57 votes

New Studies: 'Conspiracy Theorists' SANE; Government Dupes CRAZY, HOSTILE

New Studies: 'Conspiracy Theorists' SANE; Government Dupes CRAZY, HOSTILE

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.

Read more: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-th...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Actually your video did not have any examples

But I will humor you and point out that the person in the video is just plain incorrect when he says there were no sounds of explosions, or evidence of explosive nanothermite found. There were numerous eyewitness reports and multiple recordings of explosions, and nanothermite was in fact found.

Eyewitness report from Michael Hess who was trapped in WTC7 on the eighth floor after an explosion.


Here is a series of videos that recorded explosions


Here is interview with the team of scientists who analyzed the nanothermite:


Whoops, it was the next video

Happens in the first minute or so. Google "Windsor Tower."



Could transformers or other electrical equipment explain some of what the firemen saw and heard? What about an acre of concrete floor slamming into another? Would steel bolts snapping under tremendous tension make a pop or explosive sound? Assuming the towers weren't in the vacuum of space, we can be fairly safe to say the things I mentioned are good candidates to explain what the firemen heard. Even they think so...



The windsor tower never even collapsed!

Here is a picture of the building still standing after the massive fires that burned for almost 24 hours finally went out.

Windor Tower Still Standing

Yes, most of the Windsor is standing...

This is called a proof of concept. In other words, can a steel beam be weakened to the point of failure by only fire. The Windsor, and the video's I've shown prove that it can be done.

Now, when you take into account that WTC7 was not only weakened by a raging immense fire that was not cooled because of a busted sprinkler system; but also from two 450,000,000 kilogram structures collapsing right next to it, and no fire-fighters trying to put out the fire, it is conceivable, even probable that the whole structure would collapse.

The concept you need to prove...

The concept you need to prove is that a high rise steel structure can suddenly completely collapse pretty much straight down due to fire. That a partial collapse of the facade of a building can ensue from raging infernos much hotter than those in WTC 7 burning for ~3 times as long is not particularly moving.

fireant's picture


the part of Windsor steel structure which had not yet been encased in concrete did collapse, like a house of cards:
Start at 2:25

Undo what Wilson did

At 8:57 he says there were no sounds of explosions. NOT true.

9/11: Sound Evidence for WTC 7 Explosions and NIST Cover Up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIF6P8zBG8

9/11 - WTC 7 Explosion on Audio (heard by firemen)

Yes, there was sound that is measurable...

But there was no explosion. The force of the weight of the building collapsing upon itself makes sound.

Yes, explosions BEFORE collapse of wtc 7.

...Right before, as well as sequential explosion sounds during the collapse.

There was a HUGE explosion that can be heard when the firemen were using the phone. The one said as he hurried to them, "We gotta get back. Seven's exploding!" (notice he did NOT say "Seven collapsed")

Also, there was the explosion that caused Barry Jennings and Hess to be trapped on the eighth floor of wtc 7.

So yes, EXPLOSIONS, not just sound of weight of building having collapsed.

fireant's picture

None of the hundreds of first responders and evacuees who

were on Vesey Street, directly in front of 7WTC, reported any explosion in 7 at the time alleged by Jennings.
If cutter charges were used to dismantle 7, there would be no need for sound analysis to discover them, for ALL of lower Manhattan would have heard and reported them. There would be no ambiguity. Listen:

Undo what Wilson did

Regardless of Jennings' timeline, his report of explosion...

...was corroborated by Hess.

As for the sound analysis, it did not ~discover~ the explosions at the time of collapse. It corroborated the numerous reports of them and also shows that they started just before collapse.

So no, the sound wasn't just the weight of the building falling or snapping bolts.

...or auto tires and batteries.

Sorry man....

I know it seems like those sounds have to be explosions; but they're not.

