insistance on being with uncle Dick and NOT under oath. Can you tell me why anyone in the world with nothing to hide would make that request?
I waon't hold my breath for an answer, however, all of the wack, looney, conspiracy theory sites are always more than willing to engage in a discussion and hurl evidence at you. (An abundance of unanswered questions does give a person the look of obsession I guess. lol
OH excuse me, I have a bad habit of answer you in sections when the first paragraph is that outrageous. Although, that excuse is as flimsy as the rest. I'm not even going to ask why he sat reading to children for seven minutes or why he stated that he saw the first building get hit when nobody did, or why he stuttered all over the place when confronted with the very oath question.
And about the building seven. hahahaha whatever you say.
OK, so far you are ducking and dodging, how about why there was only one camera securing our pentagon???
MY MESSAGES ARE GETTING MESSED UP, BUT IT DOESNT MATTER. I've seen enough. You have actually convinced me further. So, before I recieve a visit from a man in a black suit, I'm done.
AND NOBODY IS SAYING BUSH AND HIS CRONIES DID ANYTHING! GW Bush is a punk kid. He had nothing to do with it except having to listen to Dad! And, the CT's aren't putting out any story. They don't know what happened, but it's obvious what didn't.
My final response in its entirety:
Here is the thing. There are roughly three groups of people who take part in debating conspiracy theories. There are the skeptics/debunkers, fencesitters and hardcore believers. At the start our our discussions I took it you were still on the fence, and still in the "asking questions" phase. I was wrong. You are clearly stuck on believing 9/11 was an inside job. I can only speculate for why this is. You have not given meaningful responses to any of the answers I've given you, most of which were ignored entirely. You've made bald assertions such as: "And about the building seven. hahahaha whatever you say." If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to actually identify the specific faults of my logic or point out some erroneous claims. You have not done this, and to my knowledge no one in the truth movement has. I find it extremely bizarre that you keep asking some of the same questions, even after I have given you multiple answers. I doubt that you missed them somehow, but if you did scroll up. If you don't think the answers are correct, be free to point out the errors. If you have some knee jerk reaction to what I am saying, I can't help you. Reason and evidence trumps emotion.
"Give me a break, Dave. IM NOT THE ONE WITH A WEBSITE!! You are obseessed."
I do consider writing for the site a hobby of mine, but I only occasionally write articles. I'm obsessed with correcting people when I hear them saying things I know to be false, but this should be true of everyone. You are clearly obsessed with the list of factoids you've heard from CT documentaries, and this is what the members of the CS group recognized. There is little to no point in debating a hardcore believer in such nonsense.
"AND NOBODY IS SAYING BUSH AND HIS CRONIES DID ANYTHING! GW Bush is a punk kid. He had nothing to do with it except having to listen to Dad! And, the CT's aren't putting out any story. They don't know what happened, but it's obvious what didn't."
You are implying that when you keep asking why he didn't testify under oath. How are these two claims logically compatible with each other? Yeah I know the CTs aren't putting out any story. Maybe that's a sign that they don't have one. The real reason why they don't know what happened is because they are ignorant of the many great books out there that go over the history of muslim extremism, Bin Laden and the books that cover the attacks themselves and the aftermath. For instance, if you wanted to know what happened at the pentagon, there is a book entitled "Firefight" which contains interviews with dozens of first responders who talk about plane debris, passenger remains etc. It gives both a coherent and plausible narrative to the events that took place there. With the truth movement, we just have a series of questions. No evidence at all, no coherent narrative. Some make the argument that Flight 77 didn't crash at the pentagon because of little to no evidence, but at the same time maintain that it crashed somewhere else without any evidence! This is absurd.
"o summary: Debunkoids do NOT like questions. CT's love questions. Debunkoids protect their ideals. CT's seek truth. Hence, it just wont work."
This is just ridiculous. I won't get into some kind of pissing contest with you, but this is such a useless thing to say in a debate. I could just as easily assert the same thing about CTs. 'You preach from the gospel of internet factoids, and never give meaningful responses to where the debunkers go wrong.' See how easy it is? This is also an ad hominem attack. Although from reading through this exchange one could find dozens of examples that back up my assertion.
Since you have already said that you are even more convinced of your position, I see no point in continuing this conversation. If you want to hear what some other skeptics have to say, I have already given you some links that do just that. But the key ingredient to this is you have to actually sit down and read through a lot of it. I cannot stress this enough. Just glossing over the sites will not suffice. You need to comprehend the counterpoints, and then if you still find problems, point them out.
Conclusion:
You can never really win over a true believer when it comes to debating the details of a conspiracy theory. The best you can do is to try and show where they went wrong with a particular claim and hope that they start to see on their own their bad thinking. When shown the evidence requested, Sean either moved the goal post or found some other way to discount the evidence, by implying it was faked, or by ignoring it entirely. The answers I gave make a lot of sense to me, and are backed by the evidence and expert opinion. If asked to ever do something like this again, I would decline. There are plenty of reasonable people out there who are sincere when they ask questions about 9/11 or JFK and those are the people I'd like to have a conversation with. When someone asks dozens of questions at a time or dismisses all counter arguments as rubbish without any explanation, they are simply concerned with "winning the debate." Plenty of young earth creationists win debates with scientists, but that doesn't make them right. Our best way of finding the truth is science, and if we throw out what the world's leading experts have to say, all we are left with is our own ignorance.
