New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, while government dupes are crazy and hostile


IMAGE: Where Did the Towers Go?

21st Century Wire says…


These four different university studies listed below reveal a lot about the psychology of official story ‘gatekeepers’ and how irrational and emotionally unstable they become when challenged with an alternative view…

****

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites. 

The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority. 

Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.” 

Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.” 

In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it. 


IMAGE: Few are willing ask why over 1000 car were fried up to a mile from the WTC on 911.

Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.” 

Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” 

In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations. 

DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime. 

Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief. 

In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information. 

The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote: 

“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”
But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous – and more rational – than anti-conspiracy ones. 

No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks. 

KB/HSN - Source: The Rebel

READ MORE FALSE FLAG NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire False Flag Files


-

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterest




  • websuspect

    This revolves around a large Psychological compliance technique called cognitive dissonance. Whereby the government gives out some news about the official story of an event then they attempt to create storys or small factoids to dismiss it. You may even see this technique in the alternative media. They will use small factoids to debunk the “myths”. A public official like Bush will come out and say let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theorys and or they will use a panel of tactics to try and penalize personalized thinking. Along with a rather large list of tactics that dont make any sense general reqards and forced compliance techqniques ranging from punishments like daylight slavings time that dont make any sense to rewards like a $250 tax rebate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M0xtxQVQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJtpOqn6rfE

  • IronMonkey

    I wonder if the Daily Mail will pick up on this. One can only hope.

  • http://tinyurl.com/3kurlm2 Intbel

    This means I am now part of the majority? Being part of the majority has never sat well with me. Now what am I supposed to do?

    • André Davis

      Which majority do you speak of? Do you believe in the official story? Because that is still the majority.

      • sabretruthtiger

        Sadly true, it’s so incredibly obvious to anyone with an IQ over 50 that 911 was a controlled demolition. 100 % proven by Newtonian physics, yet there are vast hordes of clueless peasants and establishment-invested yuppies with cognitive dissonance that refuse to acknowledge this.
        Then there are the criminal propagandist shills that are paid or threatened to push the ridiculous, erroneous official story.

        • Antii Aliias

          Honestly, my IQ is 139. My father is over 150. A few of my friends are also in the same area, yet we use our minds and logic….we know that this was not done by the government.

          • Stephan Williams

            You’re IQ is irrelevant. You’re wrong.

            And all the relevant evidence supports my opinion.

          • Shank

            And I guess YOU decide what constitutes “relevant” evidence. How convenient.

          • notthattomhyle@hotmail.com

            why guess when you could ask, like a reasonable person?

          • notthattomhyle@hotmail.com

            because…..?

        • Antii Aliias

          It was also proven that it was not a controlled explosion as well. The man hours and stuff required to create that…so hard to do. Hundreds, if not a thousand of basic workers would be required to pull off a controlled explosion.

          The timing would have to be so good and you would have to somehow hide the MAJOR explosions required to knock it down…

          Not physically possible.

          At least not in the real world, maybe not in Star Wars.

          • Jeff Grotke

            the major explosions weren’t hidden very well. firefighters were reporting bombs and explosions left and right. what do you make of all those reports? and why did Building 7 fall down? was it tired? I think a lot of us don’t necessarily believe in the 9/11 conspiracy, and we just want answers, but the weak answers that we get just make us more suspicious. thermite, btw, wouldnt require major explosions, as it works by heating, not blasting. they could have all been timed by remote control. computer. is that really so difficult? and the collapse theory completely omits the center core beams when discussing the collapse. they just aren’t mentioned. not to mention, all the material evidence was shipped to China and melted down without being investigated. who ordered the destruction of evidence after the greatest crime in american history? George Bush. Read Family of Secrets, then get back to me about your IQ.

          • Shank

            Your post doesn’t make a lick of sense, your capitalisation is sloppy,
            and you seem hell-bent on completely ignoring any evidence which doesn’t
            fit in with your pet theory. Say, while you’re in the mood for asking
            questions, why not try asking why so many independent investigators
            failed to find any trace of a controlled demolition in the towers.

