the-psychology-of-conspiracy-denial

[fyrenza]

Oh, come on. You really expect me to believe that a "seeker after truth" hasn't looked for all sides on her own?

I'd say you've got your mind made up, and you're not interested in contradictory views.

Believe whatever you want ~ I've proven that I'll accept LOGIC over my own opinion ~ case in point, one of the Eugenics threads, where I had to fall back, regroup and bow to the greater LOGIC.

Show me, with irrefutable proof, and I'll stand up and say I was wrong.

 

[Obamerican]

Then what are you doing to correct the injustices you see?

Let me guess: You're "raising awareness" by posting on the internet.

That's part of it!

WTF DO you do when YOU KNOW that the earth is ROUND, but everyone keeps believing that it's flat???

We've (supposedly) got it much easier than Columbus did, since it's assumed that EVERYONE has access to basic information, and specifically, Scientific information,

but even when THAT is produced, you're STILL considered a "loon."

The laws of physics aren't something that can be monkeyed around with ~

they ARE what they are.

Even above and beyond THAT, as in the case of the WTC, just look around. Have you seen other buildings that have collapsed? There are parts of them still standing. Even if the TOP collapses, the bottom is still THERE, and there are long lengths of the girders sticking out, or at the very least, to be found in the rubble. How anyone could watch the footage of this disaster and NOT have thought "controlled demolition" is beyond me.

Y'all have seen the Empire State building, right? A B-25 BOMBER crashed into it, the fuel exploded INSIDE the building, and a fuel fire burnt for all of an hour before dying back,

Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Building

yet it STOOD, and indeed, was REBUILT.

Cripes, the damned thing wasn't completed until 1931, so what about the materials used to build it? Were they BETTER than the materials used for the WTC, which was started in the early '60's?

That's just a layman's observations, taking NO science into account, so when you also add the science of physics to the puzzle, and PROVE, without a doubt, that the official story is just THAT, a STORY,

how can anyone just turn their back on DEMANDING a TRUE explanation?

I don't think the folks that KNOW are doing that, but they're met with jeers and insults for even SUGGESTING that the SCIENCE of the current explanation is in error,

and that's absolutely mind boggling to me.

There are some problems with your "theory".

The plane that hit the Empire State building was flying SLOW in the fog while the planes on 9/11 were flying at top speed for the elevation they were at. The sound of the engines prove that.

The steel in the Empire State Building were encased in stone and concrete. The trusses in the WTC that connected the perimeter to the central core had sprayed on fire proofing.

One thing that you "truthers" never answer is this: name ONE OTHER BUILDING IN THE WORLD that had the same design as the WTC. Name ONE!! Just because the architects said it would withstand a plane hit doesn't make it so. The Titanic was billed as UNSINKABLE and we all know what happened to it. Of course I have had idiots tell me on other boards that the Titanic was sunk by the Jews!

 

[DiveCon]

Then what are you doing to correct the injustices you see?

Let me guess: You're "raising awareness" by posting on the internet.

That's part of it!

WTF DO you do when YOU KNOW that the earth is ROUND, but everyone keeps believing that it's flat???

We've (supposedly) got it much easier than Columbus did, since it's assumed that EVERYONE has access to basic information, and specifically, Scientific information,

but even when THAT is produced, you're STILL considered a "loon."

The laws of physics aren't something that can be monkeyed around with ~

they ARE what they are.

Even above and beyond THAT, as in the case of the WTC, just look around. Have you seen other buildings that have collapsed? There are parts of them still standing. Even if the TOP collapses, the bottom is still THERE, and there are long lengths of the girders sticking out, or at the very least, to be found in the rubble. How anyone could watch the footage of this disaster and NOT have thought "controlled demolition" is beyond me.

Y'all have seen the Empire State building, right? A B-25 BOMBER crashed into it, the fuel exploded INSIDE the building, and a fuel fire burnt for all of an hour before dying back,

Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Building

yet it STOOD, and indeed, was REBUILT.

Cripes, the damned thing wasn't completed until 1931, so what about the materials used to build it? Were they BETTER than the materials used for the WTC, which was started in the early '60's?

That's just a layman's observations, taking NO science into account, so when you also add the science of physics to the puzzle, and PROVE, without a doubt, that the official story is just THAT, a STORY,

how can anyone just turn their back on DEMANDING a TRUE explanation?

I don't think the folks that KNOW are doing that, but they're met with jeers and insults for even SUGGESTING that the SCIENCE of the current explanation is in error,

and that's absolutely mind boggling to me.

There are some problems with your "theory".

The plane that hit the Empire State building was flying SLOW in the fog while the planes on 9/11 were flying at top speed for the elevation they were at. The sound of the engines prove that.

The steel in the Empire State Building were encased in stone and concrete. The trusses in the WTC that connected the perimeter to the central core had sprayed on fire proofing.

