A Few Words On Censorship

[tokeless]

For one example, a traumatic experience in life can trigger a pathological anger complex. I knew one woman who suffered psychological abuse in a convent school. In later life she developed a hatred of religion. A man who is mocked for being one day sexually impotent may become a misogynist.
Deep anger and fear needs to be somehow processed and managed in the mind. When anger becomes pathological, it seeks a target for that anger. Not only is a target for the anger required but also some schematic that might justify the blame.

Again, absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and neither have I had a traumatic experience to 'blame' for believing what I do. At least you didn't mention Jews or bankers.

[davidbanner99@]

How a teenager with a Cessna managed to defeat the Soviet Union’s entire air defense system

(How this series of misjudgements and coincidences shows how a 9/11 scenario is possible. Rust evaded an entire radar network in just a small aircraft.

"Protocol required that all Soviet pilots reset their transponder at frequent intervals, and any pilot that didn’t reset theirs would immediately show as hostile on radar. At 3pm, just such a switch was scheduled, but because Rust was flying among a group of student pilots, the Soviet commander overseeing radar operations assumed he was a student that had absent-mindedly forgotten to switch his transponder. He ordered the radar operator to change Rust’s radar return to “friendly,” warning that “otherwise we might shoot some of our own.”

An hour later, Rust was little more than 200 miles outside of Moscow, and subject to a new region’s radar and air defense scrutiny. Once again, radar operators spotted the small aircraft and intercept fighters were dispatched, but the cloud cover was too thick and they were unable to find the small Cessna visually. Soon thereafter, another radar operator would mark Rust’s plane as “friendly,” mistaking it for a search and rescue helicopter that had been dispatched to the region. "

[davidbanner99@]

"Facts alone are insufficient to destroy a conspiracy theory, of course, and in many ways a theory's appeal has more to do with the receptiveness of its audience than the accuracy of its details. The popularity of the 9/11 conspiracy theory would continue to ebb and flow after each of these reports. But their responses to these challenges show how followers of the 9/11 conspiracy theory changed their emphases and arguments—or, more often, did not—when presented with new information.

The Popular Mechanics article may never have been published were it not for a $3 million national ad campaign by an eccentric millionaire to promote a self-published book called Painful Questions. The campaign posited that the World Trade Center was brought down in a controlled demolition and that the Pentagon was never hit by a jetliner, and asked questions about whether the fires in the Twin Towers were sufficiently hot to bring about their collapse or whether the hole in the Pentagon was big enough to fit a commercial airplane. When Popular Mechanics Editor James Meigs saw the ad, he says, "I thought, well, we're Popular Mechanics and we've been reporting about what happens when planes crash, how skyscrapers are built, for 100 years. Let's actually answer the questions."

So the magazine went about reporting out some of the most interesting and serious conspiracy theories, and responding to them based on interviews with more than 70 experts in aviation, engineering and the military. Its article found that all of the supposedly scientific evidence for government involvement in 9/11 was based on shoddy research and, to a large extent, manipulated and misleading argumentation. The piece remains the most widely read story the magazine has ever published, with more than 7.5 million page views.

"We were the first people to actually take the conspiracy theory claims seriously and address them very directly," Meigs says. "And the reaction was so overwhelmingly hostile, and kind of scary, that it was a real education in how these groups work and think." Among the responses was a report by anti-Zionist conspiracist Christopher Bollyn, who claimed to have discovered why the 100-year-old engineering magazine would take part in a government cover-up of the crime of the century: A young researcher on the magazine's staff named Benjamin Chertoff was a cousin of then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and the magazine was seeking to whitewash the criminal conspiracy with its coverage.

Never mind that Chertoff had not been in his position when the story was being written, and Benjamin Chertoff had never met the man who he said might be a distant cousin. The mere mention of the connection was sufficient for conspiracists to dismiss the report.

"That was interesting. A little bit scary I think for Ben, but also kind of comical," Meigs said. "Imagine the scenario. Let's say somebody at Slate is related to Dick Cheney and all of a sudden he said, 'Hey guys, I need everybody to work with me on this: We're going to all get together to cover up the biggest mass murder in American history. Are you with me?' "

The Popular Mechanics article was turned into a book called Debunking 9/11 Myths, which came to include interviews with more than 300 sources and eyewitnesses. David Ray Griffin responded with his own book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking in 2007, in which he reiterated theories that he said had not been adequately debunked, claimed that the only successful debunking Popular Mechanics had done was of straw men, and repeated the Chertoff cover-up accusation.

