Why conspiracy theorists are retarded

The reality is that war is business waged purely for profit and power. This is especially true when war is written about. A good example would be the text books most read in the U. Do those text books tell the real truth about the extermination of the natives of the U. Not even close. They even report that slavery was abolished.

It is referred today mostly as Human Trafficking. I could go on listing all the false truths among the human race of amnesiacs. But what good will it do. I understand why people hang onto them.

Fear and self-preservation. What you are writing sounds like garbage to me. He would not be afraid of the truth and would try to warn people. For instance, there is an entire group of very educated and intelligent architects and engineers Architects and Engineers for Truth that believe was an inside job.

There are many former CIA, ex-military and other very intelligent folks who also believe in finding the truth. There is an overwhelming body of evidence regarding many conspiracy theories and they are labeled as such to immediately discredit them. You need to wake up yourself as people like you are part of the problem.

Very well said hipjipc. People need to wake up to these truths. Another factor to consider here is cognitive dissonance. In order to believe in conspiracy theories we have to admit to ourselves that we have been tricked and that our long held ideologies are flawed, this is a difficult thing to do for anyone but particularly difficult the older and more educated we are.

Sure Rakie, I see what your saying and I think your beliefs are well intentioned but what your saying totally goes both ways. Trust me it is very hard to come to terms with and emotionally painful.

I will be critical here of some doctors and pro-vaxxers. I think more people would be willing to give an ear to the misinformation about vacinations that is out there if the anti-vaxxers were made to feel so bad and stupid for making a misinformed decision. However, with my experience, I am specifically talking of the inside job conspiracy.

I was a huge believer. Not just in this conspiracy but in many others. Some friends of mine still believe the hype.

I not university educated. I grew up poor and uneducated and remained that way. However, I had been a pro musician at that point for about 15 years. The reason was because when it came to music, which I was educated in, not from university, but from experience, everything changed. What they were saying in that video about the time signature being used to control the young masses sounded so ridiculous to me that I burst out laughing how stupid it was.

Then I had remembered I believed all the other theories in the video. I felt sick and really dumb when I thought about all the time I invested watching those videos. I felt so ashamed when I thought of some of the conversations I had. I started to get interested in science and became educated about how the world works and how we can make it better.

Yes there are tyrants and greedy people in every field but there are also good, smart people who want to make a difference in the world that are in healthcare, science, politics, engineering, business and even religion. Less educated people get bossed around more. I suspect that the same explanation tells us why modern neo-atheists- fairly uniform in their ignorance of the content of the Bible and religion, the nearly universal and trans-cultural nature of religion, and prone to mistaking sixth-grade ad hominems for arguments- infest discussions of subjects having little to do with their own fanaticism with attempts to interject intolerant expressions of their personal prejudices into them.

Intelligent people are the ones that question things not the other way round. Intelligent people look at what they are shown and go yeah right what a load of rubbish or yep that looks about right.

Any Engineer worth his salt would tell you the speed they fell was impossible any other way. Anyone with even half a brain watching the Apollo 11 mission should have had questions after especially considering that on the Moon they weighed one Sixth that of Earth and not only weighed one sixth but had one sixth the gravity pulling on them.

A one inch step would have turned into a 6 inch hop. A 6 inch hop would have been a 36 inch high jump and so on. All told the Astronauts with back packs weighed 25kgs.

If on Earth you could lift 10kgs with one hand you could have picked up a 60kg item on the Moon. An Astronaut could have picked up the Moon Buggy by himself very easily as it only weighed 35kgs on the Moon. None of the so called intellects looked at them on the Moon and saw anything wrong, yeah you people really are intellects. Metal objects in the Sun reach C this is fact even confirmed by NASA as ISS and Shuttle crew had trouble with metal objects in space and need to use insulation wraps or Blankets to hold metal objects or their gloves would melt or get damaged.

Did the Apollo Manned missions show any heat problems? Remember they had a very strict weight limit and why they left everything on the Moon instead of bringing it back with them. No you people that are so intelligent look at the whole show and see no problems for the simple reason you are not intelligent. For those of you that have never looked at engines or braking or any physics involved with descent or ascent, if you have an object that weighs around lbs you need a rocket engine that produces more than this to slow it down as mass moving requires more energy to slow.

No atmosphere so no braking of any sort other than the rocket engine. Google test firing of rockets and you can even see them testing the LM descent stage Rockets in a vacuum and it shows a very nice exhaust trail. But the less intelligent a person the more gullible and less inquisitive they are. Lucky we had intelligent people in the sciences or we would still be in caves wondering why God is throwing lightning bolts at us in a storm, or why the Volcano God is mad at us even though we threw a few nice Virgins into the thing.

What do you think inventors and scientists do? Are they not intelligent as they question and pick apart every thing another scientist tells them to try and prove them wrong or right. I would say this was a reactionary piece, and he got his reaction, everyone knows the first thing we are taught is to question everything, what does a two or three year old say when you tell them something? Why of course lol. Why would it be built into us at such an early age to ask questions if all we are meant to do is take everything for granted on what we are told.

The books have been changed many times since I went to Primary School 60 years ago. How on Earth can you work at a profession and become an expert and then hear someone say something you know for a fact is wrong and then not say something. Then because it goes against something like the Moon landings of course you then have to be wrong and a Conspiracy theorist. The whole premise of this article is highly educated equates to high intelligence.

Whereas accepting the accepted story relies on a large degree of cognitive dissonance an indicator of low intelligence but found in a lot of educated people. Under the Bush administration there have been a litany of conspiracies uncovered, generally suffixed with "gate" after the famous Watergate conspiracy that happened under Nixon.

There are the stories about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman in Iraq and Afghanistan which were propounded with great hoopla by the Pentagon that turned out to be a pack of lies. Not to mention the whole WMD or lack of them issue. Who are those people connected to financially and politically? Follow the money. Any TV network that serializes that will make a fortune, if they're ever allowed to publicize it We can prove that the official theory is a conspiracy theory, and far worse, one that conflicts law of physics, logic, and normal precedures.

And it stands alone without one single court-steady proof besides you take the Bush government word for real. But inner circles in the US have the means, the opportunity and the possibility to create false flag self inflicted terror for their own goals. This article is obviously in response to the September 11th Truth Movement that is making waves thoughout the world.

The claims made are shocking, but unfortunately true. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that contradicts the offical theory. Investigate these "conspiracy theories" for yourself and make up your own mind after you've seen all the evidence.

Most people now know this. It does not matter that all of the so-called terrorists did not posses any flight tickets. To most people those comments are another conspiracy theory. I am in a position to know its fact. Control and Power by the real and permanent government. Journalists do have to pay their mortgage so must stick to the OV.

The next conspiracy theory to surface shall be the release of a nuclear or biological weapon on this planet and shall of course be blamed on Iran right before the America mid-term elections in October, very clever! Time is running out — 6 years left!! Anything else is hearsay. I've never met all these people you speak of. An neither, I suspect, have you. They only exist in words we hear. It is folly to say you know what is happening to other people.

Only they know, if they exist. They have their own Universes of their own eyes and ears. The Lord knows I am not a cruel man". How do you know he knows you to be kind, or enjoys what you think of as kindness?

It mearly pleases me to behave in a certain way to what appears to be a cat. Do you belive any differently? When I say "I don't belive in anything", I mean that I accept information that comes my way, but I remember where it came from. Does New York exist? There seems to be a lot of evidence for it, and people write about the place and produce TV and films about the place, so it must do. But to some extent these are all opinions and "states of mind" because this is all media provided information, not something I have experienced directly myself.

LA on the other hand To my way of thinking as a rational athiest you should always be aware of what information you have experienced yourself and which has come your way by means of instruction and media. Every single little bit. So, even if it all made sense, which it does not, you should keep in the back of your mind that it was not a direct experience but an indirect one.

All I can do is ask "is this rational" "does this make sense" "what does the psychology of the situation suggest" and so on.

When I have met people who work on Newsnight and heard their opinions directly, then they differ from what you have broadcast, for example. But that's another post entirey. And this was before Dr David Kelly "aparently" killed himself.

So now we know. Too much like hard work is it? Maybe that explains the poor quality of reporting on Newsnight and the BBC in general.

UK blog, EU Referendum proved that the pictures had been doctored. So if bloggers, with nowhere near the amount of resources you people have can do it, why can't the BBC's reporters?

Pubs open are they? That's a bet you'd lose. Did you phone the local coroner, who said he never saw a single body or even a single spot of blood at the supposed crash site too?

If that is an admission about the extent of your "first hand" experience of the events of that day,then it certainly demonstrates that you asked questions. I do not dispute that the United 93 may not have been on fire in a way that was apparent to eye-witnesses, but we all know that eye-witnesses have a phycholoical tendendy to tell interviewers what they expect to hear. I suppose one point worth making is that if you go in for "belief" is that you tend to use politicians logic cats have four legs, dogs have four legs therefore cats are dogs.

Because you have a "belief" about this one aspect, it has allowed you to extrapolate this into a "belief" about the official version of the whole events of that day. I also wonder what your experience of aircraft fires and subsequent crashes is? Was the only question you asked "was the aircraft on fire? How much do you get to see of plane that is flying at several hundred miles an hour? Does that include government conspiracy theories?

Oh dear, double standards! But I appreciate the point about paying the mortgage! Arch-rationalism can lead in the other direction too!

Where is the rationalism in believing our best brains in the government, military and intelligence services can't tell the difference between a British made weather balloon truck and a mobile chemical weapons laboratory? But what stops you taking your first step on the road of investigation? Shouldn't there at least be a part of Newsnight dedicated every now and again to a global, geopolitical version of Rogue Traders? Here's a suggestion: there's a long and honourable tradition of 'suppression of free energy devices' conspiracy theory.

We've all well, I have! You know, Tom Bearden, one of the current great hopes of the 'free energy' movement. If so, then why does Bearden's domain name cheniere. Anyway, here's Newsnight's chance to cover a new 'free energy' story that's developing in Ireland right now - perhaps a trimonthly progress report from Ethical Man is needed?

We can leave Iran and Iraq to their worthless oil fields! And if you don't believe in conspriacy theories then - well, there's nothing to fear! The government can give them a DTI grant, and the oil industry can diversify into organic food farms. If it's a bogus claim, you'll still have some nice footage of top physicists blowing the claim apart and scoring one in the eye for arch-rationalism - James Randi would be proud, and anyway we need to inject a bit of action adventure into physics considering the latest A Level stats for this declining subject!

What happened to the fourth estate? Occasionally it's more than just spin and editing. Joseph C. Wilson's reward for a no-spin, no-editing, truthful approach to his work Are we living on different planets? What about PNAC's fundamental propositions, and talk of a long process of transformation What kind of background do you need to qualify as 'utterly compelling'?

Beware of buying into any of them, unless Consumer Protection law applies! We should prioritise which ones are most important to investigate and start investigating, especially as when working in Public Service Broadcasting this isn't to impugn what you already do - keep up the good work!

Brian wrote: I do not dispute that the United 93 may not have been on fire in a way that was apparent to eye-witnesses, but we all know that eye-witnesses have a phycholoical tendendy to tell interviewers what they expect to hear. You are quite correct about eywitnesses - but at the time we were hoping to establish that the official version was wrong. I mean that's the only point of asking such questions, and people like 'The UK Daily Pundit' who think we're all bone idle establishment stooges don't always appreciate that at Newsnight we spend a lot of time checking stuff out that never sees the light of day, and that's why I hope our viewers trust us.

You wrote: 'But in this case we didn't dent the OV. The OV could not be demonstrated to be false. I think I have two concerns.

One is that if there was a conspiracy, it is possible that "they" may have 'played the man, not the ball'. If I knew how you researched your information, I could ensure beforehand that I would have answers for your pointed questions.

My second problem stems from that I do not understand where the "official version" came from in the case of U I worked did I say this before? So I learnt a lot about how missiles and aircraft use the system to fly by "waypoints". Most civiliant and military aircraft fly by their GPS systems these days, automatically flying from one waypoint to another.

As far as I can disern, the only way you can fly an aircraft at a few hundred miles an hour into anything as small as a building is to program in it's GPS co-ordinates into the flight control system.

When the systems there are two, an accurate one for military use and a less accurate civilian one were set up, the US congress knew they could be used to target the USA and allowed the President to order it to be switched off. This means that most airline pilots do the take off and landing, but just have to hang around in the cockpit incase the GPS system shuts down.

They can "fly" the plane in an emergency, but mostly they are "fly by wire". Leaving aside the question of why someone didn't suggest the GW Bush that the system was switched off when the first plane hit, it seems to me that U93 falling from the Sky was probably because it was either already programmed to do that, or that the GPS system was switched off and it just flew into the ground because there was no pilot to take over when the computer stopped flying the plane.

So, there would be no fire required to bring the plane down. Given the amount of spyware and virus on the internet over the last two decades, it seems quite possible to me to reprogram a flight computer to have new, terrible, co-ordinates. It is published fact that the M1 motorway was built with bombs in it I think they may have been removed when it was widened.

This would have allowed the motorway to be destroyed if the UK was ever invaded, which was required during the paranoia of the Cold War.

It seems quite possible to me that the two main WTC buildings, also built during the cold war, could have been built with the same provision.

If I wish Newsnight could do one thing, it would be to build a true, scale reconstruction of the two big towers - and the third one that fell too - and smash a scale plane into it with the scale amount of fuel and see if they fell down in 90 minutes.

A computer similation can demonstrate anything you like Star Wars films seem credible but it's a shame that an organization with the resources of the BBC have never done this. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Just have a look here:. The WTC towers were not small. They were ft high and ft wide.

It is not difficult to believe that it would not require a great deal of skill to fly a plane into them. A common thing said by the CTists is that the fire would not have been hot enough to melt the steel supports. But steel weakens and loses a lot of its strength at much lower temperatures than its melting point.

The plane impact itself had already severed many of the columns, forcing the load to be redistributed across the remaining columns. Computer simulations after the event showed that the impact and initial explosion were powerful enough to dislodge fireproofing from the supports and that once enough of the supports weakened, the part of the tower above the impact will start to fall.

The falling piece then essentially became a wrecking ball gathering up the rest of the tower and developing a huge amount of kinetic energy.

The FEMA report said that more research was needed, as it was uncertain what had caused the collapse. To the rest of us, it just goes to show that some things are not always immediately explainable, but we can still predict that a rational explanation will be possible. Please let's stop with these theories and counter-theories dealing in technical minutiae. Under this hypothesis, perhaps they meant for it to be destroyed shortly after it was evacuated, so it's collapse would co-incide more closely with the the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, but that something went wrong.

Or maybe a collapse in the afternoon was perfectly acceptable. CTists do not rule out rational explanations, nor do they demand everything be immediately explainable. We just demand proper investigation. Sure - the OV said Bin Laden was behind it. Bin Laden then boasted that he had indeed organised it. What more do you need? The two planes that crashed into the WTC buildings, which I estimate have a mass of , tons or kg.

So the building had a mass of times that of the aeroplane. In effect, it was like shooting a 1g feather at an 1. Why not try this at home? So, how long does it take 56, kg of fuel to vaporise? I think the real answer is "whoomph! Actually, Bin Laden was reported, just after the attacks, as denying any involvement. Check out the visuals for yourself;. What more do you need to at least doubt the OV enough to investigate further?

In the age of home-made Star Wars internet fan movies with light saber effects, producing fake videos would be a doddle. Since when are selfincriminatory, if somewhat ambiguous, statements such as those you point to considered an evidence. Why did FBI took him of their list of suspects then? Also, can you square anthrax in as well?

And then consider hitting a building as low as the Pentagon, head on, at over miles per hour, that's quite a feat for any pilot, any aircraft. This "jouranlist" is in the wrong profession if he can't put a dent in the myth of Flight All one needs to do is read the transcript of the hijackers in the cockpit.

We will probably never know the full truth. That was about years ago! Nothing new under the sun, eh! Let's hope it's not another years before something similar appears about ! Anyway, I like Zoran's suggestion 36 of being able to contribute in some way to a Newsnight investigation into 'internet conspiracy theories'. I'm up for it, if Peter Barron is. It's a vast subject, of course. With regard to , which seems to be everyone's current favourite, I'm sure there's a format that would respect all points of view, and be up to Beeb standards, without shirking from investigating troubling questions.

Zoran wrote: Since when are selfincriminatory, if somewhat ambiguous, statements such as those you point to considered an evidence. Not much ambiguity about "we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice. I could go on and on, and eventually reprint the entire article Late Col. Philip J. Corso confessed that he personally "spearheaded the Army's reverse-engineering project that seeded alien technology at American companies".

Does his unforced confession also qualifies as "an utterly compelling received wisdom"? Zoran wrote: Late Col. I suppose you could argue that it suits Bin Laden to pretend to have done it. But Occam's Razor doesn't allow that. He said he did it. Everyone else said he did it. The evidence strongly suggests he did it. The simplest explanation is that he did it.

Saying "Bin Laden did it" is somewhat simplistic. The people who transferred funds to the hijackers are also known about and do not include Bin Laden. He may have known about it in advance but that's not quite the same. If so then let's ask what is Al Qaida?

I agree that [Bin Laden] "said he did it", and I agree that the simplest explanation is the best one, but only as long as it holds water, and I would not argue that "it suits Bin Laden to pretend to have done it". I would actually argue that it suits Dick Cheney. I can only once again point to an article which says that FBI changed their mind about it. Instead of reposting the link, I suggest that BBC contacts the FBI and asks for a clarification - does all the evidence they collected over the past five years "strongly suggests he did it", or does it not.

It should be simple enough even for a busy journalist. Ask them about that anthrax as well, since you're not addressing the question yourself, and it's under their jurisdiction anyway.

BBC says: But the background to the World Trade Centre attacks had an utterly compelling received wisdom, whereas the CTs just never remotely fitted with how any sensible person expects the world to behave.

This is how I expect the world to behave because we now know that it has behaved this way many times in the past. Two recent examples, not counting itself:. Operation Northwoods In the 60's Pentagnon Chiefs of staff produced plans to stage false flag terror attacks against US military and civilian assets and Cuban refugees which would likely involve loss of life and certainly bodily harm to civilian and military personnel.

The idea was to blame Cuba and Castro and so justify an invastion of Cuba. These terror attacks were blamed on far left radicals and communists in order to discredit the left and in the words of one participant in his sworn testimony to force the public to turn to the state for greater security. Note how on the mainstream US TV channels they played the shots of the towers collapsing over and over again for a period of days interespersing the shots of the falling towers only with the talking heads, retired generals and security analysts yammering away about the Osama and Al Quaida as being the likely perpetrators.

Yet today the FBI says they have no hard evidence connecting Osama to I guess Osama's phony "confession" video tape isn't good enough evidence for the FBI either. Seemed at the time just like a giant brainwashing exercise to me, and the passage of time when we learnt about the information over the internet that is hardly ever covered in any depth at all by the mainstream media, e. The reason was quite simple: to force After I pointed you to an analysis of that video as being faked 41 , you then continue to respond 46, 48 only to Zoran on the continued assumption the video is genuine.

Is this a case of you not reading all posts, not getting round to it yet, or of not being willing, or able, to engage in debate?

Andrew wrote: Is this a case of you not reading all posts, not getting round to it yet, or of not being willing, or able, to engage in debate? Number 3. I can't take seriously the notion that the NOvember video is fake based on that evidence. If they are true, then the way he has fooled the world into thinking he is a blithering idiot has to be admired, and what about that performance he gave whilst sat on that chair in front of an audience of schoolchildren?

The way he portrayed a man sinking deeper and deeper into a state of loneliness and despair, looking more and more overwhelmed with the news of each strike as he slowly realised the magnitude of the situation he now found himself in, and the way he finished his performance looking numb and dejected, and staring into a vacant space whilst conveying a look, much in keeping with his young audience, a look of "I want my Mommy!

Over million people are now estimated to have watched Loose Change via the internet. We are talking about global agendas for shaping the world.

Budget is not a problem. Fake evidence wouldn't have to be done by the US govt. In today's age of digital effects, it's a wonder audio and video, that cannot be supported by other means, is taken as evidence at all! But we won't get a US official investigation into this whilst the Bush administration actively blocks and hinders investigation of any type! I did a bit of metal forging in school age 12 or 13 and understand that steel becomes very soft and malleable when heated to temperatures well below melting point.

This tiny bit of practical knowledge helps me to understand how the fires in the WTC collapsed the structures. In addition the chief designer of the WTC has explained in detail how the structural design lead to the collapse. When you understand a little bit about the relative strengths of light alloy airframes and large reinforced concrete building, you have no problem accepting that a plane flew into the Pentagon, not a missile.

We need to round up these CT theorists in special science camps where they will be forced to learn the rudiments of math and science. They will also be given aversion therapy to make them gag when they read anything written by Noam Chomsky.

This is cruel, but it is our only hope. But my general point stands, e. I dunno. I watched it. It does make you think and it asks some interesting questions but I'm not convinced by the answers.

Just because the government say it's marsh gas, doesn't mean the only other explanation is space aliens. And I'm pretty sure I could make a documentary that convinced most viewers the earth was flat, given enough time and the right guests. In the end it's a matter of trust, I suppose. And that's true of our stuff too. Are the maths and science skills of Prof.

Steven E. Jones, Physicist and Archaeometrist, high enough for you with your secondary school metal work experience to engage in debate of the facts without using personal attacks? Some have put forward explanations, it's just that you may not have come across them! The Brewster Jennings network in Turkey was able to intercept this shipment which was intended to be hidden in Iraq and later used as evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

I don't think all, or even most, CTists see 'conspirators' as "evil geniuses" in the 'Hollywood' sense , or that they have complete control over everything and everyone - far from it! The system government, police, intelligence services, military, etc. The CTs can be explained easily by the activities of small, organised but powerful groups who can abuse the system.

Andrew 57 , the tapes don't even have to be fakes themselves. Osama bin Laden could conceivably be a party to the plot, but his role is more a cameo like. Here is the rationale behind this notion:.

However, he had some unresolved issues with the US government - see Yossef Bodansky's book "Bin Laden - The Man Who Declared War On America" - this book, published in , is where I for the first time "learned" about "our way of living" and a threat that "militant islam" poses to it.

Foreword, page vi:. Knowing well that he can't seriously fight another war, against Americans this time around, which he knew was coming; and that he is therefore bound to become a forgotten hero of a forgotten war against Communism, Osama takes Dick's offer instead.

Alan 58 , with all due respect to your metal forging high school experience, at least some people who actually manufactured, tested and certified that steel we're talking about, don't seem to agree with you. If you share some of that "little bit about the relative strengths of light alloy airframes and large reinforced concrete building", we can check it against our collective wisdom and knowledge, and see if we can learn something from it.

Sound better to me than those "special science camps" you're proposing. They couldn't just "plant" something, out of context. A feasible context was much more difficult to "plant" given that Hans Blix for one spent considerable time in Iraq and knew one and another about the country.

Also, "they" expected to find some chemicals rotting around, scary TV images of neglect and depravation, dirty traces left by an evil regime. It didn't materialize, but noone cared - ultimately, the "evil geniuses" didn't expect that we'll be still discussing any of this five years later. They are old skool industrial age types, they don't dig the internet.

Jones, Physicist and Archaeometrist, high enough for you.. No, I suspect he is a nutter. A cursory glance over this paper is enough to see that it is complete nonsense. The issue of the melting point of steel is a red herring.

The collapse was started by the floor panel structures deforming due to the high temperatures. The floor panel structures where attached to the main structural frames by bolted plates. These plates failed due to the stresses created by the deformed floor panel structures these stresses were not expected and were not designed for. The first floor panel to fail fell on the one below and caused it to fail in turn and set up a chain reaction.

The building unzipped internally. The failure mode is well understood. She was a CIA operative who arranged a boondoggle for her husband to spend a few days in Niger to get evidence in order to discredit Bush.

Joe Wilson has been completely discredited; he was closely involved with MoveOn. What is wrong with the more plausible explanation that after the failed WTC bombing in , a group of Islamists learned to fly but not land!

Thanks for the info. It's an interesting hypothesis. I'm not sure what Bin Laden's motivation would be in helping the US, though. He seems pretty anti-American. But I appreciate he could have hidden allegiances, or was forced in some way. I wonder if he didn't die shortly after from kidney failure, though. Also, not sure how anyone could pursue this line of enquiry further. But I do agree with you the OV of Bin Laden commanding a bunch of Arab guys with box cutters to pull off has more holes than Tiger Woods' entire career - something has to give!

Even in the scenario where Bin Laden did order Arab terrorists to hijack those planes, something paralyzed the military response. Well, OK. I do think high school metal shop was sufficient experience though. The floor panels, deformed with the heat, ruptured the bolt plates that held them to the main frame and the whole structure collapsed like dominoes except vertically.

This is well understood. I saw a video of a crash test done by the military. It involved crashing a fighter jet into a very large house sized solid reinforced concrete block.

The impact was recorded with high-speed cameras. In the side-on view you could see the aircraft hit the block and simply vaporise. Nothing was left of the aircraft and the concrete suffered only minor damage.

The fighter jet turned into a hot mist. This is what happens when the enormous kinetic energy of the flying jet is turned, almost instantaneously into heat. Aircraft are very strong when they are operated within their design parameters e. Take a look at the B52 Stratofortress at the Duxford air museum. You can see the fuselage sagging and the metal skin wrinkling. Beer cans hold beer under enormous pressure but when empty they are easily crushed flat.

Imagine a big empty beer can hitting a wall at mph. For me most of these theories fall down because they assume a level of secrecy and technical competence from the players that they self-evidently cannot command. I'm always more inclined to only believe the CTs that involve really clumsy spinning followed by a cacophony of off-the-record briefing by unnamed officials that the OV is nonsense.

Anything else attributes a combined level of sophistication, organisation, intelligence and discipline within the conspiring authorities that I just don't see any evidence of. I've taken the time to read every post on this blog and I must say that I am disappointed in its outcome so far. Adamliv, you obviously work for Newsnight - as an investigative journalist? Have you looked into this or not Adam[?

The time and effort that members of the public have given to make this work easier for you to do, should be at least rewarded by you taking an interest in the subject and giving clear and unambiguous replies to the points that have been raised. So far I see a large proportion of comments here favourable to Conspiracy theories and only a few who regard the Official version as credible.

Short of a video confession from George W Bush himself saying that was 'a put up job', what further evidence do you require to at least look into these claims further and make your findings public?

Bring on Jeremy Paxman to make comment here, that's what I say! The OV may be vastly different from the nippets we read in the newspapers and soundbites on TV. Congratulations to Newsnight for realising that they, like everyone else in this country - nay, the world - are at the behest of out of control state and corporate entities that will stop at nothing to prevent their own imminent demise in favour of something new and better for everyone except those whom have conspired to ruin things for all thus far.

Top journalistic insight, well done Newsnight! This is precisely why mainstream media is being rapidly replaced by the guerilla journalism of bloggers, youtube video productions and flickr photo collections.

Guess what, Newsnight? We all have rents and mortgages and taxes and bills to pay too. But we also have things that have far wider appeal than your self-interested commitments to arbitrary financial arrangements with the money-men, a couple of things that mainstream media journalists, writers and producers don't appear to have at all any more, namely intellectual honesty, integrity and a dedication to the truth, irrespective of what the truth may be. Maybe the next point of cognition for journalists, especially the BBC with their annual TV owner's tax known as a 'Licence Fee', will be the fact that it is we, the people, who pay the very mortgages about which they are so precious.

Let me ask you one question Is your money that good Will it buy you forgiveness Do you think that it could I think you will find When your death takes its toll All the money you made Will never buy back your soul.

And I hope that you die And your death'll come soon I will follow your casket In the pale afternoon And I'll watch while you're lowered Down to your deathbed And I'll stand o'er your grave 'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

I just thought I would post this video download link to the latest video interview with Prof. His recent paper on the subject of WTC1 ,2 and 5 being brought down by controlled demolition has passed peer review in the US, so it has at least 'some' credibility I guess.

Perhaps the person who moderates this blog might explain the arbitary disappearance of some posts, mine included. Is it based on a 'complaint' being made, or 2 or 5? After all, governments do run countries, economies, social policies, military, diplomacy, etc Admittedly, there is little intelligence and sophistication there, but apparently, one does not need any of these qualities in huge quantities in order to run policies or scums.

Take the runup to Iraq war for example: the case for war wasn't argued very intelligently, or presented in a particularly sophisticated way. If you look back at it, you'll see that they "won" the argument by shear brute force rather than sophistication of any kind. Dull, stubborn persistence, and good old plain lying is how Blair "proved" his case for war.

Did you personally find his arguments sophisticated? Do you actually think that he acted like an intelligent, responsible person back then? On the other hand, people pushing for the war did show a remarkable level of discipline, organization and coordination throughout, although - I'm convinced - Blair, Straw, Bush, Cheney, Scarlet, Powell, Greenstock, Wolfowitz We focussed on data from May 4 — the date the video was first uploaded, to May 7, covering the period in which the conspiracy theory went viral, but before Facebook and YouTube took concerted action to shut it down — and also before it was widely debunked.

During this period, the video not only spread widely through conspiracy theory groups, but also through local communities that make up both the backbone of America and the backbone of American Facebook. Group by group, the conspiracy theory seeped out. It received 44 comments and 82 shares. Other recent posts on the group include a notice about a playhouse, slide, water table and ping pong table available to pick up free of charge at the time of writing, only the ping pong table remains unclaimed and someone concerned about their missing doberman, Jethro who returned home 12 hours later.

Across Facebook, the Plandemic video was shared on hundreds of community groups. Its appearance was often incongruous, akin to the conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The spread of the conspiracy theory on otherwise banal community groups reveals a perilous new reality: one where the coronavirus pandemic has taken dangerous, fringe views and planted them firmly in the minds of scores of ordinary people.

And, as with the anti-vaccination movement , the Plandemic conspiracy theory has resonated particularly strongly amongst women — often young mothers. As an analysis by social media researcher Erin Gallagher made clear, the spread of the Plandemic conspiracy theory was overwhelmingly powered by Facebook groups. Driving the most shares were two QAnon Facebook groups, whose Plandemic posts collectively generated more than 3, shares.

Up against the vast spread of the Plandemic on conspiracy theory groups and pages, its appearance on local, public community groups appears smallfry, but the numbers soon add up.

The list goes on. Across more than public community groups on Facebook that we analysed, the Plandemic conspiracy theory received 20, likes and comments. From those groups, it was shared to other parts of Facebook more than 3, times. Others were more measured in their response — but broadly supported the scientifically baseless claims it made. A similar drama played out across hundreds of community groups on Facebook. In some ways, this was Facebook working: the online town square bustling with conversation.