In order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy.

You only have to know two things.

One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs.

It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/

Sure, just keep drinking the kool-aid.

Drink the cool aid hot rod.

We all know plane crashes involve body parts suitcases, clothing pretty much everything all over the place. Saw none of that at the Pentagon.

How many video cameras surround the Pentagon? what footage was released?

And what are the defenses of the Pentagon? The nerve center of
our trillion dollar defense industry?

I am not saying everyone is right who makes a post but most of the intelligent comments are from thinking people and the majority take a position that goes against the official explanation of 911.

I am thinking most people are 911 skeptics.

It was used to create this god awful Orwellian police state we call America.

The land of free and home of the brave is some kind of sick joke.

http://gunssaveus.com/post-game-interview-interrupted-investigate-911/

Post Game Interview Interrupted, “Investigate 9/11?”

Was this a crazy fan or some sort of inside genius? Should we take his advice and investigate 9/11, we have all heard the conspiracy about it being an inside job. This is probably a guy we should have mentally evaluated.(not just him) Just a funny incident….

Gotta love those people willing to risk jail time for insanity.

I just enjoy the comments at the yahoo article. Have no idea why yahoo users seem to have a higher IQ than many of the posters on this site.

Here is one I found interesting.

Building 7 fell in 6 seconds and nothing hit it!

...That's right a 3rd building fell and there was a media blackout about it.

Not on single airport security camera showing you a terrorist entering a plane,

No plane at the pentagon or shanksville.

2500 architects and engineers telling you that NIST is lying to your face!

Nano-thermite found in ''molten metal''...

jet fuel burns at 800 degrees steel takes 3000 degrees to melt,

yea, well..point taken, but the underlying message is the same... i personally don't think it was a "false flag" event, but the powers that be sure used it to their advantage...

even if you ignore the conspiracy parts, it still makes a bit of sense..

I think quoting Floyd in a Bieber thread is considered a sin.

Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors.

This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance etc.

For example, when people smoke (behavior) and they know that smoking causes cancer (cognition).

Festinger's (1957) cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all our attitudes and beliefs in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance).
http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

Whose rational is accepted is the X factor. Because YOU believe something to be true or rational does not make it so.
Perhaps Your rational becomes the question...... defend that as anything other than more opinion!

that's true,

I have 'heard' many things that were also posted on the internet a million times over , but from 'opinion' pieces which offered no FACTUAL or verifiable reference,,,

which causes me to look FURTHER for what has a verifiable and reliable source,, but then many will feel the source the information is ABOUT is dishonest and so will rely on sources that are just reiterating allegations about the source,,,




its a balancing act, but still, its best not to just believe anything that supports our biases, without further verification of its source, reliability, and the FACTs included as opposed to the spins and opinions,,,

but of course, why else would the army build blimps?

i was thinking WH... i also think it was shot down by the government... not that they had a choice but to shoot it down...

This idea of floating blimps with radar is nothing new. The military has been running such a system for the past 30 years. This predates Obama by decades. It's probably just the DoD and ICE.

is Washington in danger of low flying missiles now?

A theory (applicable mathematical solution you can correlate with other sciences) is when it shows testable results of reproducible experimentation, observation in nature and the findings survive peer review.
Hypotheses start from the opposite end. You assert and falsify.

You can start with a hypothesis and it winds up as a theorum, but more often theorum are discovered independently and hypotheses point the directions.


The important mathematical point about Hawking's hypothesis is that it fixes a core paradox with the only transmissible black hole solution, the Reissner-Nordstroem. It's the only one which actually relates to collapsed stars (the kerr and static solutions are too rudimentary to be likely as literal physical objects, they just took a crack at specific properties).

The problem wiht a real black hole is that if it matched the best model we've got for them, they have a paradox once you get to a certain mass, something like 15-solar masses.

The static field and event horizons cross.

That would mean you have a naked singularity ring roaming around the universe. It's about as realistic as a dragon.
It was always the major problem with the conventional black hole model, that's why string theorists came up with fuzzy stars and things like that.

Hawking's idea seems to try to cross the bridge between fuzzy stars and conventional solutions, most importantly it suggests the naked singularity paradox isn't a problem. That's important, tells us how close our math is to reality.

http://www.tctimes.com/news/it-s-true-because-the-internet-said-so-right/article_cbb36a80-8373-11e3-965b-0019bb2963f4.html


According to the Internet, it was President Abraham Lincoln who said, “The problem with Internet quotes is that you can’t always depend on their accuracy.” The sentence is often used to point out how unreliable some information can be when it comes to websites. If you found yourself questioning whether Lincoln’s ‘quote’ was ever true, it may be time to visit new sites.

 If you’re looking for the most useful and persuasive information, try to find information that is objective, which Merriam Webster defines as “based on facts rather than feelings or opinions.”
......



In order to get the best, most well-rounded view of an issue, people should read from multiple websites and news sources. While news outlets should strive to remain objective and keep their opinions out of reporting, that is not always the case. While these websites listed by the Times is a good start, consider reading from as many different viewpoints as possible. Conservative, liberal, independent, feminist, patriarchal, religious, secular — the more opinions and facts you are exposed to, the more you can strengthen your own criticisms and opinions.