It's worth lingering over Griffin's response to illustrate a typical reaction among conspiracy theorists to refutation. One of the bedrocks of the conspiracy theory is that U.S. military planes should have been easily able to intercept any of the four hijacked airplanes on 9/11 to prevent the attack. The Popular Mechanics article notes that only one NORAD interception of a civilian airplane over North America had occurred in the decade before 9/11, of golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, and that it took one hour and 19 minutes to intercept before it ultimately crashed. Based on initial reports that misread the official crash report, conspiracists had previously cited the Stewart case as evidence that it normally only took NORAD 19 minutes to intercept civilian aircraft.

"That's a very debated thing," Griffin told me. "It looks like somebody has kind of changed the story there. I don't know what happened, but I've read enough about it to look like that's not true that it took that long." And what about other physical evidence that debunks the interception theory, specifically the NORAD tapes, which document the chaos and confusion of American air defenses that morning in painstaking detail? Griffin's response is that the tapes have likely been doctored using morphing technology to fake the voices of the government officials and depict phony chaos according to a government-written script. It's not surprising, he says, that after 9/11, mainstream historical accounts would be revised to fit the official narrative.

"This is a self-confirming hypothesis for the people who hold it," Meigs says. "In that sense it is immune from any kind of refutation and it is very similar to, if you've ever known a really hardcore, doctrinaire Marxist or a hardcore fundamentalist creationist. They have sort of a divine answer to every argument you might make."

[davidbanner99@]

The above is exactly what I encountered. There is usually a conspiracy guru whose bank revenues often pass by unoticed. The research tends to be shallow and typically cherry-picked. Rather than sift evidence and seek conclusions, the conspiracy leaders first make their conclusion, then make sweeping claims their followers accept at face value.

What happens when you challenge the views of a large conspiracy group? Well, for me, it was the same experience as the people quoted above. I politely posted my counter arguments, using lots of quoted material. There was no attempt to debate or engage but more a probable sense of frustration. My posts then just vanished.

How do we factor in the advantages to be gained by the doomsday conspiracies? How do the secret organisations know that the master plan to depopulate the planet might be "short circuited" by another event? What if NATO suddenly needs to survive a nuclear war? What if climate change turns out to reduce population via tsunamis or floods?Why do we assume these organizations seem to even be able to predict the future? As if "they" are smarter than nature itself! When, in fact, each planned, global plan seems to repeatedly fail. Till the next time......

[davidbanner99@]

David Ray Griffin who started the 9 /11 conspiracy theory is worth 1.5 million. I knew several PHd or even professors who wrote properly researched books but they only make a comfortable living. What they publish is kind of boring and not commercial. What makes money has always been the sensational.

"According to the Trending Celebs Now, and Wikipedia david ray griffin’s net worth (estimated) is $1.5 million at the age of 27 years old. The income comes from various sources like Model-actress and celebrity carrier and other media projects."

[Candid]

"When you question what the Government does, immediately you're a conspiracy thinker. But to question what's going on... isn't that, to you, very necessary? Because things are getting lost. Like science. Like democracy."
From more than a year ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swKKi0XBeXs

[tokeless]

"That was interesting. A little bit scary I think for Ben, but also kind of comical," Meigs said. "Imagine the scenario. Let's say somebody at Slate is related to Dick Cheney and all of a sudden he said, 'Hey guys, I need everybody to work with me on this: We're going to all get together to cover up the biggest mass murder in American history. Are you with me?' "

That's just silly David. It's typical of the debunker to state stuff like this because it instantly makes it look silly. Here's another example.. "Hey guys, can someone help me intercept all the internet traffic, phone calls and emails?"
Until Snowden broke the silence nobody knew.
Popular Mechanics isn't a very highly regarded magazine when it comes to debunking... and I guess it does all it's work for no profit either. The organisations I refer you to aren't there to profit, but to examine. They did, and found serious anomalies with the official report, which some have said is like a work of fiction.