<div style="width: 1px;height: 1px;overflow: hidden"><!--[if !mso]> <! v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} --> <!--[endif] --><!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <! /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} --> <!--[endif] -->
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos
uld answer all of your questions about the security cameras. Most of the cameras at the pentagon were not hooked up to record. They had live security guards on watch 24/7. It's important to know who's going into the pentagon, not who went into the pentagon. According to JREF poster BCR, "The State of Virginia was kind enough to provide me with invoices for when the VDOT exterior cameras were installed. Work began on them in late-2002 and on 9/11 there was no camera system to record anything. Fort Myers had several exterior cameras, but the footage was not retained. According to security officials, the FBI did review their footage shortly after the event, but did not find any footage useful (mostly gate cameras that pointed down at the roadway)."
A Glossary of Conspiracy Theorist Words and Phrases
Author: Muertos
Date: Jun 29, 2011 at 01:03
By Muertos (muertos@gmail.com)
Given the fact that there are so many buzzwords and phrases out there used by conspiracy theorists ("CT'ers" for short; we use the term "CT" to refer to conspiracy theories themselves), we thought we would put together a handy little glossary so you can know what the hell they're talking about when they throw them around.
Note: this is not intended as a glossary of popular conspiracy theories, which is why you won't find items like "chemtrails" or "NWO" on the list. This is a glossary of terms used by conspiracy theorists.
Note: some of these terms, like ad hominem and cui buono, have legitimate meanings in the real world which are different than the way CT'ers use them. Terms like this are identified with CT'er meaning and real meaning.
Ad Hominem: Latin term. Real meaning: an argumentative tactic that diverts attention from the substance of an argument by conducting an irrelevant attack on the arguer. Example of this usage: "Barack Obama believes in universal health care. You should not believe in universal health care because Barack Obama is African-American." CT'er meaning (1): any question upon the credibility of any purveyor of CT information. For example, Steven Jones [9/11 Truther] believes the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition. The validity of Jones's scientific processes is open to serious question. However, according to the CT'er usage of ad hominem, questioning Jones or his competence to opine on 9/11 at all is an impermissible ad hominem attack. CT'er meaning (2): a way to try to derail any argument with someone who doesn't believe CTs. Example of this usage: "You haven't debunked anything! You're just engaging in ad hominem attacks!"
Asleep: the condition of being brainwashed, duped, and lulled into a false consciousness by the "powers that be." Essentially, the condition of not believing in conspiracy theories. If you deny the validity of CTs, you are "asleep."
Awake: the opposite of "asleep." Essentially, the condition of believing in conspiracy theories and not believing (supposedly) any government or "mainstream media" source. CT'ers employ numerous variations on the "asleep"/"awake" concept, such as "I woke up," "You're asleep," "Why did you go back to sleep?", "When I was asleep I believed...", "We're trying to wake people up!", "A lot of people are waking up," etc., etc.
Banksters: term referring to financial institutions or wealthy investors who are believed by CT'ers to control the world. Usually, but not always, a (supposedly) race-neutral synonym for the anti-Semitic CT idea of "Jewish bankers."
Coincidence Theorist: mocking term for someone who doesn't believe in CTs, particularly someone who refuses to connect factually unconnected events under the rubric of a conspiracy theory. This term is usually deployed to validate spurious and incorrect estimates of mathematical probabilities as substitutes for facts. Example of this usage: Senator Paul Wellstone died in an accidental plane crash in 2002 just before a Congressional election. "You don't believe the Bush Administration rubbed out Wellstone? You must be a coincidence theorist, then!"
COINTELPRO: an acronym for an FBI project, CounterIntelligence Program. Real meaning: a program undertaken by the FBI between 1956 and 1971 to infiltrate domestic political organizations. The program has been defunct since 1971. CT'er meaning: a vast program of total government surveillance and infiltration which supposedly continues to this day (despite zero evidence that it is active), aimed especially at discrediting CT'ers and refuting CTs. This term is often heard in conjunction with the term "disinformation agent" (q.v.) or "shill," but a CT'er who deploys the term COINTELPRO is affirmatively accusing someone of being a government agent paid to criticize CTs.
Critical thinking: a form of epistemology. Real meaning: reasoned inquiry that evaluates evidence from a logical standpoint and reaches conclusions based on that evidence. CT'er meaning: justification for out-of-hand rejection of any evidence that contradicts CT's as being part of the "establishment" or promoted by the "powers that be." To CT'ers, "critical thinking" is a fig leaf for automatically disregarding any factual evidence that impugns or in any way questions conspiracy theories. Example of this usage: "Of course peer-reviewed social science rejects Acharya S.'s conclusions that Christ never existed. They're afraid of pissing off religious people. Use critical thinking! You can see the scientific establishment is biased."
Cui Buono?: Latin for "who benefits?" Real meaning: an inquiry into who might stand to gain from a particular inquiry; not, however, a conclusion. CT'er meaning: a substitute for evidence of any kind. If anyone benefited in any way from something, "cui buono?" is absolute proof that they caused it. Example of this usage: "Acme Drug Company manufactures swine flu vaccine. 'Cui buono?' Because Acme Drug Company benefited financially from the swine flu outbreak, Acme Drug Company caused the swine flu outbreak."
