• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

RE: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Mark F said:
Can you explain why it is obvious the radar was faked?
Is it also then obvious the still footage and video is all faked?
And the accounts of thousands of witnesses?
And the recovered aircraft remains, remains of aircraft passengers and crew, etc?
Why do the airlines and their insurers admit those were their aircraft and why did they pay out millions in compensation to victims?

This is why you can't fixate on a single point. The case is the sum of all its parts.
Click to expand...

are you kidding there are plenty of clips and stills posted that are completely fraud and all these expert huggers are forensically clueless.
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

Just to add my bit here
it is truly psychological warfare
when the masses of people can become
convinced that a building falling down in
the manner that the twin towers & WTC7 did,
is somehow irrelevant to the discussion as to exactly what happened that day.

TV is truly a powerful tool
& yes it can sell ice makers to Eskimos.
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

CATiwampus said:
Just to add my bit here
it is truly psychological warfare
when the masses of people can become
convinced that a building falling down in
the manner that the twin towers & WTC7 did,
is somehow irrelevant to the discussion as to exactly what happened that day.

TV is truly a powerful tool
& yes it can sell ice makers to Eskimos.
Click to expand...

Since no one, let alone no masses of people are making such a claim one wonders why you would bring it up at all.
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

CATiwampus said:
Just to add my bit here
it is truly psychological warfare
when the masses of people can become
convinced that a building falling down in
the manner that the twin towers & WTC7 did,
is somehow irrelevant to the discussion as to exactly what happened that day.

TV is truly a powerful tool
& yes it can sell ice makers to Eskimos.
Click to expand...

The root of the problem, though, is the intentional passivity of the viewership, which the TV technology fosters. It engenders a state of vacant expectation similar to a mild hypnotic trance, the hallmark of which is heightened suggestibility.

At the level of the programming available on TV, the effects of the high rate of context switching should not be discounted. Imagination shapes psychology, and psychology affects physiology. And the passive TV viewer's imagination is directed by the television program he's viewing.
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

_Markum_ said:
The root of the problem, though, is the intentional passivity of the viewership, which the TV technology fosters. It engenders a state of vacant expectation similar to a mild hypnotic trance, the hallmark of which is heightened suggestibility.

At the level of the programming available on TV, the effects of the high rate of context switching should not be discounted. Imagination shapes psychology, and psychology affects physiology. And the passive TV viewer's imagination is directed by the television program he's viewing.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

People 'forget', or don't want to know, that they live in 'historical times'.

Mankind is still in its infancy.

Wish so much they would start to grow up!

Cheers
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

just my bit on the subject
but there is a lot of stuff that could be labeled as evidence
or it could be dismissed as not relevant.

Lots of stuff brought up as evidence, is in conflict with other bits
that are also evidence. The tricky part is sorting out what constitutes
evidence and what should be ignored as not-evidence.
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

CATiwampus said:
just my bit on the subject
but there is a lot of stuff that could be labeled as evidence
or it could be dismissed as not relevant.

Lots of stuff brought up as evidence, is in conflict with other bits
that are also evidence. The tricky part is sorting out what constitutes
evidence and what should be ignored as not-evidence.
Click to expand...

Correct. And this is the point where the Truther arguments always fall down. They have never been able to gather all the evidence, figure out which bits are relevant and which are not, then piece them together into a plausible narrative.

Instead we get endless circular drivel about free-fall and uniform collapses.
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

drivel about free-fall and uniform collapses
Click to expand...

your attitude is showing, "drivel" indeed?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

one feature of the uniformity of the "collapse" events
for the towers & 7, is the fact that all three buildings were
completely destroyed. The fact of complete destruction
sets off alarms with Police & Fire fighters.

The fact that nobody tested for explosive residue
speaks volumes about a cover-up.
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

CATiwampus said:
your attitude is showing, "drivel" indeed?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

one feature of the uniformity of the "collapse" events
for the towers & 7, is the fact that all three buildings were
completely destroyed. The fact of complete destruction
sets off alarms with Police & Fire fighters.

The fact that nobody tested for explosive residue
speaks volumes about a cover-up.
Click to expand...

Do you concur that in 7 World Trade Center the collapse of the East Mechanical Penthouse confirms it was Column 79 that failed first? A simple YES or NO will do.
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

Mark F said:
Column 79 that failed first
Click to expand...

I have insufficient evidence to say "yes" or " no" to this.

What is apparent, is the fact that the manner of "collapse" of
the Twin towers & 7 clearly indicates an engineered demolition.
rather than the result of damage & fires.
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

CATiwampus said:
I have insufficient evidence to say "yes" or " no" to this.
Click to expand...

No. Now you are taking a page from HD and Koko and weaseling out since this is not what you said the other day. This is very simple. Watch the videos again. Does the collapse of the EMP into the structure precede the rest of the collapse event? Does Column 79 support the EMP? Doesn't the falling in of the EPH prior to the collapse of the remainder of the structure indicate a failure of Column 79?