One thing that you "truthers" never answer is this: name ONE OTHER BUILDING IN THE WORLD that had the same design as the WTC. Name ONE!! Just because the architects said it would withstand a plane hit doesn't make it so. The Titanic was billed as UNSINKABLE and we all know what happened to it. Of course I have had idiots tell me on other boards that the Titanic was sunk by the Jews!

another thing, that plane was also at the END of its trip and had nearly empty fuel tanks

 

[Obamerican]

That's part of it!

WTF DO you do when YOU KNOW that the earth is ROUND, but everyone keeps believing that it's flat???

We've (supposedly) got it much easier than Columbus did, since it's assumed that EVERYONE has access to basic information, and specifically, Scientific information,

but even when THAT is produced, you're STILL considered a "loon."

The laws of physics aren't something that can be monkeyed around with ~

they ARE what they are.

Even above and beyond THAT, as in the case of the WTC, just look around. Have you seen other buildings that have collapsed? There are parts of them still standing. Even if the TOP collapses, the bottom is still THERE, and there are long lengths of the girders sticking out, or at the very least, to be found in the rubble. How anyone could watch the footage of this disaster and NOT have thought "controlled demolition" is beyond me.

Y'all have seen the Empire State building, right? A B-25 BOMBER crashed into it, the fuel exploded INSIDE the building, and a fuel fire burnt for all of an hour before dying back,

Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Building

yet it STOOD, and indeed, was REBUILT.

Cripes, the damned thing wasn't completed until 1931, so what about the materials used to build it? Were they BETTER than the materials used for the WTC, which was started in the early '60's?

That's just a layman's observations, taking NO science into account, so when you also add the science of physics to the puzzle, and PROVE, without a doubt, that the official story is just THAT, a STORY,

how can anyone just turn their back on DEMANDING a TRUE explanation?

I don't think the folks that KNOW are doing that, but they're met with jeers and insults for even SUGGESTING that the SCIENCE of the current explanation is in error,

and that's absolutely mind boggling to me.

There are some problems with your "theory".

The plane that hit the Empire State building was flying SLOW in the fog while the planes on 9/11 were flying at top speed for the elevation they were at. The sound of the engines prove that.

The steel in the Empire State Building were encased in stone and concrete. The trusses in the WTC that connected the perimeter to the central core had sprayed on fire proofing.

One thing that you "truthers" never answer is this: name ONE OTHER BUILDING IN THE WORLD that had the same design as the WTC. Name ONE!! Just because the architects said it would withstand a plane hit doesn't make it so. The Titanic was billed as UNSINKABLE and we all know what happened to it. Of course I have had idiots tell me on other boards that the Titanic was sunk by the Jews!

another thing, that plane was also at the END of its trip and had nearly empty fuel tanks

Thank you!! That is true also.

 

[eots]

there are some problems with your "theory".

The plane that hit the empire state building was flying slow in the fog while the planes on 9/11 were flying at top speed for the elevation they were at. The sound of the engines prove that.

The steel in the empire state building were encased in stone and concrete. The trusses in the wtc that connected the perimeter to the central core had sprayed on fire proofing.

One thing that you "truthers" never answer is this: Name one other building in the world that had the same design as the wtc. Name one!! Just because the architects said it would withstand a plane hit doesn't make it so. The titanic was billed as unsinkable and we all know what happened to it. Of course i have had idiots tell me on other boards that the titanic was sunk by the jews!

another thing, that plane was also at the end of its trip and had nearly empty fuel tanks

thank you!! That is true also.

no it is bullshit on so many levels none of which you are willing or able to address

 

[DiveCon]

There are some problems with your "theory".

The plane that hit the Empire State building was flying SLOW in the fog while the planes on 9/11 were flying at top speed for the elevation they were at. The sound of the engines prove that.

The steel in the Empire State Building were encased in stone and concrete. The trusses in the WTC that connected the perimeter to the central core had sprayed on fire proofing.

One thing that you "truthers" never answer is this: name ONE OTHER BUILDING IN THE WORLD that had the same design as the WTC. Name ONE!! Just because the architects said it would withstand a plane hit doesn't make it so. The Titanic was billed as UNSINKABLE and we all know what happened to it. Of course I have had idiots tell me on other boards that the Titanic was sunk by the Jews!

another thing, that plane was also at the END of its trip and had nearly empty fuel tanks

Thank you!! That is true also.

the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 assumed to be at the end of the journey as well and lost in fog looking to land
so the larger, faster, 767's were not factored into it

 

[DiveCon]

another thing, that plane was also at the end of its trip and had nearly empty fuel tanks

thank you!! That is true also.

no it is bullshit on so many levels none of which you are willing or able to address

its only bullshit to delusional morons like you
to most people its called "FACTS"

 

[eots]

That's part of it!