[davidbanner99@]

"That was interesting. A little bit scary I think for Ben, but also kind of comical," Meigs said. "Imagine the scenario. Let's say somebody at Slate is related to Dick Cheney and all of a sudden he said, 'Hey guys, I need everybody to work with me on this: We're going to all get together to cover up the biggest mass murder in American history. Are you with me?' "

That's just silly David. It's typical of the debunker to state stuff like this because it instantly makes it look silly. Here's another example.. "Hey guys, can someone help me intercept all the internet traffic, phone calls and emails?"
Until Snowden broke the silence nobody knew.
Popular Mechanics isn't a very highly regarded magazine when it comes to debunking... and I guess it does all it's work for no profit either. The organisations I refer you to aren't there to profit, but to examine. They did, and found serious anomalies with the official report, which some have said is like a work of fiction.

It can't be more obvious. The initiator of the 9/11 theory raked in close to a million dollar from a sensationalist book, appears to have no in depth knowledge and claimed "faked" voice-overs had been used. When his claims were then challenged through extensive interviews of the people involved in 9/11, the debunkers were accused of being zionist conspirators.
There are two choices:
(1) Accept the team started out with an investigatio, based on their own accumulated experience and interviewed real witnesses. And consider a similar plance could just as easily have crashed into the Kremlin. The only reason that didn't happen was Rust was merely a protestor, making a point.
(2) Conclude the 9/11 disaster was a planned event to justify an invasion of Iraq. Also bear in mind the Iraq invasion never brought about a NWO and severly weakened the USA. Those who gained from the whole cycle of events turned out to be the Russians, Chinese and Iranians.
I must say there is no logic in that guys claims or the equally "faked moon landing theory".

[davidbanner99@]

"When you question what the Government does, immediately you're a conspiracy thinker. But to question what's going on... isn't that, to you, very necessary? Because things are getting lost. Like science. Like democracy."
From more than a year ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swKKi0XBeXs

We're not saying don't question. What logic tells us here is pharmaceutical products demand prolonged testing. And there should be no connection between public health and profit. Above all, governments assumed the right to tell us we should take major risks with untested chemicals, while they seek legal immunity. I agree with you over these points. So far as the public goes, sticking to those facts creates a strong and rational argument. However, when these prominent conspiracy leaders talk of plots and secret handshakes, I think it tends to weaken a reasonable argument. Just because corruption and authoritarian, non democratic governments try to abuse our rights doesn't equate to a planned NWO.
By the way, France appears to have lost Guadeloupe. They opted to fight off French forced medical policy and are going independent. This is the first total defeat of the Covid policy by a small but determined country.

[tokeless]

There are two choices:
(1) Accept the team started out with an investigatio, based on their own accumulated experience and interviewed real witnesses.

What team, Popular Mechanics? When did they speak to real witnesses? Did they speak to the NYFD? Those actually on site, who reported a molten metal "like a river" in the basement, which the official report stated wasn't there. Why would recognised and distinguished academics and professors state what they found if there was no evidence to support their findings? Yet Popular Mechanics must be right in their debunking... also, I'm not comparing bloody Russia David... stay on topic or there's little point continuing this, if at all. You clearly don't want to consider the alternative evidence which is substantial



And consider a similar plance could just as easily have crashed into the Kremlin. The only reason that didn't happen was Rust was merely a protestor, making a point.
(2) Conclude the 9/11 disaster was a planned event to justify an invasion of Iraq. Also bear in mind the Iraq invasion never brought about a NWO and severly weakened the USA. Those who gained from the whole cycle of events turned out to be the Russians, Chinese and Iranians.
I must say there is no logic in that guys claims or the equally "faked moon landing theory".