          • notthattomhyle@hotmail.com

            “independent” you are making the joke?

          • Ben Franklin

            Because you cannot name one independent investigator that “failed to find any trace of a controlled demolition…”. And really, try using spell check.

          • notthattomhyle@hotmail.com

            LOL “…was it tired?” well put.

          • Rider

            Unfortunately this is all false. One hundred workers can install demolition equipment. This job doesn’t need thousands of people. That’s just crazy. Also, a relative of Bush, who operated security at the twin towers, ordered all surveillance to be shut down for the 36 or so hours before the plane crashed. Demolition doesn’t use “MAJOR” expositions either, but many small systematic explosion in the right places, of which, were not hidden, but rather documented by many firefighters and workers fleeing the building. I have never seen definite proof it was not a demolition. Anyone who saw the tower fall, can see it fell exactly how a demolished building implodes, and the high levels of thermite, a demolition explosive found through the rubble would conclude a demolition had happened. Not to mention the steal becoming so hot, it remained in a liquid state for weeks at the foundation. Something jet fuel alone could never do.

          • notthattomhyle@hotmail.com

            You’re right, much more likely it just HAPPENED exactly like one from fire for the first, second, and third time in the history of steel frame buildings. LOL Back to logic class with you.

          • Ben Franklin

            It was not proven that a controlled demolition did not take down 3 buildings, except by physicists. The man hours to create a controlled demolition can be done in 1 to 2 days. Study physics, not Star Wars. Your argument is baseless, and a logical fallacy.

        • Shank

          Hi, as a humble representative of all brainwashed, hypnotised, sleep-walking Sheeple everywhere, I have a question: It is your contention (and please, correct me if I’m wrong) that the Bush Administration deliberately, and with malice aforethought, coldly murdered 3,000 of your fellow citizens in a carefully orchestrated false-flag op to further a slew of nefarious foreign policy objectives with the ultimate goal being simple self-enrichment. That is correct, is it not? That’s your theory? I’m not misrepresenting you, am I?

          If so, may I ask, what on earth are you actually DOING about it all? See, from where this clueless peasant is sitting, if you’re one of the chosen few with privileged access to “The truth”, you’re under a rather heavy moral obligation to turn your PC off, get your ass out of your easy chair, and start doing your damndest to right some of these wrongs. Me? I’m just a sheeple. I’m so dumb I have to whistle when I go to the toilet to remind myself which end to shit through. You can’t expect ME to do anything. But YOU, well, you’re an Ubermensch. A pioneer amongst the intellectual elite. Your gimlet eye effortlessly pierces the curtain of unreality clouding the minds of lesser mortals like myself. You’re a cut above. A prince among men. The Alpha Plus to my Epsilon-grade lift attendant (look it up). A privileged member of a higher evolutionary order, as are all your fellow truthers.

          Which is why I’m so puzzled that you’ve spent the last twelve years doing fuck all. Seriously, what gives? You know, if I were a mean old cynic – I mean, if I were smart enough to know the difference between a cynic and a pop-tart, which I’m not, because I’m just a sheeple – I might be inclined to suggest that you don’t really believe what you SAY you believe. It’s ALMOST as if you’re only in this to boast about how fucking smart you are, and that if this crap didn’t give you a license to sneer and call people “Sheeple” you wouldn’t bother with it. But
          that’s too mean-spirited and cynical for words. The ramblings of a lunatic. Don’t trouble yourself with such unwarranted skepticism.

          But seriously, what are you doing?