Disinformation: any item of information that contradicts CTs. Most CT'ers cannot comprehend or understand why people would disagree with their conspiracy theories. Consequently, they conclude that anyone who disputes CTs must be paid to do so, or is deliberately spreading false information. Usually the claim is made that someone spreading "disinformation" works for the government or other supposed conspirators. Often shortened to disinfo.
Disinformation agent: someone who spreads "disinformation," meaning, someone who contradicts CT's regardless of motivation. CT'ers will often accuse "disinformation agents" as being part of COINTELPRO (q.v.) or "Project Vigilance" (a more recent government program to encourage pro-military bloggers during the Iraq War--a project which never got off the drawing board). Usually anyone who disputes CT's will be accused of being a "disinformation agent."
Do Your Own Research: a term used by lazy CT'ers who don't want to try to explain why they believe the silly things they believe. "Research," in this context, means looking at CT web sites and watching YouTube videos that promote CTs. It does not mean reading books or objectively evaluating evidence to determine whether a CT is true. Example of this usage: "Alex Jones can back up everything he says. Do your own research! Read InfoWars.com!"
End the Fed!: political slogan calling for the dissolution or overhaul of the Federal Reserve system. Not always associated with CTs, but CT'ers who believe in CTs to the effect that the Federal Reserve is a tool of conspirators (the Illuminati, NWO, etc.) will often use this slogan. Warning: this slogan does have cachet in legitimate (non-CT) circles and can refer to a political objective not dependent upon CT thinking.
Enjoy your ignorance: thought-terminating cliché intended by CT'ers to make non-CT'ers feel bad about not accepting CTs. This is a condescending phrase used to paint the non-CT'er as a gullible dupe who is "asleep" (q.v.) or "sheeple." Example of this usage: "I can't convince you that 9/11 was an inside job? Well, then, enjoy your ignorance. I know you can't handle the truth anyway!"
Enslaved: someone who does not believe in CTs or is unwilling to "resist" what CT'ers believe is totalitarian control by conspirators. This term is heard particularly in connection with Illuminati/NWO or other world domination CTs. It's doubly ironic because CT'ers are unable to distinguish features of true repressive governments or societies from the imagined oppression that they think is happening.
Equal Money System (EMS): utopian ideology promoted by Desteni conspiracy cult. Similar to "resource based economy" (q.v.) without the technological elements. Supposedly in an EMS, all the world's people will have a guaranteed standard of living equivalent to the way millionaires in the first world live now. Subject of an elaborate mythology within the Desteni belief system.
Even an X-year old can tell... / Even an X-grader knows...: thought-terminating cliché used by CT'ers to cloak spurious arguments in erroneous terms of general acceptance. When this term is used, whatever is asserted, 99.9% of the time, is completely false. Example of this usage: "Even a 6-year-old knows that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel!" / "Even a 4th grader knows that something can't come down faster than free-fall speed!"
False Flag: military term. Real meaning: an attack deliberately and falsely ascribed to an enemy. Example: German attack on the Gleiwitz radio station in 1939, blamed on Poland. CT'er meaning: a massive operation by the U.S. (or Israeli) government or other conspirators which is intended as a pretext for some nefarious scheme that has not yet occurred. CT'ers believe that all wars, terrorist attacks or even accidents are "false flag" attacks. Example of this usage: "The guy who flew that plane into the IRS building [in February 2011]--that was a false flag, man!"
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win: quote erroneously attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, but it does not appear he ever said or wrote it; it may actually derive from labor leader Nicholas Klein. Used by CT'ers to shrug off widespread ridicule and disbelief of their theories. Also often used by CT-related cults and ideology groups (such as Zeitgeist and Desteni) to predict that their ideology will ultimately achieve victory despite what appear to be long odds in persuading people that they're right.
Free-fall speed: physics concept erroneously used by believers in 9/11 conspiracy theories to "prove" that controlled demolition was used at the WTC towers. Supposedly the towers fell at "free-fall speed" (which is false), which is supposedly impossible without them being "pushed" (by secret explosives no one has ever seen). Debunked many years ago, but maintains acceptance in CT circles.
Hit piece: an article, blog, video or news story that is critical of conspiracy theories or particular CT'ers, and which CT'ers want to believe is a maliciously motivated attack without any merit. Usually, but not always, deployed to discredit a criticism of a particular person. Example of this usage: "That blog debunking the New World Order was nothing more than a hit piece on Alex Jones!"
I feel sorry for you: condescending phrase designed both to terminate thought and to place the CT'er in a position of moral superiority to one who does not believe in CTs and is therefore, in the CT'er's mind, not enlightened or is doomed to suffer a life of "enslavement" (q.v.) or being "asleep" (q.v.). Almost always used disingenuously. Example of this usage: "You're totally happy getting raped by the NWO every day of your life, aren't you? I feel sorry for you!"
Intellectual inhibition: phrase coined by Zeitgeist cult leader and CT'er Peter Joseph Merola, referring to those who do not believe in CTs. Supposedly a form of mental illness afflicting those who are not "awake" (q.v.) enough to accept CTs.
