Congratulations, "truthers", You Won!

Discussion in '9/11' started by l4zarus, Dec 28, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,116
    Likes Received:
    3,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet twoofers are an endangered species and largely forgotten and laughed at.

    This is because there is no proof that it was an inside job.

    Much like your so called evidence of the lunar landing being faked what YOU refer to as proof is nothing of the sort. It is in fact laughably weak biullshit and everyone knows it.
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,948
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Trophy Points:
    113
    there is less proof it wasnt, unlike posers twoofers dont get paid to sit around all day posting gubmint propaganda.
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,594
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Give them some credit, some of them do it for free, out of the goodness of their hearts.
     
  4. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    "Goodness of hearts" be damned. Just pissed off at all of the unscientific idiots, even the ones that believe the gubmint did it.

    I don't care who did it. Our engineering schools should have resolved it regardless. But now we have the social problem of why they haven't. Computers and electronics that could not have been made in the 60s everywhere but we can't resolve the destruction of buildings designed in the early 1960s.

    RIDICULOUS! This is a mental problem!

    ROFL

    I just remembered, Radio Row was destroyed to get the space to build the World Trade Center.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Row

    It is even mentioned in science fiction where the WTC never existed:

    http://www.feedbooks.com/book/1957/unwise-child

    psik
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2017
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,594
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113


    For me it's a lot more than being "pissed off".



    I do and I'm sure millions more do as well. It's critically important to know the facts.



    Tune in at 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 6, 2017, to watch the livestream of Dr. Leroy Hulsey’s presentation from the University of Alaska Fairbanks. There he will present the findings and conclusions of the study detailed in his team’s September 2017 progress report, which will be issued the same day.

    http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

    "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." - Mark Twain

    The lie started day 1 on 9/11/01 and it's taken 16 years to get to this point and expose it for what it is. It's going to be another bunch of years before WTC1 and WTC2 are also fully evaluated (perhaps Hulsey's next project after WTC7).
     
  6. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If the people who supposedly know the facts about physics had been telling you by Jan 2003 we would not have wasted FOURTEEN YEARS.

    That is what I am pissed about more than 9/11. It did not take 14 years to construct the buildings. How many children have been born and told this crap all of their lives? I wonder if you understand the mental adjustment this must involve. Physics teachers can't be trusted! Does that matter to people who never took physics? But everything works on physics, understand it or not.

    Physics facts are more fundamental to reality than people facts.

    This whole 9/11 business comes down to people not understanding how reality works.

    psik
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,594
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We were explained some of the facts by around 2004 if I remember correctly by those who do know the facts about physics. That is that what we were officially told is a bunch of lies. By 2006 AE911T was founded by those who supposedly know the facts about physics and several peer reviewed papers were written beginning around 2006. It's difficult to get into the many details about what actually happened to the towers when the physical evidence is destroyed and the US government is covering up the facts and spewing outright lies, backed by its puppet MSM. You know you'll never see anything about Dr. Hulsey's discoveries in any MSM publication and even if one does print something it will be labeled a "conspiracy theory" and not a peer reviewed forensic scientific study. At the same time, NIST's unscientific garbage is pushed as scientific fact by the MSM regardless that even NIST called it a theory.

    You're right about many of these cowards whose livelihoods depend on supporting the official government position. There are many who are outspoken though, they're not all like that. For example David Chandler and Leroy Hulsey.

    Most have no clue and don't know the first thing about physics so they just go along with the program or are not interested.

    They are both reality. Physics facts can expose facts about people, especially those who distort physics facts, namely those who controlled the NIST "investigations".

    You can't judge everyone like that. Many of are fully aware of the reality, it's a matter of educating the rest who are interested. And it's up to those who aware to do their best to try to educate them regardless of the obstacles.
     
  8. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Many? That's TWO. And notice that they are both kind of elderly near retirement.

    So the education issue is that, what if the people who did this knew that the vast majority of engineers and physicists would jump all over it and prove that it was crap in a matter of months? Would they have even tried it? So what does it say about their understanding of the mass psychology of the "educated" people that this society produces.