[davidbanner99@]

"Staying on topic" in this case means looking at one event that took place without wider comparison. Yet, by using comparisons, the 9/11 conspiracy theory is weakened. Considerably.
I mentioned the Rust incident in Moscow because it demonstrates how a pilot can land an aircraft in a capital city. When it happened, Gorbachev accepted there were failing in the system at the time and sacked several people. What you appear to be asserting as gospel, Tokeless, is that such a situation couldn't happen in America. There is evidence to suggest otherwise.
Twice the U.S suffered major database hacking incidents and the theft of lots and lots of classified data. This shows security weaknesses.
My take on it is that, yes, 9/11 was an incident that caught a lot of people off guard. It was the first time a civilian aircraft was hijacked in a suicide mission. The conspiracy theory writer made a whole lot of money publishing an interpretation of conspiracy. Yet the guy has zero credibility. When effectively challenged, he simply accused the debunkers of "being in on it".
Sorry but tragic mistakes do happen. Titanic, Pearl Harbour, Chernobyl and even the Hindenburg.

[davidbanner99@]

"The conspiracy theories started flying just days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, DC. Over the decade since, several technically elaborate claims have been refined by the “9/11 Truth” movement. Do these intricate arguments—including the rapid collapses of the towers, alleged evidence of thermite usage at Ground Zero, and the collapse of World Trade Center (WTC) 7 (a forty-seven-story building damaged by the fall of WTC 1) “into its own footprint at freefall acceleration”—disprove the mainstream consensus that the September 11, 2001, attacks were the work of al-Qaeda terrorists using hijacked airplanes? In a word: No."

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2011/07/t ... ade-later/

[davidbanner99@]

"9/11 as an inside job is a theory that takes on many beliefs and personifies and justifies them through using the footage and accounts available. They appear believable and many believers display a belief bias, only accepting facts that fit into their personal beliefs of what truly happened. One could never truly convince a 9/11 theorist they are wrong because as evidence unsupportive of their ideas surface the more the theories shift towards disproving that evidence and rooting the theory even more into a scenario of an elaborate government coverup."

[davidbanner99@]

As for Candid...... I agree with some of her points. I just don't follow mainstream conspiracy, however.
I'm more open to the idea the current social-distancing and lockdowns are being manipulated by I.T. networks to force highstreet businesses to close. There's a push to creating dependency on the internet and that allows I.T. firms to control the economy more. I noticed large stores are being gradually phased into delivery warehouses.
Today, the awareness is more evident than I saw to date. In most locations, I'm not wearing a facemask. If I'm approached and am asked to leave, I will calmly exit. However, I noticed a lot of people today not wearing masks and a lot of people trying not to notice. The feeling is that people maybe feel they're being taken for idiots.

[tokeless]

You keep missing my point. The evidence I have seen is not a pointing fingers exercise and it states they are not trying to say who did what, who it was or any other accusations. What they have done is looked at the event with scientific eyes examining the physics and explanation in the official report. They don't mention conspiracy, an inside job, they just highlight the science doesn't reflect what was stated as facts.
Have you seen Richard Gauge's lecture, purely from an architectural perspective? He points out that the towers were built to withstand several airliners colliding with them, the way the tower collapsed on itself instead of towards the wound to its side. When you chop a tree down, you make a wedge to one side so it falls in that direction, not straight down. How did girders weighing several tons get flung across large distances from a fire? How did the fire make the concrete turn to dust like debris? Why did firefighters report hearing popping like explosions when they were in the basement? Why did building 7 collapse at free fall speed when the fire was in a corner of a floor? No steel structured high rise building has ever collapsed because of fire... the Reichstag building burnt for 3 days and didn't collapse, yet the towers fell in an hour or so... add to that the exercise and response craft being diverted miles away, the cameras of the Pentagon not being on... the fact the Intel also told them there was a plan to use passenger planes to attack, which was ignored. The 30 year served pilots who state the planes couldn't make the turns they are alleged to have done to return to New York and to fly so low to hit the Pentagon. The hole in the wall showed no damage from wings, tail fin or the titanium engines, just a round hole with no external debris of the amount you would expect from a passenger plane. This isn't fabricated David. This wasn't created by incompetence or poor security... one event or two perhaps, but it still can't explain the physics. Part of the act or theatre was to create an event, so spectacular, so incredibly large and jaw dropping, nobody could imagine it didn't happen as it played out on our TV. The urgency to avenge, the statement it was Bin Laden made almost immediately, when the dust hadn't even settled... the invasion of Iraq that has been stated by military leaders as ready to go and was already decided on before 9/11... of course they are all lying, in denial, selective bias and just plain made up.