My Thoughts On Conspiracies And Conspiracy Theories

[Kyle M]

Dont get into the game of debating one cherry picked fact or another. It is the the totality of the evidence that needs to be evaluated. But just restricting our discussion to media foreshadowing, any one media mention can be dismissed as a coincidence. However when you have close to a hundred foreshadowings of 9/11 then you have to conclude that something besides cooincidence is at work. Despite what Kyle would have us believe, there are no other instances of such coordinated hidden media messaging for any other historical or non-historical event.

I think we're talking past each other because there are indeed millions of examples of foreshadowing that didn't happen. They seem insane to talk about because they didn't happen, but if they *did* happen, then they would be evidence of intentional foreknowledge.

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of The Tick when Chairface Chippendale tries to write his name on the moon and Tick stops him when he only has "Cha" written. I'm sure that in some alternate reality timeline, a country could have launched a nuclear missile at the moon and blown a visible crater into it. Find another half dozen comics that have as a plot point some kind of destruction of the moon visible from earth, and you have predictive programming.

I'm not saying there is a 0% chance that predictive programming exists, or even that it doesn't exist for 9/11, just that I find it probabilistically unlikely when considering all of the facts and my life experience and personal philosophy about reality and events etc. And I think I did a pretty good job, if I say so myself, at explaining that reasoning process in my article. I did equally attack skeptics as well as hardcore believers. I'm not a partisan I'm a truth-seeker, and I apply my reason evenly on everyone, equal opportunity skeptic, skeptical of skeptics as well as believers.

 

[Kyle M]

Perhaps its some sort of archaic jungian archetype. People see tall buidings and they instantly think what if a low flying plane ran into them

Didn't the Columbine shooters have a plan like that?

 

[Travis]

Foreknowledge of what, price inflation that had already been steadily occurring throughout the entire 20th century? This would be like a 1920s cartoon showing the price of a loaf of bread at a dollar when looking 50 years in the future.

Not exactly: That particular Simpson's episode was not a projection into the future (although $9 was portrayed as being an inflated price, by Bart.)

Did you know Kyle: There's enough chemical data in the Harrit article together with those from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories to precisely characterize the explosive used as submicron reduced aluminum embedded in an ethoxysilane polymer with like‐size iron oxide?

Harrit, Niels H. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." The Open Chemical Physics Journal (2009)
Bazyn, T. "Reflected shock ignition and combustion of aluminum and nanocomposite thermite powders." Combustion Science and Technology (2007)
Schoenitz, Mirko. "Kinetic Analysis of Thermite Reactions in Al-MoO₃ Nanocomposites." Journal of Propulsion and Power (2007)
Tillotson, T. M. "Nanostructured energetic materials using sol–gel methodologies." Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids (2001)
Umbrajkar, Swati M. "Exothermic reactions in Al–CuO nanocomposites." Thermochimica acta (2006)
Granier, John J. "Laser ignition of nanocomposite thermites." Combustion and Flame (2004)​

Or course, the disinformation trolls will pretend that this well characterized material is 'a myth,' but of course this is simply not true. The material found by Niels Harrit was simply the classic thermite metals, finely divided, embedded in a polymer. The EDS spectra confirm this, and show the silica co‐localized with the oxygen—as it should. The aluminum and iron are, of course, separated . . . aluminum simply waiting for an impetus to donate two electrons to iron, causing the liberation of the heat which turns the ethoxysilane polymer into methane gas. Such reactions have even been made supersonic, but they more commonly made to react right below the sound barrier—or a bit quieter.

This is really quite a simple material, and easy to make. The most technically challenging part is getting aluminum in small enough particles without is oxidizing significantly; the aluminum needs to be in its Al⁰ oxidation state for this to work. Iron can be substituted by molybdenum or copper.

'Nanocomposite thermite powders with balanced 2Al + MoO₃ composition were prepared by arrested reactive milling. The synthesis of reactive nanocomposites by mechanical milling has been documented for a number of thermite systems as well as materials with highly exothermic formation of intermetallic phases.' ―Schoenitz​

Any silane would do, but the more carbon substituents used the more methane and/or ethane gas created. It is the decomposing silane polymer that separates a deflagrant thermite from an explosive thermite (as well as the particle size.)

​

The disinformation trolls will also say that these are paint chips, but they cannot possibly be paint chips for the following reasons:

➫Although kaolin clay particles are commonly added to paint, they are added in μ-sized particles. The particles in the electron micrographs are clearly nano-sized particles (Harrit, 2009; Fig 8).

➫Although kaolin clay does have both aluminum and silica, these are found separated in the EDS maps (Harrit, 2009; Fig 15).

➫Paint is not exothermic. The material found by Harrit liberated +10·W/g (Harrit, 2009; Fig 29).