          • notthattomhyle@hotmail.com

            Ha ha ha ha ha. Why don’t you read the article again, Shank? LOL You ARE misrepresenting a great many “conspiracy theorists” many of whom have no specific conspiracy theory they support, but merely note the ridiculosity of the official story, while many others are divided into a multitude of varying beliefs.
            As for your ridiculous childish attempt to shame “conspiracy theorists” by archly asking what they’re doing about it, first and foremost, complaining and pointing out lies IS doing something in and of itself; something very vital, and I think you know that, given your attempt to shut it down while supporting the conformist obediently believing position. Second, do you contend that the alternative to not doing whatever would please you (one has the feeling you would sneer at working within the system by protesting and voting as ineffectual and at more direct tactics as treasonous and criminal), is to accept the official story? That the sensible alternative to action is delusional denial? Third, do you contend that the only 3 steel frame buildings to ever collapse at freefall speed from burning did so on the same day, one without being hit by any combustion source? Or that the US government as instantly as humanly possible shipped out to be melted in China all the physical evidence it promised to go CSI on, because it was telling the truth? Are you too stupid to process facts like these, too delusional to face them, or dishonest enough to deny them while knowing better?

          • Shank

            Okay, a few points:

            1) ‘Ridiculosity’ is not a word. You mean ‘Ridiculousness’.

            2) Your entire post was one great long sneer, as was the article to which we’re all replying. Accusing me of sneering is hypocritical to say the least.

            3) The fact that conspiracy theorists have “no specific conspiracy they support” is not a point in their favour. If
            they can’t even agree amongst themselves, why should they expect anybody else to listen to them.

            4) I suppose, if you’re being technical, pissing and moaning on conspiracy blogs like this one IS a form of action. However, it’s an utterly ineffectual form of action and one which is in no way commensurate to the grave nature of the offence you people all purport to be so angry about. Like I say, it’s ALMOST as if your main priority is satisfying your own intellectual vanity and
            feeling superior to the “sheeple”, not actually getting at the truth.

            5) When discussing any given account of anything, to point out a lie is to expose an unanswerable flaw in the story presented. The claims presented by 9/11 conspiracy theorists do not meet this criteria. For instance, the “Official account” states that the twin towers were brought down by the impact of two Boeing 737s, travelling at speed. This is a pretty reasonable claim given the fact that thousands of people saw it happen and given the fact that a high speed blow from a passenger plane loaded to the gills with an imperial fuckton of jet fuel would likely bring down almost anything. Conspiracists generally counter that, no, that’s far too simple. The REAL explanation was that super-secret government agents spent months or years stashing plastic explosives in the foundations of the towers, exposing themselves to enormous personal risk repeatedly bringing bag after bag of C4 into one of the busiest and most highly surveilled buildings in the world, in order to kill thousands of innocent financiers for…well, no good reason that I’ve ever heard.

            The thing to notice about this alternative explanation is that it is merely an alternative explanation. And it’s easy to concoct alternative explanations for things if you
            don’t have to worry about such trivialities as plausibility or evidence. The existence of an alternative explanation does not, in an of itself, serve as a refutation of the original account. Therefore, there is no reason for me to bother paying any attention to it. You need make a convincing case that the official account is wrong before I take any alternative claims you may have seriously. As far as I can ascertain, your case consists of nothing more than wild accusations that, OF COURSE, a plane alone couldn’t POSSIBLY have brought down the towers. This is always suffixed with a parenthetical “You stupid SHEEPLE!” as though mere disagreement with you was prima facie proof of both my own intellectual inadequacy and the validity of your claims.

            Unfortunately for you, real experts armed with real degrees that they earned at real universities (as opposed to the University of Google) have examined your claims and found them to be baseless. Therefore your alternative explanation stands alone, without credibility, and, in evidentiary terms, is on par with MY alternative claim that George W. Bush brought down the towers with the power of his mind (although I concede that my explanation does presume that George W. Bush actually has a mind, despite evidence to the contrary).

            Moving on, I do, in fact claim that “the only three steel frame buildings to ever collapse at freefall speed from burning did so on the same day” because they were all HIT on the same day. I must say, your profound inability to grasp the causal nature of reality does rather undercut the haughtiness of your post. I would also humbly suggest that, if an exploding jet plane doesn’t qualify as a combustible source, then nothing does. I would also like a cite for your claim that “[the] US government as instantly as humanly possible shipped out to be melted in China all the physical evidence” as it seems to me to be bullshit. May I also pre-empt you by insisting on a MAINSTREAM cite, rather than whichever online nonsense emporium currently serves as your go-to news source?

