They really think we are that stupid

The formula is potent

 

the truthers are never willing to ask themselves any questions, even ones like the ones you just mentioned.

sometimes people believe nutty things. some people are religious, and i think i have decent understanding of why. and some folks, for example, are holocaust deniers, and i think i understand why that is as well, they are motivated by religious and racist hate. i know why people are irrational for the most part. but truthers, what is their motivation? what do they have to gain? nothing really, i dont quite understand it. the things they have to gain, like feeling like they have a secret view behind the curtain, these are such minor rewards that it should not motivate them to be dishonest. they just seem like bad people.

like a religious dude, he keeps the lies alive so he can believe in an afterlife, or know why bad things happen to good people, or feel like he has a purpose in the universe. those are genuinely hard things to deal with, so i get it. the truther has nothing to gain except to make a scoundrel of himself.

thats what i'm screamin.

 

correct me if Im wrong but I seem to remember reports hours prior to the wtc7 collapse that it was anticipated, yes?

i remember a reporter saying due to the infrastructure being gutted they anticipated it happening then it took hours longer than expected. maybe i read it or dreamt it.

also i think flabengal or whatever is truly just stuck on the way it collapsed (obviously) with no other factors involved except for that somewhat odd demolition term used (pull it). My friends use that term for something else if I remember correctly but anyhow.

its single-minded and child-like yes but its how some people think. they completely distrust the govt. so just the smallest seed is needed.

until that point is disproven in spite of all the greater factors involved, they simply cannot move on.

its nothing personal despite how infuriating because its impossible to argue in a vacuum.

 

but there are geniunely odd things about the kennedy conspiracy. apparently oswald was a deadly accurate sharpshooter from a serious distance or whatever. and i have no clue how hard that is.

and generally the idea that one dude might not have been acting alone but had some backing, thats not so hard to believe. it is about 300 billion times easier to believe than truther stuff. i cant compare the two.

being skeptical of the kennedy thing is not crazy at all, maybe mildly wacky. being a truther is inexcusable.

i dont agree that he finds the real story baffling. he cant. it isnt baffling. it is perfectly believable. he is lying to himself and trying hard to not accept the truth. he is putting a workmanlike effort into being stupid about it. you dont have to do that for the kennedy story or some other conspiracies, like the one about roosevelt knowing about pearl harbor. the official 9/11 story is the most plausible thing ever.

 

of course, yeah.

thats why they "pulled" the firefighters from it. they knew it was in trouble and might come down. like i said, there was also worry that one liberty would come down. perhaps it was also rigged with explosives but they malfunctioned.

 

I don't know, regarding Kennedy, on one hand i want to believe that Oswald acted alone, being that he fits the social and psychological profile, and he did try and assassinate Edwin Walker, albeit unsuccessful. Plus he was a nut case, depressed, Russia wouldn't even take him back, he had no money, couldn't support his family, and thought that he was supposed to be a part of something big.

On another hand, there are 2 things that never sat well with me. One is the shot, for a guy that couldn't hit a motionless target from less than 100 feet, the Kennedy shot is miraculous. I mean the angle was really funny angle and plus the car was in motion, and moving away from the book depository, and there was a tree there also. Also the Zapruder film, from the way JFK's head flew back it looked a shot came from the fence line in front of the car.

No doubt in my mind Oswald had something to do with it, and was probably the lone guy, and some of the History Channel shows explain it really well, and they do a great job with the animation of the shot, but actually being in Dealey Plaza, it just doesn't look right.

 

Red:

The fire would have to be much hotter/longer to damage the steel at that level. One of the main points that even martin concedes is that the building must have another element involved.....a jet airliner or debris, in the case of Bldg 7. Jet airliners have some serious speed plus gallons and gallons of jet fuel so I was going to focus on the weakest part of the government's story-Bldg 7.

The only thing that hit Bldg 7 was debris, no plane, no fuel.

Red:

The volume of info on Bldg 7 is sufficient for my purposes, forget the twin towers. A 50 story high rise will do.

the link:
9-11 Research: 7 World Trade Center

Also:

Red:

Obviously there was a fire. A big one in the Towers....but in Bldg 7 the fires where much smaller. The fires in Bldg 7 pale in comparison to what other buildings with similar design/materials have withstood.

And I'm not about to get into conspiracies regarding the rest of the story if the Bldg 7 premise can be agreed upon. That would be a waste of time.

Red:

The fires were not huge and diesel fires would not melt steel otherwise diesel engines wouldn't be around long.

But don't listen to me, here are some engineers....

the link:
Patriots Question 9/11 - Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report