➫There are many other reasons; how many can you think of?​

 

[NathanK]

Perhaps its some sort of archaic jungian archetype. People see tall buidings and they instantly think what if a low flying plane ran into them

Maybe because 9-11 wasnt the first time an airplane had crashed into a building in NYC. My dad grew up in NYC. When I was a kid he used to tell me about the time a plane crashed into the Empire State Building when he was a kid. That was a big national news story and has always been part of NYC lore and fascination (there were other small planes crashes also). 9-11 just trumps them all because of scale and our own recency bias. Any early notions of 9-11 are more the result of past history seeding ideas.

Lastly, I think there has always been a fascination/curiosity/worry with planes crashing into buildings by the people in big cities that live by them. The largest and most iconic, like in the 1930's King Kong, being the most fantastical. The Twin Towers became the largest in NYC, and the world, after they were built in the early 70's. That, and their distinctiveness make them more than arbitrary targets for fantasy... or terrorism.

 

[Kyle M]

Not exactly: That particular Simpson's episode was not a projection into the future (although $9 was portrayed as being an inflated price, by Bart.)

Did you know Kyle: There's enough chemical data in the Harrit article together with those from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories to precisely characterize the explosive used as submicron reduced aluminum embedded in an ethoxysilane polymer with like‐size iron oxide?

Harrit, Niels H. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." The Open Chemical Physics Journal (2009)
Bazyn, T. "Reflected shock ignition and combustion of aluminum and nanocomposite thermite powders." Combustion Science and Technology (2007)
Schoenitz, Mirko. "Kinetic Analysis of Thermite Reactions in Al-MoO₃ Nanocomposites." Journal of Propulsion and Power (2007)
Tillotson, T. M. "Nanostructured energetic materials using sol–gel methodologies." Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids (2001)
Umbrajkar, Swati M. "Exothermic reactions in Al–CuO nanocomposites." Thermochimica acta (2006)
Granier, John J. "Laser ignition of nanocomposite thermites." Combustion and Flame (2004)​

Or course, the disinformation trolls will pretend that this well characterized material is 'a myth,' but of course this is simply not true. The material found by Niels Harrit was simply the classic thermite metals, finely divided, embedded in a polymer. The EDS spectra confirm this, and show the silica co‐localized with the oxygen—as it should. The aluminum and iron are, of course, separated . . . aluminum simply waiting for an impetus to donate two electrons to iron, causing the liberation of the heat which turns the ethoxysilane polymer into methane gas. Such reactions have even been made supersonic, but they more commonly made to react right below the sound barrier—or a bit quieter.

View attachment 7935

This is really quite a simple material, and easy to make. The most technically challenging part is getting aluminum in small enough particles without is oxidizing significantly; the aluminum needs to be in its Al⁰ oxidation state for this to work. Iron can be substituted by molybdenum or copper.

'Nanocomposite thermite powders with balanced 2Al + MoO₃ composition were prepared by arrested reactive milling. The synthesis of reactive nanocomposites by mechanical milling has been documented for a number of thermite systems as well as materials with highly exothermic formation of intermetallic phases.' ―Schoenitz​

Any silane would do, but the more carbon substituents used the more methane and/or ethane gas created. It is the decomposing silane polymer that separates a deflagrant thermite from an explosive thermite (as well as the particle size.)

View attachment 7938
​

The disinformation trolls will also say that these are paint chips, but they cannot possibly be paint chips for the following reasons:

➫Although kaolin clay particles are commonly added to paint, they are added in μ-sized particles. The particles in the electron micrographs are clearly nano-sized particles (Harrit, 2009; Fig 8).

➫Although kaolin clay does have both aluminum and silica, these are found separated in the EDS maps (Harrit, 2009; Fig 15).

➫Paint is not exothermic. The material found by Harrit liberated +10·W/g (Harrit, 2009; Fig 29).

➫There are many other reasons; how many can you think of?​

I have absolutely no criticism of the technical side of the 9/11 Truth Movement if that's what you're asking.

As for Bart Simpson, are we even sure that what he's holding is a magazine? I don't remember the scene myself.

 

[raypeatclips]

I have absolutely no criticism of the technical side of the 9/11 Truth Movement if that's what you're asking.

As for Bart Simpson, are we even sure that what he's holding is a magazine? I don't remember the scene myself.

Are we all in agreement about the technical aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy theory, just now we need to debate the Bart Simpson section of the 9/11 theory?

 

[Travis]

I have absolutely no criticism of the technical side of the 9/11 Truth Movement if that's what you're asking.

That was not my question, as was plainly written. It bothers me that you invent ambiguity where there is none.