            While your characterisation of me as a moustache-twirling villain in thrall to the neo-conservative movement IS, admittedly, somewhat flattering, I’m afraid I must disappoint you. I’m just a regular guy with too much respect for Ockham’s razor to discount the evidence of my own senses in favour of whichever brand of swivel-eyed lunacy you happen to be peddling.

            In short, if I were to grade your post, you’d get an E, purely by virtue of the fact that you genuinely seem to believe this crap. I would, however, write in the margin “Must try harder.”

            When come back, bring evidence. And pie.

            At least you’re not blaming the Jews…yet.

          • notthattomhyle@hotmail.com

            If you can only understand the drive to determine reality as intellectual vanity, then that says something about you at which I like to laugh. LOL Thanks.

          • Shank

            Okay, some more quick points:

            1) Are you over the age of 14? If so, you have no reason to ever, ever say LOL. If you’re an adult, then talk like an adult.

            2) This was your opportunity to present the EVIDENCE you refused to present in your previous post. You failed. Abjectly.

            3) The 9/11 attacks were witnessed by thousands of people around the world. Plausible accounts for precisely how the impact of the planes brought down the towers has been provided by every authority worth listening to. The terrorists were thoughtful enough to provide videotaped epitaphs explaining exactly what they were planning to do and why. And, if that weren’t enough, we also have Osama Bin Laden’s gloating confession, again, on videotape. Sounds pretty fucking real to me.

          • Ben Franklin

            each of your points are conjecture. None of your points are true. Here is your proof: http://www.ae911truth.org

          • Shank

            Jesus Christ, there are about 500 articles on that page. You expect me to trawl through all of them? You might as well have cited Google. Sorry pal, I’ve got better things to do than make your case for you. Give me some direct links to the articles you want me to consider, then we’ll talk.

            The only conjecture in my previous post was that nonthattomhyle hasn’t gotten round to blaming the Jews yet. I admit, I can’t be entirely sure about that.

          • Ben Franklin

            Okay fine. Read David Ray Griffins book, A New Pearl Harbor. $4 on amazon.

          • gene

            “Jesus Christ, there are about 500 articles on that page. You expect me to trawl through all of them?”
            No. Actually, we don’t expect YOU to read a single one of them.

          • Ben Franklin

            occam’s razor states that the simplest of explanations is the truest: that being the evidence. The irrefutable scientific evidence suggests that thermite/thermate brought the buildings down through a controlled demolition. Your statement, “Unfortunately for you, real experts armed with real degrees that they earned at real universities (as opposed to the University of Google) have examined your claims and found them to be baseless.” is actually true. 2,000 architects and engineers all agree that they buildings were imploded. Study physics, and get back to me. Your ad hominem, conjecture, ridicule, and pure nonsensical illogical arguments are weak and pathetic.

          • Shank

            Interesting that, if truther dogma really is supported by such an overwhelming preponderence of evidence, you didn’t bother to reference any of it. Go dig up some cites and get back to me. I could do with a laugh.

            P.S. – Your namesake was a man of reason. I have a feeling he’d be disappointed in you.

          • Ben Franklin

            A New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin. And I’ve already given you the architects and engineers website. My name sake would be saddened and embarrassed by the utter complacency and lack of common sense in our society.

          • :)

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiSciPYXCY8#t=367
            Psychologists explain why people can’t handle the truth about 9/11. If you reply to me and didn’t saw the video i shall ignore you and laugh of how much afraid you are of being wrong.

          • Shank

            .

      • Antii Aliias

        I am of the Majority I suppose. I belileve closer to the main real reasoning of the fall of the towers, which was caused solely by the act of an outside terrorist group.