Just asking questions: false and disingenuous phrase used by CT'ers to explain what they are supposedly doing by asserting the truth of CTs. Usually used to cover up and obfuscate assertions that CTs are literal fact in favor of a more reasonable-seeming, supposedly agnostic position. Disingenuous because in reality CT'ers do not wish to ask any question whose answer involves refutation of CTs. Example of this usage: "Why did the towers come down at free-fall speed? Why did the BBC report the hijackers were still alive? I'm not a conspiracy theorist--I'm just asking questions!"
Leave the Matrix: term used to refer to "waking up" (see "awake," q.v.) or otherwise rejecting the supposedly false reality imposed by conspirators, government, mainstream media, etc. It connotes the common CT delusion that there is a hidden reality (conspiracies) behind what most people take to be reality. Derives from the 1999 science fiction film The Matrix which involves a literal depiction of this type of scenario. Example of this usage: "If you really want to leave the Matrix, you should start listening to Alex Jones."
Lemmings: synonym of "sheeple" (q.v.), meant to connote blind obedience and group-think. Evokes the erroneous view that lemmings willingly commit mass suicide as the result of following the herd.
Lightworker: term used, particularly by CT'ers who believe in CTs involving evil extraterrestrials, to refer to someone who's working against evil conspirators for the benefit of mankind. Appears frequently in Desteni and NESARA CTs and sometimes Illuminati/NWO mythology. Example of this usage: "The reptoids control everything, but there are some lightworkers out there fighting against them."
Not The Movement: term used by members of the Zeitgeist Movement cult to divert attention away from embarrassing actions or statements by their own members. The phrase is usually deployed when a critic notes the association between the Zeitgeist Movement and CTs or CT'ers. Example of this usage: "The movies [the Zeitgeist films which promote conspiracy theories] aren't the movement." "Peter Joseph [Merola, leader of the Zeitgeist cult] is not the movement." "9/11 Truth is not the movement." "Jared Lee Loughner is not the movement."
Official Story: the opposite of a CT. Almost universally, CT'ers believe that explanations for events that are accepted by the majority of society are false constructs transmitted by the government or other officially-dominated organs of information control, and that these "official stories" are false, where CTs are supposedly true. Usually, but not always, heard in conjunction with 9/11. Example of this usage: "You mean you actually believe the official story of 9/11?" Non-9/11 example: "The official story on JFK is that Oswald acted alone."
Powers That Be (PTB): conspirators. Evil governments (usually U.S., but sometimes Israel), corporations, media outlets, the Jews, reptoids (q.v.), the Illuminati, etc. Generic term for shadowy figures, who are sometimes left undefined, that supposedly control everything.
PsyOp: military term. Real meaning: psychological operation, a form of hostile action against an enemy usually involving tactics to scare or deliberately irritate them. "Death cards" used by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam are a real-life example of a psyop. CT'er meaning: any act of deception committed by any government or conspirator anywhere for any reason. Often is a synonym for, or goes hand-in-hand with, "false flag" (q.v.). Example of this usage: "9/11 was just a big PsyOp to justify invasive TSA searches and the Patriot Act!"
Reptoid, Reptilian: extraterrestrial being of reptilian origin, usually evil, and often possessing the ability to project an outward humanoid appearance. Key feature of the CT mythology of David Icke, also believed by many members of the Desteni conspiracy cult.
Resource Based Economy (RBE): utopian ideology promoted by the Zeitgeist Movement, formerly espoused by the Venus Project (before the messy April 2011 public divorce between Zeitgeist and Venus leaders). A socioeconomic system where unlimited resources are provided to the earth's population in a moneyless perfect allocation, usually said to be technological in origin (i.e., computers decide who gets what). Similar to Communism without the elements of class struggle and with computers/robots in the role of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Does not specifically refer to CT's, but believed in and promoted by many CT'ers as a result of Peter Joseph Merola's Zeitgeist conspiracy films.
Sheeple: singular or plural term for non-believers in CTs who supposedly do not believe in CTs as a result of "brainwashing" by conspiratorial powers. Derogatory contraction of "sheep" and "people." Example of this usage: "All the sheeple out there just believe whatever the government tells them!"
Shill: a person who argues against CTs and publicly maintains that CTs are false. Similar to, and sometimes synonymous with, "disinformation agent" (q.v.) except that "shill" does not always connote that the person arguing against CTs is being paid to do so or otherwise knowingly spreading falsehoods. Example of this usage: "Stop attacking Alex Jones! You're just a shill for the NWO!"
Straw man: argumentative fallacy. Real meaning: a deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent's argument which can be refuted with greater ease than the real argument. CT'er meaning: any piece of genuine evidence used to discredit conspiracy theories. Example of this usage: "You say Hani Hanjour actually could fly a plane? That's a straw man! He almost flunked out of flight school..."
Troll: (1) Someone who criticizes CTs, especially on the Internet. (2) Term used specifically by adherents of the Zeitgeist Movement to refer to persons who publicly oppose the cult. Trolls are often the scapegoats for whatever is wrong in the Zeitgeist Movement--essentially the Zeitgeist equivalent of Scientology's "suppressive persons."
Truther: someone who believes in CTs about the 9/11 attacks. Actual embrace of this term by Truthers themselves is waning; it was much more common in 2005-06 for CTs to self-identify as Truthers, but in recent years most of them reject the term. This term sparked the trend of identifying CT'ers by single-word terms ending in "-er" depending on the CT they believe in, such as "Birther" [one who believes Barack Obama was not born in the United States], "Deather" [one who believes Osama bin Laden is not dead], etc.