    That is part of why I think the psychology of this issue is ultimately more important than who did it. How do we whip all of these supposed educators into shape?

    psik
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,594
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those are only 2 examples that I know of because you mentioned physics teachers. As far as other physics experts, there are nearly 3,000 known names who have endorsed their opposition to the official narrative. It is unknown how many actual physics teachers disagree with the official narrative. It is an interesting question though and even more interesting is how they treat the 9/11 narrative in the classroom if at all.

    Part of the problem is fear (ridicule and a potential career hazard), ignorance, trust and apathy. It is well known that many are still unaware about the destruction of WTC7 on 9/11. Unless and until the MSM exposes the 9/11 "investigations", particularly NIST, as opposed to lumping all contradictions as "conspiracy theories", nothing will change. Most people are plain gullible sheep.

    The thing is if you read the comments following any 9/11 article or video, the vast majority do not buy the official narrative despite the silence and/or endorsement of the official narrative by educators. A PBS station broadcasted AE911T's video for several days I believe in Colorado and it had the largest audience ever for PBS in that area.
     
  10. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    http://www.txstate.edu/physics/NT-REST/REST-scope.html

    I wonder how many people good at physics would want to teach it in high school.

    Can this issue be "won" unless most people "understand" that the so called collapses have not been analyzed properly and some of what it takes to do that?

    psik
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,594
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IMO high school is the place to teach fundamental physics and not apply it to 9/11. The proper place to apply physics to a 9/11 discussion is college. I can't believe the University of Alaska Fairbanks is the only venue of higher education in the US that ever went into detail on this issue but I could be wrong.

    Most people who don't believe the OCT also don't believe 9/11 has ever been properly investigated and that includes the belief that the destruction of the towers on 9/11 were never legitimately analyzed. The problem is educating those who just yield to authority to do their thinking. Unfortunately that also includes many of those with a physics education. But all is not lost, the vast majority of those who read the article in the publication below are well versed on the science of physics.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2017
  12. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The Europhyiscs article is pandering to fraud...much like the "truther" movement:

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/


    "....Unfortunately, that truly scientific and impartial study is not this paper. EPN, which is run by the European Physics Agency and owned by EDP Sciences (a company unrelated to the the entity that owns the European Scientific Journal), even put a disclaimer at the beginning of the story stating that it was “somewhat different” from its “purely scientific articles” in that it includes “some” speculation:

    'This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.'


    These caveats in place, a variety of websites — notably the website Anon HQ — published the claim that this news feature was a scientific article published in the European Scientific Journal, suggesting that because it was peer-reviewed it was a stronger validation than than previously published conspiracy theories. In response, the publishers of the European Scientific Journal issued a statement clarifying that they had nothing to do with the article...."


    But keep flogging that tinfoil, Bob. Who knows, maybe you can single handedly keep the "twoof" alive!
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2019
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,594
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is "flogging that tinfoil" and what is "twoof" and what do I have to do with the Europhysics article (other than post it)? Just rhetorical questions.

    So Snopes claims:

    The Europhysics Newsarticle relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new, including:

    So who "discredited" those claims long before the Europhysics article was even conceived? Yep Popular Mechanics and NIST. And those "numerous engineers and scientists"? Yep all NIST employees.

    And why do you feel the need to post the above drivel in violation of forum rules? Does it help support Snopes or YOU somehow?

    The article has well over 1/2 million views and by the title of the publication is most likely read by the industry it targets. The fact that NIST stands by its reports has been well known for years prior to the article. You don't like it? Well that's fine with me. You'd rather believe NIST, Popular Mechanics and Snopes? That's ok with me too. You're trying to convince me of something? If what you posted and especially what I quoted above is your best shot you need to keep your day job, trust me on this.
     
  14. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,110
    Likes Received:
    11,949
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, committing truth is a flagrant crime in these United States today.

    As you embrace the vacuum of common sense that is the official government story, people will be amazed at your brilliant powers of critical thinking. :deadhorse:
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,409
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,594
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's more truth you won't find in the MSM:



    Our Troops do NOT Protect Our Freedom and We Should Stop Thanking Them for Doing So

    Let's make one thing crystal clear, no member of the US military contributes in any way whatsoever to protecting the freedoms of the American people. As a matter of fact, they are more likely to turn their weapons on you than they are to defend your Constitutional rights.