        I still look at these other options, but I have not found one that has been able to be credible enough to change my mind. Still looking.

        • Joseph Mommia

          yes well if you believe the govt’s ‘official’ conspiracy theory then you’re not very bright or perceptive

          • Antii Aliias

            If you believe the “theorists” You are not very bright yourself or you just may have low self esteem and look for evil everywhere, no matter what.

            Either that, or maybe your part of the “conspiracy” to change the direction of the blame!

          • gomurr

            My husband and I have probably looked at every video or report on 9/11 ever written. You’re the one who isn’t very bright. I don’t care what you’re IQ is. I learned at 8 years old to not believe anything I was told until I did my own research. That came as a result of being told how the pyramids were built.

          • Shank

            Is that so? Tell me, where did you get your engineering degree, your explosives training and your pilots license? Because the thing is, REAL experts, not self-appointed internet experts, have looked into this thing really, really carefully and they haven’t found anything that contradicts the official account. How much research have you actually done, and how does it square with the hard won expertise of the reams and reams of independent investigators who have concluded that you haughty, pompous, sanctimonious conspiracy theorists are full of shit?

          • notthattomhyle@hotmail.com

            LOL 1,500 other REAL experts; working architects, engineers, and university professors of physics and engineering have signed saying the official story is garbage; look it up and have one less thing to pretend about.
            “independent” LOL “independent”

          • Shank

            Question: What would you guess 1,500 is as a percentage of all the architects, engineers, and physics experts in the Western world? 1%? 2%? Maybe even 5%?

            I’m reminded of a similar claim made by Young
            Earth Creationists. A few years back there circulated a petition signed by about a thousand PhD holding professors, each attesting to the truth of the Biblical account of creation. As a joke, the National Academy of sciences circulated their own petition of scientists who supported evolution, but they restricted themselves only to scientists called Steve. Needless to say, it was less than a week before the number of signatories to “Project Steve” outnumbered the signatories on the original petition.

            Any attempt to play the numbers game here is doomed to failure. You still lose.

          • notthattomhyle@hotmail.com

            LOL (again) first you want real degrees, and when given that you change the playing field; surprise, surprise (not really). 2% would be a very high portion of Yuppies to step out of line.

          • Ben Franklin

            All physics experts that review the scientific data understand immediately that the buildings were imploded. The other percentages have yet to see the evidence.

          • Ben Franklin

            You’ve just made an association fallacy. You lose the argument.

          • Ben Franklin
          • Ben Franklin

            The real experts are engineers and architects. I suggest you do your own research before embarrassing yourself further. http://www.ae911truth.org

          • notthattomhyle@hotmail.com

            and if you even so much as processed the article above, let alone actually spoke to many “conspiracy theorists”, you would know just how silly you are to propose there is any such thing as believing “the “theorists” ” since we are in no way united and many or most of us adhere to no specific theory of what exactly happened. But judging by your last two sentences here, you are either deliberately trolling or just the kind of senseless vehement defensive deluded dupe the article mentions as being on the side of this issue you support. LOL Others have low self esteem and see evil everywhere (falsely, you seem to suggest) for thinking one group of evil men had a plan to blow up the towers, while you are fine and dandy for believing a different group of evil men did the exact same thing, AND suggesting one who disagrees is part of a conspiracy to hide that. LOL Been caught trolling, or else been caught being paranoid delusional in a definitely diagnosable extent; which is it?

          • Ben Franklin

            Association fallacy, and ad hominem. You lose the argument. You’re part of the conspiracy to change the direction of the blame. It’s called, “projection”. Don’t you people have anyone else besides this guy? You’re embarrassing yourself Antii.

          • gene

            PLENTY more than the few you’ve pointed out:

            http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

        • gomurr

          You can’t be looking too hard.

        • Ben Franklin

          Oh it definitely was done by an outside terrorist group. However, which one, remains the question. Look here, you opened minded fiend! http://www.ae911truth.org

      • http://tinyurl.com/3kurlm2 Intbel

        The official story is STILL the majority view? Good grief.