Truth seeker: conspiracy theorist. Derivative of "Truther" (q.v.) that is not specifically limited to belief in conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks, but may, and usually does, encompass CTs going far beyond the subject of 9/11. Unlike "Truther," which CT'ers usually reject, "truth seeker" is not viewed by CT'ers as pejorative and many will self-identify with it.
The truth will set you free!: quote from the Bible, attributed to Christ (John 8:31). Platitude used by CT'ers to encourage belief in CT's, again relating to the idea that only CT's are real "truth" and anything that contradicts CT's is an artificial reality constructed by supposed conspirators. This phrase gained cachet when it was used by conspiracy filmmaker Nigel Turner in 1995 for a follow-up to his popular miniseries about the JFK assassination, The Men Who Killed Kennedy (which was roundly debunked many years ago).
USrael: deliberate pejorative conflation between "USA" and "Israel." Term used by anti-American and often anti-Semitic CT'ers to emphasize their belief that everything bad that happens in the world is the fault of the United States government working in conjunction with, or for the benefit of, Israel.
Wake up, sheeple!: desperate plea by CT'ers designed to induce belief in conspiracy theories. A rallying cry of sorts; you'll often see it appended to brief statements of conspiracy thinking. Example of this usage: "They're putting RFID chips in the swine flu vaccine! Wake up, sheeple!"
What's best for all: supposed credo of South Africa-based conspiracy cult Desteni. A nebulous concept usually deployed to justify behavior in any given situation. Example of this usage: "Desteni is only working to implement what's best for all, so why do you oppose them?"
What's your solution to fix the world?: thought-terminating cliché used by CT'ers promoting a utopian ideology, especially the Zeitgeist Movement. This question is deployed as a tactic to divert attention away from CTs and CT-criticism, the reasoning (such as it is) being that if you can't come up with a plan to solve all the world's problems on the spot, then you might as well give the desired ideology (Zeitgeist, Resource Based Economy, Equal Money System, etc.) a try. Example of this usage: "You don't like the Zeitgeist Movement? Well, then, what's your solution to fix the world? If you have one, I'm all ears. If you don't, you must accept Zeitgeist, because all you're doing is tearing people down without offering anything positive."
When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth: quote by the character Sherlock Holmes in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1926 story "The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier." Used by CT'ers as a substitute for evidence and justification for jumping to conclusions prematurely. Example of this usage: "Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. Therefore 9/11 had to be controlled demolition, man! When you have eliminated all which is impossible..."
You are being lied to: slogan used by CT'ers to attempt to "wake up" people (see "awake," q.v.) whom they believe are duped by an officially-dominated information structure. The passive voice deliberately eliminates the need to identify the supposed conspirators. Example of this usage: "Don't you know global warming is a hoax designed to justify carbon taxes? You are being lied to!"
You lose: thought-terminating cliché deployed by smug CT'ers in debates to hammer home their supposed superiority. Example of this usage: "You think Popular Mechanics debunked 9/11 theories? You lose! The editor of Popular Mechanics was related to Bush's cousin..."
More definitions may be added in the future by popular demand.
Given the fact that there are so many buzzwords and phrases out there used by conspiracy theorists ("CT'ers" for short; we use the term "CT" to refer to conspiracy theories themselves), we thought we would put together a handy little glossary so you can know what the hell they're talking about when they throw them around.
Note: this is not intended as a glossary of popular conspiracy theories, which is why you won't find items like "chemtrails" or "NWO" on the list. This is a glossary of terms used by conspiracy theorists.
Note: some of these terms, like ad hominem and cui buono, have legitimate meanings in the real world which are different than the way CT'ers use them. Terms like this are identified with CT'er meaning and real meaning.
Ad Hominem: Latin term. Real meaning: an argumentative tactic that diverts attention from the substance of an argument by conducting an irrelevant attack on the arguer. Example of this usage: "Barack Obama believes in universal health care. You should not believe in universal health care because Barack Obama is African-American." CT'er meaning (1): any question upon the credibility of any purveyor of CT information. For example, Steven Jones [9/11 Truther] believes the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition. The validity of Jones's scientific processes is open to serious question. However, according to the CT'er usage of ad hominem, questioning Jones or his competence to opine on 9/11 at all is an impermissible ad hominem attack. CT'er meaning (2): a way to try to derail any argument with someone who doesn't believe CTs. Example of this usage: "You haven't debunked anything! You're just engaging in ad hominem attacks!"
Asleep: the condition of being brainwashed, duped, and lulled into a false consciousness by the "powers that be." Essentially, the condition of not believing in conspiracy theories. If you deny the validity of CTs, you are "asleep."
Awake: the opposite of "asleep." Essentially, the condition of believing in conspiracy theories and not believing (supposedly) any government or "mainstream media" source. CT'ers employ numerous variations on the "asleep"/"awake" concept, such as "I woke up," "You're asleep," "Why did you go back to sleep?", "When I was asleep I believed...", "We're trying to wake people up!", "A lot of people are waking up," etc., etc.
Banksters: term referring to financial institutions or wealthy investors who are believed by CT'ers to control the world. Usually, but not always, a (supposedly) race-neutral synonym for the anti-Semitic CT idea of "Jewish bankers."