    The only people on this planet Earth who can affect your freedom are members of Congress, local legislators and the members of enforcement institutions who will blindly follow the rulers who sign their paychecks. And, while your beloved troops are murdering people around the globe, yes, I said murdering, your Congress and local legislators are eliminating your freedoms, en masse, without any intervention by our so-called protectors in the armed forces.

    There is no honor in volunteering to go anywhere in the world and kill anybody you are told to, without question, without historical background and without verifying the stated reasons for doing so. In this modern age of information we now know that time and time again our military have been deployed into battle, to kill and be killed, for reasons that in no way shape or form resemble the reasons for which they, or we were told at the time. This is no secret, although many Americans refuse to take off the flag that is wrapped around their eyes and see American history as it really happened. They blindly believe what was told to them by the people who have a vested interest in maintaining myths and misconceptions.

    The US military, not once but twice, committed the single largest mass murders in history by dropping nuclear weapons on civilian populations, including of course, on women and children. Say what you want about how it helped end the war....the bottom line is the US could have exploded these devices over uninhabited territory with the same effect of scaring the heck out of the Japanese. But they followed orders that were lies and murdered almost 300,000 people, without question. As a human being I find it hard to honor such “patriotism.”

    From the Gulf of Tonkin to the first and second invasions of Iraq, history now teaches us that lies have led our troops to military intervention more often than not. As a matter of fact, it is hard to find an American military intervention in modern history in which the cover story ends up matching the actual events. A little research will show you this. It will also show you how the same people are usually behind funding both sides of military conflict and those doing the funding and instigating have almost always been, how should I say this, the 'good guys.' Yep, westerners on the popular side of conflict are the ones funding the 'bad guys' before they ever are labeled the bad guys.

    Prescott Bush, the father and grandfather of George H.W. and George W. respectively, made his fortune by funding the Nazis and Hitler's rise to power. This is the same clan who went after Saddam Hussein in Iraq after they put him in power and armed him in the first place. But why pay attention to details if it interferes with our troop worship and flag waving?

    Time and time again we see that the people who make decisions to send troops to war are the very people who profit financially from such wars. Today's troops can see this. It is part of the public record, yet they still do not question their missions. They join the military with a promise never to question orders. Taking history into account, I see no pride in this kind of service.


    Read the rest ....

    http://www.tvnewslies.org/tvnl/inde...e-should-stop-thanking-them-for-doing-so.html

    September 11, 2001: The War Crimes Committed “In the Name of 9/11”

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/septe...s-of-war-committed-in-the-name-of-911/5311561
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
    Eleuthera likes this.
  17. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOLOLOLOOL
     
  18. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,111
    Likes Received:
    5,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Trump was disliked by 60% of America and by 57% of independents whose votes put Trump into the white house. How could someone as disliked as Trump was win? Simple, the democrats nominated someone as disliked as Trump by America as a whole, 58% disliked her and by 70% of independents. In face 54% of all independents disliked both candidates and wanted neither one to become their next president. What the Democratic Party forgot is, "Candidates Matter."

    Almost any other Democrat, alive or dead would have crushed Trump. They nominated the only candidate that could have possibly lost to Trump. I have to wonder if the lesson of 2016 has been learned of those in the democratic party. Candidates matter?

    Would you believe the two candidates nominated by both major parties had the lowest favorable ratings, ever. Trump and Clinton set the record going back to at least 1956. No other major party presidential candidate has had a lower favorable rating than those two. FYI.

    Highest to lowest favorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.


    1956 Eisenhower 79%

    1960 JFK 75%

    1960 Nixon 74%

    1964 LBJ 71%

    1972 Nixon 66%

    1976 Carter 63%

    1956 Stevenson 61%

    1984 Reagan 61%

    1980 Reagan 59%

    1968 Nixon 59%

    1968 Humphrey 58%

    2008 Obama 58%

    2000 G.W. Bush 58%

    1976 Ford 58%

    2012 Obama 57%

    1996 Bill Clinton 56%

    2008 McCain 55%

    2000 Gore 55%

    1980 Carter 54%

    1984 Mondale 54%

    1988 G.H.W. Bush 53%

    2004 G.W. Bush 52%

    1992 Bill Clinton 51%

    1996 Dole 51%

    2004 Kerry 51%

    2008 Romney 51%

    1972 McGovern 50%

    1988 Dukakis 50%

    1992 G.H.W. Bush 46%

    1964 Goldwater 43%

    2016 Hillary Clinton 38%

    2016 Donald Trump 36%

    If the Democrats don't learn from history and nominate another Hillary Clinton type candidate, a repeat of 2016 is possible. It isn't like the democrats didn't have prior warning about Hillary, in February of 2016 a poll showed 56% of all Americans wanted the democrats to nominate someone other than Hillary. The Democratic Party ignored America as a whole, which was 100% their right to do so and went ahead and nominated Hillary. Hence, the rest is history and we suffer the consequences of their actions, decisions and choices.

