Stubborn, Pig-Headed People.

[graphicequaliser]

Last night, I was chatting to an intelligent, affluent couple about conspiracy theories. When we came onto the subject of 9-11, the light-hearted tone started to turn aggressive and sour. They simply refused to believe they may have been hoodwinked by media trickery and conditioned mass opinion. I carefully laid out the key pointers as to why there is reasonable cause for suspicion about the official story (WTC 1 and 2 designed like pipes to handle a hole without collapsing, freefall speed and steel temperatures, WTC 7 falling down despite no impact, hundreds of external Pentagon cameras failing to capture anything of the jumbo that crashed into it, and the BBC footage of the report of WTC 7 collapse more than 20 minutes before it did). They replied that "it is all in the past now, forget about it"! I was tempted to use one of Bill Hicks' arguments about how they say the same thing about the murder of JFK, but still harp on about the murder of Jesus Christ thousands of years after the event. However, tact led me to allay such a temptation for fear of a twatting.

[blackcat]

"Let the dead bury the dead" as the great Alex Jones frequently says.
Meaning don't waste your time on people like that.

[ian neal]

Sadly this is still a very common experience and an indication of just how deep the programming is for many people. Often the more 'intelligent' a person is, the harder they find it to accept or even consider the possibility that they have been severely duped. For a start their 'intelligence' tells them just how far reaching and significant 9/11 truth is and that causes the computer in their heads to crash.

[xmasdale]

Einsten said:

"Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance."

While we all get frustrated by that attitude in those we speak to about 9/11, we need also to apply that same principle, of not condemning without investigation, to comrades in this movement with whom we disagree.

Noel

[acrobat74]

To ignite some basic scepticism it is usually best to
- just lay out a couple of irrefutable pieces of evidence (e.g. WTC7 collapse)
- inject some credibility (e.g. name titles of professors who question the official narrative)
- avoid more speculative or research-intensive areas
- keep it short, facts-based and simple

I wouldn't get such people reading Sutton just yet.

De-programming can only be done by the individual, any excessive effort from others will trigger a defensive denial reaction.

[Dallas]

[Dallas]

[Ravenmoon]

Peoples defense mechanisms are nearly as strong as their survival instincts & for you to merely hint (even though they recognise the fact) that their 2.3 nuclear family might not be the real deal will put them into major denial

[marky 54]

[Alulim]

[insidejob]

Has anyone tried questioning people about why they are certain that Bin Laden and Al Qaida did it?

I think the first thing to do to shatter their assumptions is to ask them why they are certain Bin Laden did it. The only piece of evidence is the video confession. Yet, the US Justice Department has no indicted him because they don't have the evidence.

The only evidence of Al Qaida involvement is surveillance of and interrogation by the German and US intelligence services of the Hamburg cell. Most people's belief about Bin Laden and Al Qaida involvement in 911 does not come from any of this.

So, this means that there is nothing but repeated claims from politicians and the media to support people's belief that Bin Laden and Al Qaida were responsible for 911. Or rather, they believe it because of propaganda.

[Jayhawk]

I find a similar blinkered attitude from people who simply do not look at the evidence. They do not think it is even necessary, such is their trust in government and media, although on many other issues they will badmouth the PTB incessantly. It is like a reverse taboo, don't go there it's too horrific. I find that people close to me actually kick me under the table when the subject comes up in order to avoid the embarrassment, although genuinely because they do not want me to be thought of as foolish. I long for the truth to come out, perversely almost so I can say I told you so, and yet really it is because it cannot be allowed to remain hidden. But how will it ever be reported in a media which is controlled by the perpetrators?

[acrobat74]

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well some of us here were kicked off an Open University OUSA Atheist/Agnostics conference recently for bring up 9/11 & 7/7 truth.

There was a massive rumble, nay actually it was huge rumble, one of the morons kept telling me how he had an O'Level Physics from 1966. Complete an utter old boy 'been there seen that got the T-Shirt' type. Talk about cognitive dissonance, the truth would shatter his total world view. After the reality was explained to him, he descended to calling me a provocateur and liar, well actually he gave me a choice he said "Are you a provocateur or a liar?".

We were also accused of infiltrating the conference, attempting to subvert the discussion, and general disruption.

I was accused of falsifying my qualifications etc. although no other moron from the other side proved their qualifications to me, I never saw the 1966 O'Level certificate for instance, or the "nurse's diploma" for instance...


After kicking me off, they went back to general making fun of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims etc, and discussing the best biblical jokes etc. Inspired discussion I'm sure.


I don't have a problem with stubborn, ignorant, pig headed people actually. I have more of a massive problem with controlled "sceptics" who subscribe to the Richard Dawkins is god, and James Randi is the Messiah school of thought.

[TonyGosling]

Rather a good Alex Jones rebuttal of a caller to his show who claims to believe the official story. He has done his homework old Alex and become a major international figure as a result.

I rather admire the way he trots the stuff off from memory - not like one of these New Labour PR clones in the cabinet who can't string two words together without a computer generated script to read from.


Link

[graphicequaliser]

Wow, Alex is sure on form there! I'd love to spend an evening with him and a group of afficianados discussing what we have uncovered!

On another topic, I have been reading about Dr. Judy Wood's work into how a directed energy weapon may have been used. The evidence she presents is very disturbing and incontravertible. What the heck is all this "lathering up" of the buildings just prior to collapse? And how do steel beams vapourize before your very eyes!?! How did the cars get rusty and where did their engine blocks go? How does steel instantly rust? Why didn't the paper burn, but marble and steel were pulverized to tiny dust-sized fragments? Where did all the heat go? Or was it not there in the first place? Why is there a half-mile exclusion zone around the area even today? Why are there clouds of vapour around the site months after the event? There is a whole lot more to 9-11 than meets the eye.