Coincidence Theorist: mocking term for someone who doesn't believe in CTs, particularly someone who refuses to connect factually unconnected events under the rubric of a conspiracy theory. This term is usually deployed to validate spurious and incorrect estimates of mathematical probabilities as substitutes for facts. Example of this usage: Senator Paul Wellstone died in an accidental plane crash in 2002 just before a Congressional election. "You don't believe the Bush Administration rubbed out Wellstone? You must be a coincidence theorist, then!"
COINTELPRO: an acronym for an FBI project, CounterIntelligence Program. Real meaning: a program undertaken by the FBI between 1956 and 1971 to infiltrate domestic political organizations. The program has been defunct since 1971. CT'er meaning: a vast program of total government surveillance and infiltration which supposedly continues to this day (despite zero evidence that it is active), aimed especially at discrediting CT'ers and refuting CTs. This term is often heard in conjunction with the term "disinformation agent" (q.v.) or "shill," but a CT'er who deploys the term COINTELPRO is affirmatively accusing someone of being a government agent paid to criticize CTs.
Critical thinking: a form of epistemology. Real meaning: reasoned inquiry that evaluates evidence from a logical standpoint and reaches conclusions based on that evidence. CT'er meaning: justification for out-of-hand rejection of any evidence that contradicts CT's as being part of the "establishment" or promoted by the "powers that be." To CT'ers, "critical thinking" is a fig leaf for automatically disregarding any factual evidence that impugns or in any way questions conspiracy theories. Example of this usage: "Of course peer-reviewed social science rejects Acharya S.'s conclusions that Christ never existed. They're afraid of pissing off religious people. Use critical thinking! You can see the scientific establishment is biased."
Cui Buono?: Latin for "who benefits?" Real meaning: an inquiry into who might stand to gain from a particular inquiry; not, however, a conclusion. CT'er meaning: a substitute for evidence of any kind. If anyone benefited in any way from something, "cui buono?" is absolute proof that they caused it. Example of this usage: "Acme Drug Company manufactures swine flu vaccine. 'Cui buono?' Because Acme Drug Company benefited financially from the swine flu outbreak, Acme Drug Company caused the swine flu outbreak."
Disinformation: any item of information that contradicts CTs. Most CT'ers cannot comprehend or understand why people would disagree with their conspiracy theories. Consequently, they conclude that anyone who disputes CTs must be paid to do so, or is deliberately spreading false information. Usually the claim is made that someone spreading "disinformation" works for the government or other supposed conspirators. Often shortened to disinfo.
Disinformation agent: someone who spreads "disinformation," meaning, someone who contradicts CT's regardless of motivation. CT'ers will often accuse "disinformation agents" as being part of COINTELPRO (q.v.) or "Project Vigilance" (a more recent government program to encourage pro-military bloggers during the Iraq War--a project which never got off the drawing board). Usually anyone who disputes CT's will be accused of being a "disinformation agent."
Do Your Own Research: a term used by lazy CT'ers who don't want to try to explain why they believe the silly things they believe. "Research," in this context, means looking at CT web sites and watching YouTube videos that promote CTs. It does not mean reading books or objectively evaluating evidence to determine whether a CT is true. Example of this usage: "Alex Jones can back up everything he says. Do your own research! Read InfoWars.com!"
End the Fed!: political slogan calling for the dissolution or overhaul of the Federal Reserve system. Not always associated with CTs, but CT'ers who believe in CTs to the effect that the Federal Reserve is a tool of conspirators (the Illuminati, NWO, etc.) will often use this slogan. Warning: this slogan does have cachet in legitimate (non-CT) circles and can refer to a political objective not dependent upon CT thinking.
Enjoy your ignorance: thought-terminating cliché intended by CT'ers to make non-CT'ers feel bad about not accepting CTs. This is a condescending phrase used to paint the non-CT'er as a gullible dupe who is "asleep" (q.v.) or "sheeple." Example of this usage: "I can't convince you that 9/11 was an inside job? Well, then, enjoy your ignorance. I know you can't handle the truth anyway!"
Enslaved: someone who does not believe in CTs or is unwilling to "resist" what CT'ers believe is totalitarian control by conspirators. This term is heard particularly in connection with Illuminati/NWO or other world domination CTs. It's doubly ironic because CT'ers are unable to distinguish features of true repressive governments or societies from the imagined oppression that they think is happening.
Equal Money System (EMS): utopian ideology promoted by Desteni conspiracy cult. Similar to "resource based economy" (q.v.) without the technological elements. Supposedly in an EMS, all the world's people will have a guaranteed standard of living equivalent to the way millionaires in the first world live now. Subject of an elaborate mythology within the Desteni belief system.
Even an X-year old can tell... / Even an X-grader knows...: thought-terminating cliché used by CT'ers to cloak spurious arguments in erroneous terms of general acceptance. When this term is used, whatever is asserted, 99.9% of the time, is completely false. Example of this usage: "Even a 6-year-old knows that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel!" / "Even a 4th grader knows that something can't come down faster than free-fall speed!"
False Flag: military term. Real meaning: an attack deliberately and falsely ascribed to an enemy. Example: German attack on the Gleiwitz radio station in 1939, blamed on Poland. CT'er meaning: a massive operation by the U.S. (or Israeli) government or other conspirators which is intended as a pretext for some nefarious scheme that has not yet occurred. CT'ers believe that all wars, terrorist attacks or even accidents are "false flag" attacks. Example of this usage: "The guy who flew that plane into the IRS building [in February 2011]--that was a false flag, man!"