WTF DO you do when YOU KNOW that the earth is ROUND, but everyone keeps believing that it's flat???

We've (supposedly) got it much easier than Columbus did, since it's assumed that EVERYONE has access to basic information, and specifically, Scientific information,

but even when THAT is produced, you're STILL considered a "loon."

The laws of physics aren't something that can be monkeyed around with ~

they ARE what they are.

Even above and beyond THAT, as in the case of the WTC, just look around. Have you seen other buildings that have collapsed? There are parts of them still standing. Even if the TOP collapses, the bottom is still THERE, and there are long lengths of the girders sticking out, or at the very least, to be found in the rubble. How anyone could watch the footage of this disaster and NOT have thought "controlled demolition" is beyond me.

Y'all have seen the Empire State building, right? A B-25 BOMBER crashed into it, the fuel exploded INSIDE the building, and a fuel fire burnt for all of an hour before dying back,

Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Building

yet it STOOD, and indeed, was REBUILT.

Cripes, the damned thing wasn't completed until 1931, so what about the materials used to build it? Were they BETTER than the materials used for the WTC, which was started in the early '60's?

That's just a layman's observations, taking NO science into account, so when you also add the science of physics to the puzzle, and PROVE, without a doubt, that the official story is just THAT, a STORY,

how can anyone just turn their back on DEMANDING a TRUE explanation?

I don't think the folks that KNOW are doing that, but they're met with jeers and insults for even SUGGESTING that the SCIENCE of the current explanation is in error,

and that's absolutely mind boggling to me.

There are some problems with your "theory".

The plane that hit the Empire State building was flying SLOW in the fog while the planes on 9/11 were flying at top speed for the elevation they were at. The sound of the engines prove that.

The steel in the Empire State Building were encased in stone and concrete. The trusses in the WTC that connected the perimeter to the central core had sprayed on fire proofing.

One thing that you "truthers" never answer is this: name ONE OTHER BUILDING IN THE WORLD that had the same design as the WTC. Name ONE!! Just because the architects said it would withstand a plane hit doesn't make it so. The Titanic was billed as UNSINKABLE and we all know what happened to it. Of course I have had idiots tell me on other boards that the Titanic was sunk by the Jews!

another thing, that plane was also at the END of its trip and had nearly empty fuel tanks

there was no jet fuel in wtc 7 and NIST says the vast majority of fuel was gone in the initial fire ball ..first responders made it to the 73 floor

 

[DiveCon]

There are some problems with your "theory".

The plane that hit the Empire State building was flying SLOW in the fog while the planes on 9/11 were flying at top speed for the elevation they were at. The sound of the engines prove that.

The steel in the Empire State Building were encased in stone and concrete. The trusses in the WTC that connected the perimeter to the central core had sprayed on fire proofing.

One thing that you "truthers" never answer is this: name ONE OTHER BUILDING IN THE WORLD that had the same design as the WTC. Name ONE!! Just because the architects said it would withstand a plane hit doesn't make it so. The Titanic was billed as UNSINKABLE and we all know what happened to it. Of course I have had idiots tell me on other boards that the Titanic was sunk by the Jews!

another thing, that plane was also at the END of its trip and had nearly empty fuel tanks

there was no jet fuel in wtc 7 and NIST says the vast majority of fuel was gone in the initial fire ball ..first responders made it to the 73 floor

WTC7 had huge diesel tanks that got damaged too
and it had parts of the tower do huge damage to it

 

[fyrenza]

There are some problems with your "theory".

The plane that hit the Empire State building was flying SLOW in the fog while the planes on 9/11 were flying at top speed for the elevation they were at. The sound of the engines prove that.

The steel in the Empire State Building were encased in stone and concrete. The trusses in the WTC that connected the perimeter to the central core had sprayed on fire proofing.

One thing that you "truthers" never answer is this: name ONE OTHER BUILDING IN THE WORLD that had the same design as the WTC. Name ONE!! Just because the architects said it would withstand a plane hit doesn't make it so. The Titanic was billed as UNSINKABLE and we all know what happened to it. Of course I have had idiots tell me on other boards that the Titanic was sunk by the Jews!

Does what the building is made of, or how it was built, change the laws of physics?

In looking for other uber tall buildings, I stumbled upon even MORE empirical evidence that proves that the "story" we've been fed isn't the truth, and I'll be damned if I can figure what axe these folks might have had to grind with Bush or our government:

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

There have been numerous reports detailing the cause of the World Trade Center Tower collapse on September 11, 2001. Most have provided qualitative explanations; however, simple quantitative analyses show that some common conclusions are incorrect; for example, the steel could not melt in these flames and there was more structural damage than merely softening of the steel at elevated temperatures. Some guidelines for improvements in future structures are presented.