      • signalfire1

        If you’d bother to read the article, it clearly stated that amongst people commenting on the internet at least, the OS is now in the minority. People that are capable of waking up are doing so, but there may always be the incurious and the brainwashed (I blame religion…).

    • Currahee101st

      Go watch TV it will tell you.

      • http://tinyurl.com/3kurlm2 Intbel

        No can do – don’t have a TV.
        Sorry about that *¿*

  • Guest

    Interestingly, I have yet to see acknowledgement in the mainstream media that this debate is even taking place.

    • Antii Aliias

      very interesting.

    • Guest

      because mainstream media only blasts what ever illusion that they want you to see

  • puppy

    Its a trap

  • danp5648

    Three Photos showing Massive amounts of thermite stuffed in the hollows of the WTC building

  • g75401

    Ahh…to see the text of this paper in action! I especially love the poster who touts his alleged IQ in response to the questions about the building falling.

  • CaptSpastic

    Oh please! A STUDY of conversations… ON THE INTERNET at that, and you can suddenly derive whether someone is stable or not? This is no study, an official written opinion at best, but no damn study.

    More like the TA got caught surfing the net & had to pull a bullshit story out of his ass quickly.

  • Paul M

    // CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label //

    The CIA didn’t come up with the term. What a load of rubbish.

    • Ben Franklin

      Says the CIA. hahaha…

  • deano

    People just cant accept that there govt could kill 3000 innocent civillians.
    Ever heard of the CIA (clandestine immoral americans)?
    OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD (control of mass media)!
    OPERATION NORTHWOODS sec 8a/b (false flag hijacking of civillian airliners, swap with drones, crash into US bldgs or shot down by Cuban jets)
    These documents were planned in the 60′s & had a lot to do with JFK’s assassination because he refused & wanted to tear down the CIA.
    Bush Snr was head of the CIA, friendly with Bin Ladins, & provided Chemical weapons to Suddam in war against Iran.
    General Wesley Clark stated just after 9/11, in Pentagon, he was told US was going to war with IRAQ. Then 7 countries in 5yrs ending with Syria & Iran.This was 2004.
    What is happening at the moment? Iran – contra,? Watergate? Gulf of Tonkin? WMD? Dont think govt lies & conspires?
    Silverstein insured WTC for millions against terrorist attack. Bldg 7, that had no plane hit it , fell at the order of “PULL IT”.
    Every official theory believer says this was the fireman statements to pull out.
    What about all the firemens statements of explosions in WTC basement?

    This was planned 40yrs ago, insurance money,total destruction of evidence,investigations behind closed doors, justification of war on terror,troops in middle-east, control of media, control of Iraqs oil > Bush family is happy!

    Currently Russian & foreign troops are deploying in US via Alaska.
    A survey showed US military were not prepared to fire on civillian population in upcoming gun control takebacks. DHS just acquired 2.6m rounds of ammo?
    Convenient they (troops) are all in middle-east at moment.

    The NSA would call me a terrorist. Uninformed a Conspiracy Theorist. I prefer to call myself a “Skeptic” of the mainstream story,,with good reason………

  • o0oTOPCATo0o

    Why does nobody mention the Israeli business man (billionaire) who bought the twin towers,
    and had only paid a small fraction of the cost when the towers fell?
    Lucky for him he put a very large (terrorism specific) insurance policy
    that paid out HUUGE.
    Also, if someone can tell me how building 7 fell, without being hit, I will be satisfied.

    • Ben Franklin

      Or if the insurance company that awarded him 5 billion, was chaired by Marvin Bush, George bushes brother.

  • Ben Franklin

    The greatest fact of all is that there is an irrefutable fact called physics. You can take a class at your local college. It’s quite eyeopening. And, you can go listen to the account of thousands of architects and engineers right here: http://www.ae911truth.org

  • gene

    I do NOT object to being called a conspiracy theorist! “Theory” implies intellectual activity, does it not?