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win: quote erroneously attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, but it does not appear he ever said or wrote it; it may actually derive from labor leader Nicholas Klein. Used by CT'ers to shrug off widespread ridicule and disbelief of their theories. Also often used by CT-related cults and ideology groups (such as Zeitgeist and Desteni) to predict that their ideology will ultimately achieve victory despite what appear to be long odds in persuading people that they're right.
Free-fall speed: physics concept erroneously used by believers in 9/11 conspiracy theories to "prove" that controlled demolition was used at the WTC towers. Supposedly the towers fell at "free-fall speed" (which is false), which is supposedly impossible without them being "pushed" (by secret explosives no one has ever seen). Debunked many years ago, but maintains acceptance in CT circles.
Hit piece: an article, blog, video or news story that is critical of conspiracy theories or particular CT'ers, and which CT'ers want to believe is a maliciously motivated attack without any merit. Usually, but not always, deployed to discredit a criticism of a particular person. Example of this usage: "That blog debunking the New World Order was nothing more than a hit piece on Alex Jones!"
I feel sorry for you: condescending phrase designed both to terminate thought and to place the CT'er in a position of moral superiority to one who does not believe in CTs and is therefore, in the CT'er's mind, not enlightened or is doomed to suffer a life of "enslavement" (q.v.) or being "asleep" (q.v.). Almost always used disingenuously. Example of this usage: "You're totally happy getting raped by the NWO every day of your life, aren't you? I feel sorry for you!"
Intellectual inhibition: phrase coined by Zeitgeist cult leader and CT'er Peter Joseph Merola, referring to those who do not believe in CTs. Supposedly a form of mental illness afflicting those who are not "awake" (q.v.) enough to accept CTs.
Just asking questions: false and disingenuous phrase used by CT'ers to explain what they are supposedly doing by asserting the truth of CTs. Usually used to cover up and obfuscate assertions that CTs are literal fact in favor of a more reasonable-seeming, supposedly agnostic position. Disingenuous because in reality CT'ers do not wish to ask any question whose answer involves refutation of CTs. Example of this usage: "Why did the towers come down at free-fall speed? Why did the BBC report the hijackers were still alive? I'm not a conspiracy theorist--I'm just asking questions!"
Leave the Matrix: term used to refer to "waking up" (see "awake," q.v.) or otherwise rejecting the supposedly false reality imposed by conspirators, government, mainstream media, etc. It connotes the common CT delusion that there is a hidden reality (conspiracies) behind what most people take to be reality. Derives from the 1999 science fiction film The Matrix which involves a literal depiction of this type of scenario. Example of this usage: "If you really want to leave the Matrix, you should start listening to Alex Jones."
Lemmings: synonym of "sheeple" (q.v.), meant to connote blind obedience and group-think. Evokes the erroneous view that lemmings willingly commit mass suicide as the result of following the herd.
Lightworker: term used, particularly by CT'ers who believe in CTs involving evil extraterrestrials, to refer to someone who's working against evil conspirators for the benefit of mankind. Appears frequently in Desteni and NESARA CTs and sometimes Illuminati/NWO mythology. Example of this usage: "The reptoids control everything, but there are some lightworkers out there fighting against them."
Not The Movement: term used by members of the Zeitgeist Movement cult to divert attention away from embarrassing actions or statements by their own members. The phrase is usually deployed when a critic notes the association between the Zeitgeist Movement and CTs or CT'ers. Example of this usage: "The movies [the Zeitgeist films which promote conspiracy theories] aren't the movement." "Peter Joseph [Merola, leader of the Zeitgeist cult] is not the movement." "9/11 Truth is not the movement." "Jared Lee Loughner is not the movement."
Official Story: the opposite of a CT. Almost universally, CT'ers believe that explanations for events that are accepted by the majority of society are false constructs transmitted by the government or other officially-dominated organs of information control, and that these "official stories" are false, where CTs are supposedly true. Usually, but not always, heard in conjunction with 9/11. Example of this usage: "You mean you actually believe the official story of 9/11?" Non-9/11 example: "The official story on JFK is that Oswald acted alone."
Powers That Be (PTB): conspirators. Evil governments (usually U.S., but sometimes Israel), corporations, media outlets, the Jews, reptoids (q.v.), the Illuminati, etc. Generic term for shadowy figures, who are sometimes left undefined, that supposedly control everything.
PsyOp: military term. Real meaning: psychological operation, a form of hostile action against an enemy usually involving tactics to scare or deliberately irritate them. "Death cards" used by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam are a real-life example of a psyop. CT'er meaning: any act of deception committed by any government or conspirator anywhere for any reason. Often is a synonym for, or goes hand-in-hand with, "false flag" (q.v.). Example of this usage: "9/11 was just a big PsyOp to justify invasive TSA searches and the Patriot Act!"
Reptoid, Reptilian: extraterrestrial being of reptilian origin, usually evil, and often possessing the ability to project an outward humanoid appearance. Key feature of the CT mythology of David Icke, also believed by many members of the Desteni conspiracy cult.