 

[eots]

another thing, that plane was also at the END of its trip and had nearly empty fuel tanks

there was no jet fuel in wtc 7 and NIST says the vast majority of fuel was gone in the initial fire ball ..first responders made it to the 73 floor

WTC7 had huge diesel tanks that got damaged too
and it had parts of the tower do huge damage to it

NIST states damage and stored fuel played no significant role in the collapse once again divecon is in contradiction with the theory he claims to support

 

[daveman]

Believe it or not, I actually SPEAK that way, in real life!

Oh, I know I "look crazy," to you,

but what do you look like, refusing to even EXPLORE, learn and come to YOUR OWN conclusion,

not some half-baked "story" of events?

And how do you know I haven't explored other explanations? Because I don't agree with yours?

Nope. I've looked at both sides. I chose the explanation that fits the facts and the science.

Are there vids you've watched that convince you of your correctness?

Again, not trying to get up in your face, but I'd surely appreciate you sharing them with me, 'cuz the debunking shit I've read is just that ~ shit ~ and I'd LIKE to examine the other side of this coin, but first and foremost,

IT MUST MAKE LOGICAL SENSE, and be backed up with IRREFUTABLE scientific FACT, not just someone's by-guess-and-by-golly opinion, you know?

Oh, come on. You really expect me to believe that a "seeker after truth" hasn't looked for all sides on her own?

I'd say you've got your mind made up, and you're not interested in contradictory views.

Occams Razor usually covers it for me

Would that be some of that there "logic" stuff people claim to believe in?

 

[eots]

and how do you know i haven't explored other explanations? Because i don't agree with yours?

Nope. I've looked at both sides. I chose the explanation that fits the facts and the science.

Oh, come on. You really expect me to believe that a "seeker after truth" hasn't looked for all sides on her own?

I'd say you've got your mind made up, and you're not interested in contradictory views.

occams razor usually covers it for me

would that be some of that there "logic" stuff people claim to believe in?

no the misused premise of the razor is not logic..

 

[daveman]

Oh, come on. You really expect me to believe that a "seeker after truth" hasn't looked for all sides on her own?

I'd say you've got your mind made up, and you're not interested in contradictory views.

Believe whatever you want ~ I've proven that I'll accept LOGIC over my own opinion ~ case in point, one of the Eugenics threads, where I had to fall back, regroup and bow to the greater LOGIC.

Show me, with irrefutable proof, and I'll stand up and say I was wrong.

Why should I bother wasting my time?

 

[daveman]

occams razor usually covers it for me

would that be some of that there "logic" stuff people claim to believe in?

no the misused premise of the razor is not logic

You don't get to decide what's logic and what isn't.

 

[eots]

Logic would be knowing the facts of the theory you claim to support

 

[eots]

oh, come on. You really expect me to believe that a "seeker after truth" hasn't looked for all sides on her own?

I'd say you've got your mind made up, and you're not interested in contradictory views.

believe whatever you want ~ i've proven that i'll accept logic over my own opinion ~ case in point, one of the eugenics threads, where i had to fall back, regroup and bow to the greater logic.

Show me, with irrefutable proof, and i'll stand up and say i was wrong.

why should i bother wasting my time?

He cant, Mr science is not even aware of the official nist conclusions or how the reached these conclusion

 

[fyrenza]

Unless y'all have discovered some heretofore unheard of laws of physics ~

and NOW would be the perfect opportunity to dazzle us with 'em ~

I'll rely on the irrefutable facts that science can provide,

and the SCIENCE says that what we've been told is bullshit, plain and simple.

What you're arguing is that 1 + 1 DOES NOT EQUAL 2,

but you call anyone that thinks it does, loons or crazy.

I just don't get that.

 

[fyrenza]

Why should I bother wasting my time?

Perhaps because you have some sort of leg to stand on,

like I do?

Perhaps because YOU're willing to put a little effort into a debate you freely joined, and are willing to provide some citations for your proof?

We HAVE proof; we're more than willing to scour the webz for citations for you, and all you have to do is READ or listen to them.

Your only "proof" seems to be that others don't believe the facts, none of whom seem to understand the laws of physics, and none of whom care to invest the time to LEARN some basic, fundamental premises of science.

If you only knew how stupid you sound with your fingers in your ears,

screeching out "LOONS", and "CRAZIES",

while you sit there, acting as if supporting your opinion is just SO beneath you.

Cripes.

If ALL you have to share with us are your insults at our curiosity,

GTFO!

 

[DiveCon]

there was no jet fuel in wtc 7 and NIST says the vast majority of fuel was gone in the initial fire ball ..first responders made it to the 73 floor

WTC7 had huge diesel tanks that got damaged too
and it had parts of the tower do huge damage to it

NIST states damage and stored fuel played no significant role in the collapse once again divecon is in contradiction with the theory he claims to support

how many times do you have to be told that i dont give a rats ass what NIST said
'