    Just remember, Candidates do matter.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
    Eleuthera likes this.
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,594
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does any of what you posted have to do with this thread or 9/11?
     
  20. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You seem to be a reasonable person. Russian espionage is basically responsible for Trump's win. Remember Hillary won the popular vote by 3.0+mil.

    But that's all besides my point. TLDR: Trump is a conspiracy theorist. His followers/fans intermittantly babble about the "Deep State" suppressing "freeze peach" and being so all powerful they're behind the most ludicrious conspiracies/

    But with Trump's election, we know know that's garbage. Hillary losing proves either the all powerful Deep State doesn't exist or, by electing Trump, they defeated it.

    Ergo, "truthers" have "won".

    My tongue was very firmly in cheek when starting this thread. :wink:
     
    Shinebox likes this.
  21. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,111
    Likes Received:
    5,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think laziness on Hillary's part had much more to do with her loss than anything the Russians did or didn't do. Fact is from 1 Sep 2016 through 8 Nov 2016 Hillary let Trump both outwork and out campaign her by a 116 campaign visits/stops/appearances/rallies to her 71. That's a huge difference. Then there was the angry Sanders supporters about the jury rigging of the primaries by the DNC and state Democratic Party leaders. There's more, her inept campaign, flawed campaign strategy, her ho humness and the ho humness of her supporters. It was almost as she thought the election was in the bag. All of the above Hillary had control over. She didn't have control of the Russians, but compared to the above, the Russians are nothing more than an excuse for her loss that should never have happen.

    I think Trump defeated the deep state if that is what the establishment Republican Party was. His was an insurgent campaign defeating the the powers to be within the GOP. Hillary was an establishment candidate, one could say the deep state of the Democratic Party if one looks at it that way.

    Trump won the election due to Hillary giving it to him basically. Trump may have had the right message, but the wrong messenger. His obnoxiousness, uncouth personality has grated on enough people, independents in particular that they not about to give him 46% of their vote again. A different personality, a more presidential persona, then one could say he defeated the deep state.

    Well he did, but the deep state or the establishment is roaring back. You seen their first volley in the midterms. Unless the Democrats nominate another Hillary Clinton and they just might do so. The establishment will be back in full control after 2020.

    Truthers win? Perhaps they won a battle, but are losing the war.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  22. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    To be clear, I don't think truthers "won" anything. But because Trump at various times pandered to conspiracy politics, and more relevantly, many truthers were invested in him as "fighting the Deep State", logically, by Trump winning, it proves
    1. there is no deep state
    or
    2. they have triumphed over it.

    TLDR: re-tune snark meter.
     
  23. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't agree. Not everyone goes to college, wants to or should. Our problem is that high school is too shallow and childhood is extended too long. The nitwit teachers were not teaching important things fast enough. Double-entry accounting should have been mandatory.

    I find it really interesting that thousands of high school physics teachers are neither agreeing with nor attacking David Chandler.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2019
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,594
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Applying physics to 9/11 is complicated and likely confusing for those who are first learning the science. The examples used in early physics are simplistic so that those learning it can readily apply it. While it's true that not everyone goes to college I believe that most who take physics in high school are doing so because they plan to go to college and plan on taking technical courses. I took calculus and physics courses in high school because I planned to major in engineering. I would have never taken such courses if I were not planning on furthering my education after high school.

    I don't for 2 reasons.

    1. See above.
    2. I seriously doubt that the typical high school physics teachers has ever heard of David Chandler or even researched 9/11.
     
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  25. Checkerboard Strangler

    Checkerboard Strangler Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Uhhhh, you left out the Deep Staters and the Q-anon people.
    Hey whatever happened to "Q"?
     

Share This Page