Resource Based Economy (RBE): utopian ideology promoted by the Zeitgeist Movement, formerly espoused by the Venus Project (before the messy April 2011 public divorce between Zeitgeist and Venus leaders). A socioeconomic system where unlimited resources are provided to the earth's population in a moneyless perfect allocation, usually said to be technological in origin (i.e., computers decide who gets what). Similar to Communism without the elements of class struggle and with computers/robots in the role of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Does not specifically refer to CT's, but believed in and promoted by many CT'ers as a result of Peter Joseph Merola's Zeitgeist conspiracy films.
Sheeple: singular or plural term for non-believers in CTs who supposedly do not believe in CTs as a result of "brainwashing" by conspiratorial powers. Derogatory contraction of "sheep" and "people." Example of this usage: "All the sheeple out there just believe whatever the government tells them!"
Shill: a person who argues against CTs and publicly maintains that CTs are false. Similar to, and sometimes synonymous with, "disinformation agent" (q.v.) except that "shill" does not always connote that the person arguing against CTs is being paid to do so or otherwise knowingly spreading falsehoods. Example of this usage: "Stop attacking Alex Jones! You're just a shill for the NWO!"
Straw man: argumentative fallacy. Real meaning: a deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent's argument which can be refuted with greater ease than the real argument. CT'er meaning: any piece of genuine evidence used to discredit conspiracy theories. Example of this usage: "You say Hani Hanjour actually could fly a plane? That's a straw man! He almost flunked out of flight school..."
Troll: (1) Someone who criticizes CTs, especially on the Internet. (2) Term used specifically by adherents of the Zeitgeist Movement to refer to persons who publicly oppose the cult. Trolls are often the scapegoats for whatever is wrong in the Zeitgeist Movement--essentially the Zeitgeist equivalent of Scientology's "suppressive persons."
Truther: someone who believes in CTs about the 9/11 attacks. Actual embrace of this term by Truthers themselves is waning; it was much more common in 2005-06 for CTs to self-identify as Truthers, but in recent years most of them reject the term. This term sparked the trend of identifying CT'ers by single-word terms ending in "-er" depending on the CT they believe in, such as "Birther" [one who believes Barack Obama was not born in the United States], "Deather" [one who believes Osama bin Laden is not dead], etc.
Truth seeker: conspiracy theorist. Derivative of "Truther" (q.v.) that is not specifically limited to belief in conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks, but may, and usually does, encompass CTs going far beyond the subject of 9/11. Unlike "Truther," which CT'ers usually reject, "truth seeker" is not viewed by CT'ers as pejorative and many will self-identify with it.
The truth will set you free!: quote from the Bible, attributed to Christ (John 8:31). Platitude used by CT'ers to encourage belief in CT's, again relating to the idea that only CT's are real "truth" and anything that contradicts CT's is an artificial reality constructed by supposed conspirators. This phrase gained cachet when it was used by conspiracy filmmaker Nigel Turner in 1995 for a follow-up to his popular miniseries about the JFK assassination, The Men Who Killed Kennedy (which was roundly debunked many years ago).
USrael: deliberate pejorative conflation between "USA" and "Israel." Term used by anti-American and often anti-Semitic CT'ers to emphasize their belief that everything bad that happens in the world is the fault of the United States government working in conjunction with, or for the benefit of, Israel.
Wake up, sheeple!: desperate plea by CT'ers designed to induce belief in conspiracy theories. A rallying cry of sorts; you'll often see it appended to brief statements of conspiracy thinking. Example of this usage: "They're putting RFID chips in the swine flu vaccine! Wake up, sheeple!"
What's best for all: supposed credo of South Africa-based conspiracy cult Desteni. A nebulous concept usually deployed to justify behavior in any given situation. Example of this usage: "Desteni is only working to implement what's best for all, so why do you oppose them?"
What's your solution to fix the world?: thought-terminating cliché used by CT'ers promoting a utopian ideology, especially the Zeitgeist Movement. This question is deployed as a tactic to divert attention away from CTs and CT-criticism, the reasoning (such as it is) being that if you can't come up with a plan to solve all the world's problems on the spot, then you might as well give the desired ideology (Zeitgeist, Resource Based Economy, Equal Money System, etc.) a try. Example of this usage: "You don't like the Zeitgeist Movement? Well, then, what's your solution to fix the world? If you have one, I'm all ears. If you don't, you must accept Zeitgeist, because all you're doing is tearing people down without offering anything positive."
When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth: quote by the character Sherlock Holmes in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1926 story "The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier." Used by CT'ers as a substitute for evidence and justification for jumping to conclusions prematurely. Example of this usage: "Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. Therefore 9/11 had to be controlled demolition, man! When you have eliminated all which is impossible..."
You are being lied to: slogan used by CT'ers to attempt to "wake up" people (see "awake," q.v.) whom they believe are duped by an officially-dominated information structure. The passive voice deliberately eliminates the need to identify the supposed conspirators. Example of this usage: "Don't you know global warming is a hoax designed to justify carbon taxes? You are being lied to!"
You lose: thought-terminating cliché deployed by smug CT'ers in debates to hammer home their supposed superiority. Example of this usage: "You think Popular Mechanics debunked 9/11 theories? You lose! The editor of Popular Mechanics was related to Bush's cousin..."
More definitions may be added in the future by popular demand.