The decibel level is caused by all those steel beams snapping while the entire mass of the building collapses on itself. And there are no sequential explosions after that. It's the sound of 450,000,000 kg coming to the ground in a very quick fashion. The impulse[(F*Δt) or (mass * acceleration * change in time)] is very big and makes lots of big bangs.

Also, you've got electrical transformers and wiring through the entire building.


The building didn't even collapse...

This is just a building on fire. The building didn't even collapse. Is that the best you can do?

The whole front side collasped...

Uhh....yeah, and the fires were not close to being as big as the WTC7.

How come you can't find any complete collapses?

Has there ever been a complete collapse of a high rise steel structure due to fire?


Thank u for showing this ..however the building structure itself didn't collapse as it is still there.. got any other ones?

The entire front structure collapsed...

But if your lying eyes need more, try this....


the entire front structure collapsed?

Look at the right side of the front structure, it does not collapse. It remains intact. You can not tell if the all the lower stories collapsed (like WTC 7) but I doubt it especially if u do this...

- watch the video again, and this time put the point of ur mouse right below the left back end of the front of the structure
- leave it there and do not move it until the entire video is complete (yes until the smoke clears completely)

You will see that the entire front structure has not collapsed at all as you claim. This video hurts your basis with WTC 7 so can you provide any others? I really would love to see them

Okay, so what...

A small part of the right side of the structure is still standing. Amazingly, this is the part where no burning occurred; but regardless, this proves that a fire can cause a steel structure to fail. I can't go into depth based off of a 2 minute video, that would be ridiculous; but I can say failure of steel structure from fire is possible.

can you operate a torch correctly?

or tell the difference between a cutting and a welding torch?
just curious.

methinks you probably don't even know what a heat sink is or why you would need to use one.


Why would I have to operate a torch to understand what a heat sink is?

conduction, convection and radiation.

any other questions?

(a heat sink is used to prevent conduction from damaging sensitive components, when using a torch)



Why do I have to operate a torch to understand that?

heat transfer.

metals tend to "wick" heat away from the source of the heat, by conduction.
to operate a torch correctly, it is necessary to know that. to cut steel it is necessary to inject oxygen.

"but I can say failure of steel structure from fire is possible"

it is not possible from an ordinary open air flame.


That's part of the equation....

But you're missing how material properties are affected by heat. It is true that an open flame cannot cause failure in steel all on its own; however it can lower the overall strength and hardness of the material. The heat makes the steel more malleable and ductile; but also more susceptible to failure from both normal and shear stress. Therefore, a steel beam under a compressive load can fail under long exposure to heat. This is similar to the annealing process, which is used to bring "hard" metal to a more ductile state by heating the specimen with fairly low temperatures for long periods of time.

And a technician, working with a "torch" (as you put it), does not need to know the fundamentals of heat transfer to get a job. Directions on what "torch" to use, or what temperature to operate the torch, dependent on what material would suffice. That is why most welders do not need a full 4 year college degree in order to work.

Lastly, the study of thermodynamics and heat transfer is a very complicated subject. In other words, your belief that an understanding of how a "torch" works somehow gives you insight to the processes taking place inside the wonderful world of thermodynamics is demeaning to all the mechanical engineers and physicist who spent their lifetimes trying to understand it. And then, trying to apply that to the 9/11 conspiracy is beyond my ability for rational thought.

Lastly, the study of thermodynamics and heat transfer is a very

complicated subject"
and you felt the need to tell someone who goes by HVACTech this fact?
you are not even knowledgeable enough to know what HVAC/R stands for, and then you get uppity about thermodynamics?

you piss me off.


You think because you're an HVAC tech you understand the complexities of Thermodynamics? I think that might be the most awesome case of technical ignorance I've ever heard.

And what's with your video? HAHA!!!

fascinating, and you posted that on a public forum.

why did you bother to join or post?

I have both knowledge and credibility on the subject of thermodynamics. I work with them everyday. it is what I do.
"enthalpy" go ahead, look it up. and after you do.

try to ask me an intelligent question about it's application in my field.