This is a simple point that does nothing to damage your contention of magical silent explosives that leave no noise, flash, blast, produce no high velocity fragments and can survive 7 hours of fire. So just answer the question:

Did Column 79 fail first?

If you can't answer something as fundamental as that then you have no basis to claim you know it was an engineering demolition. At best that is totally uninformed opinion.
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

Mark F said:
At best that is totally uninformed opinion.
Click to expand...

Pretty much summed up trutherdom with that statement.
 
Last edited:
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

Oh, look! A dumb cartoon! I'm convinced...:roll:
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

Talk about being convinced, it was the words of Bush & Co that convinced me. Those guys always tell the truth and are always so knowledgeable. :lol:
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

Just my opinion here, but the official story is a JOKE
note that when ( & at taxpayer expense ) the NIST publishes
crap like IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN EXPLOSIVES,
EXPLOSIVES WOULD HAVE MADE NOISE! OH MY!

Get real ......... its a cartoon, and it would be funny if not for being so tragic.
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

imo.
the conspiracy theories are a tragic joke. A select few produce and play to a specific group of people. Some make a money on it. CT authors are masters at using partial facts, utilizing "what if", and leading the followers to a conclusion not supported by evidence.

The mantra is we know the govt lied. Therefore, it must have been CD. It doesn't matter what explosives, it had to be. So there are followers of thermite, and followers on mini neutron bombs, followers of energy beams, and followers of convential explosives. No evidence just what if and speculation.

Each to their own. Like many CT events, some will never be satisfied.
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

just a comment,
did you know that a 50 cal. supersonic bullet
will bounce off the surface of a pond? most certainly can and has
on a number of occasions. Now consider the angle that the alleged
FLT77 was to have impacted the Pentagon, still think that 99% of the
aircraft should have ended up inside the building?
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

CATiwampus said:
just a comment,
did you know that a 50 cal. supersonic bullet
will bounce off the surface of a pond? most certainly can and has
on a number of occasions. Now consider the angle that the alleged
FLT77 was to have impacted the Pentagon, still think that 99% of the
aircraft should have ended up inside the building?
Click to expand...

Is this a joke? Are you serious?
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

CATiwampus said:
just a comment,
did you know that a 50 cal. supersonic bullet
will bounce off the surface of a pond? most certainly can and has
on a number of occasions. Now consider the angle that the alleged
FLT77 was to have impacted the Pentagon, still think that 99% of the
aircraft should have ended up inside the building?
Click to expand...

Wow. While I have no doubt that when fired at a shallow enough angle it might be possible to skip a bullet off water what this has to do with the attack on the Pentagon boggles the mind.

That Flight 77 penetrated the Pentagon outer facade and most of the aircraft ended up within the structure is a historical fact. Your refusal to acknowledge reality does not change reality. You have yet to even attempt to offer up an alternative hypothesis so once again we are forced to chose between reality and your biased personal incredulity.

Why would anyone not chose reality?
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

Mark F said:
Wow. While I have no doubt that when fired at a shallow enough angle it might be possible to skip a bullet off water what this has to do with the attack on the Pentagon boggles the mind.

That Flight 77 penetrated the Pentagon outer facade and most of the aircraft ended up within the structure is a historical fact. Your refusal to acknowledge reality does not change reality. You have yet to even attempt to offer up an alternative hypothesis so once again we are forced to chose between reality and your biased personal incredulity.

Why would anyone not chose reality?
Click to expand...

You allege that the hijacked "FLT77" struck the Pentagon wall
and then 99% of the aircraft disappeared inside.
and when confronted with evidence that this could not possibly
be the case, you simply repeat the allegation.
Thank U very much!
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

CATiwampus said:
You allege that the hijacked "FLT77" struck the Pentagon wall
and then 99% of the aircraft disappeared inside.
and when confronted with evidence that this could not possibly
be the case, you simply repeat the allegation.
Thank U very much!
Click to expand...

I allege no particular percentage, just that a majority of the aircraft ended up either within the structure and/or blown to very tiny bits. This is a very reasonable assumption since we know 3 rings of the Pentagon were penetrated and we know where the debris and the human remains of the passengers and crew were found. This is not an allegation - it is an evidenced based hypothesis that meets the requirements for prima facie.

You OTOH have presented no evidence to the contrary, just your assertions that what happened is not what you would have expected to happen peppered with a few irrelevant analogies, therefore you reject reality. That's fine, more power to you. But again, don't expect me to accept your uninformed opinion and deeply biased personal incredulity as evidence.

Will you at some point be describing what did hit the Pentagon that explains all the known evidence in a way that overturns the Flight 77 hypothesis?
Will you also then be explaining what exactly happened to Flight 77 and all those aboard her, again supported by evidence and not bare assertion or innuendo?
 
Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

Yes, the same airplane that left but a crack on the exterior, leading everybody who saw the crack to doubt that any airplane had struck there, ALSO penetrated through 3 rings, leaving a neat little 'exit hole' for the photographers. :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom