I like to think of myself as rational. Whether I am or not, is an objective matter that doesn't depend on my opinion. I don't know what happened regarding Building 7. I found the article I posted very interesting. The BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it fell. When asked to provide the original footage of the tape, the BBC claimed they had lost it. Building 7 had some rather interesting tenants. Even experts, who are not aligned with the CT movement or have any affiliation with them, agree that the building fell in a manner incredibly similar to that of controlled demolition collapses. Even Silverstein, the owner of the building, is contradicting the people who are attempting to disprove those who claim the building was intentionally brought down: He claims he told officials to "pull" the building only as a means to communicate that they should pull the firefighters from the building because he was concerned for their safety. Those seeking to counter the CTers claims say that Silverstein meant to shift the building away from the other severely damaged buildings, to try and keep it from sustaining additional damage (I'm not a physicist or engineer, but can anyone tell me if that's even possible to do?). You don't have to be on one side of the argument or another to simply claim that there are some truly odd events around the collapse of WTC Building 7. If believing that makes one anything other than inquisitive, and we've gotten to a point where it's free to label inquisitive people as 'lunatics' or whatever the pejorative term of the day is, than that's very unfortunate, especially if we want to believe and tell our children that we're living in a 'free, open, progressive democracy.' I also know there are emotional sentiments (many people lost loved ones that day, especially in the financial, law enforcement and firefighter communities) that make discussing these issues or raising questions about official explanations (or lack thereof; and a lack of a coherent or completely satisfactory official explanation does not prove a conspiracy in matters as complex as these, either) a difficult process.
One. Ten. One Million. They are isolated cases on a global scale. You think in individuals. We think in populations. You think in days, months, and years. We think in generations. The child in your video, which we have allowed, is a conspiracy nut among his peers as well.
This is pretty common among the conspiracy theorists. They tend to either clam up or initate LoZZZer-like strategies which involve fallback to a bunch of troofer cliches and obfuscation/assertion. Please remember - many of these people are arguing that no airliners hit the buildings. Perhaps the best indication of the quality of thinking that goes into these theories is the quality of ET member that speaks in support of them. For example, I notice the maniac Akhenaton has shown up here. These threads don't read well for me because most of the respondents are already on my ignore list for other reasons.
Actually, I don't know of anyone who believes that. Your post is a very good example of what the debunkers attempt to do. They take the most far out theory among a few of the conspiracy theorists, and make it seem as though all conspiracy theorists believe it. Thus making their beliefs seem incredible. You think the government has something to do with bringing down the towers? Well, then you must also believe in bigfoot, unicorns, pixies, and leprechauns. And of course, you live in your mom's basement and play Dungeons and Dragons all day by yourself.
In my opinion, this is a misleading response. First, even though I clearly said many conspiracy nuts believe that no planes hit the buildings, you revised my statement to suggest that I am saying all conspiracy nuts believe it. This in itself is indicative of the approach taken by the troofers. The facts are only used when they are convenient. You may not know of anyone who believes that no planes hit the buildings. I had no idea that anyone (that is, anyone not clinically diagnosed) could possibly consider this to be the truth. I then arrived here at ET, where I've read a lot of guys saying this exact thing. I know it's inconvenient for troofers when we point this out because it sounds so absurd. Your contention that debunkers are limited to imputing the most outrageous troofer claims to the entire group is inaccurate. In the first place, most of the troofer claims are not deniable (and what other belief system involves a claim that it is impossible to disprove? Yes, you guessed it. It's that other faith-based system of belief. What a coincidence, huh?). For the rest, I have seen scientifically detailed dismantling of the mainstream troofer arguments on these threads. The response is usually 'Elvis Lives!!!' or something similar. I stopped attempting to respond when I saw a YouTube video posted, in which there is allegedly an image of a 'squib' going off underneath the main impact area on Tower 1, which proves that the buildings were wired for demolition before the alleged 'impacts' of the non-existent aircraft. At that point I realized that I was dealing with mentally unbalanced individuals. Finally, you have to admit that Akhenaton's support of their side (and that of others of his ilk) represents a credibility problem. It's the same problem that Obama had with Reverend Wright.
You hit it right on the head. I just wan to ad, that it was don to take our rights to speed up the New World Order process and enslave the population. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAjVHtSO_As&hl=en
the point of the video is THEY CALLED THE POLICE !!! are you dense? you don't call the police on a kid at school for talking. ---------------------------- I agree. They should not have called the police. No one has authority to make a decision, no one will accept responsibility, people who know what to do won't do it or no one knows what to do, so they call the police for liability concerns. It's pervasive.
um.... listen to the background music.. that is the flobots. they are extremely popular with the kids. listen to the words. granted i am no fan of universal music group.
actually this is the fastest way for a person to be immediately ostracized in the truth movement. tons of videos about this. the no-planers are the ones mainstreamers cherry pick to go on howard stern's show and they are then mocked. i disagree with both sides on this.. i think we need to analyze most theories and let people decide for themselves. but you show your ignorance when you try to label truthers as no planers. they would kick your ass. i agree with the other poster.. i dont know any no-planers except for the ones on the videos. (no one takes them serious) there was definitely some funny biz going on that day immediately after the planes hit. like 'harley guy' and the stick up his ass pentagon 'johnny on the spot' infomercial actor.