 

[Kyle M]

That was not my question, as was plainly written. It bothers me that you invent ambiguity where there is none.

Ok, well I did not know all of the particulars of the chemicals found at the site, just the general information. I don't really see much of a point in going into those particulars personally, until someone tries to refute the general findings. Unless there is a good reason for any kind of thermite residue to be found at a site like that, I assume that it's related to a controlled demolition procedure.

 

[Kyle M]

Dont get into the game of debating one cherry picked fact or another. It is the the totality of the evidence that needs to be evaluated. But just restricting our discussion to media foreshadowing, any one media mention can be dismissed as a coincidence. However when you have close to a hundred foreshadowings of 9/11 then you have to conclude that something besides cooincidence is at work. Despite what Kyle would have us believe, there are no other instances of such coordinated hidden media messaging for any other historical or non-historical event.

Just to clarify, Travis brought up the "cherry picked fact" of the magazine, not me. And I agree with you that the totality of the evidence should be considered together, not each point one at a time.

 

[Travis]

Ok, well I did not know all of the particulars of the chemicals found at the site, just the general information. I don't really see much of a point in going into those particulars personally, until someone tries to refute the general findings.

Well Kyle: It's one thing the sort~of believe what happened, but quite another to see the proof of this. You are aware that some people actually require proof, yes?

Without knowing the details, or reading the Harrit article, a person can be confused by flimsy arguments purporting the nancomposite material to be 'paint chips.' I don't like to see such things happen, and think everyone should know about the EDS data and the fact that the exact same material had been routinely produced by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories since the 1990s—with publications detailing all of this.

 

[Travis]

Just to clarify, Travis brought up the "cherry picked fact" of the magazine, not me. And I agree with you that the totality of the evidence should be considered together, not each point one at a time.

He doesn't need your clarification Kyle. He was obviously responding to me, and not you, as can be plainly seen in this screenshot:

I'm getting the impression that you are purposefully feigning ignorance so you have the excuse of writing what you had—dripping wet with annoying 7th‐grade retribution—knowing full‐well that he'd been responding to me.

 

[Kyle M]

He doesn't need your clarification Kyle. He was obviously responding to me, and not you, as can be plainly seen in this screenshot:

View attachment 7951

I'm getting the impression that you are purposefully feigning ignorance so you have the excuse of writing what you had—dripping wet with annoying 7th‐grade retribution—knowing full‐well that he'd been responding to me.

You ok Trav? Yes he was responding to you, but in a way that implied that I was goading you into addressing cherry picked points. I wasn't, and was simply engaging with you on this one point you brought up to me.

Exercise is good for getting out aggression.

 

[Kyle M]

Well Kyle: It's one thing the sort~of believe what happened, but quite another to see the proof of this. You are aware that some people actually require proof, yes?

Without knowing the details, or reading the Harrit article, a person can be confused by flimsy arguments purporting the nancomposite material to be 'paint chips.' I don't like to see such things happen, and think everyone should know about the EDS data and the fact that the exact same material had been routinely produced by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories since the 1990s—with publications detailing all of this.

This isn't a trial, my "belief" in 9/11 conspiracy is an amalgamation of physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, geopolitical evidence, and several other things. Sure, if you want to prove to a trial that thermite was indeed at the site, then finding the exact compositional data is important. Let me know when you're called as a witness on this trial Trav, I'll be there supporting you. For the rest of the time, when talking to normal people, you go into the details *as needed* you don't just autistically data dump everything you know on a topic. That is what you like to do, and some people like it I guess, but to me I think they are just impressed with your seeming knowledge but don't actually get much from these data dumps.

Suggestion: wait until someone *asks you* for details, before posting something several paragraphs long with details that are likely to not be read. Do you think anyone here, after not asking for it, reads and checks the references you cite? That would be a full-time job.

It's important to not attach your emotions too much to your prestige on an internet forum.

 

[x-ray peat]

I'm not saying there is a 0% chance that predictive programming exists, or even that it doesn't exist for 9/11, just that I find it probabilistically unlikely when considering all of the facts and my life experience and personal philosophy about reality and events etc. And I think I did a pretty good job, if I say so myself, at explaining that reasoning process in my article. I did equally attack skeptics as well as hardcore believers. I'm not a partisan I'm a truth-seeker, and I apply my reason evenly on everyone, equal opportunity skeptic, skeptical of skeptics as well as believers.

Though I would agree that many people are so conditioned that they reflexively reject anything that smacks of conspiracy, I would argue that there are very few conspiracy theorists that would fit your description of the naïve believer. Ironically, this caricature of conspiracy theorists as earnest but misguided seekers is also part of our conditioning. Fox Mulder of The X-Files and the “I want to believe” meme is a good example of this. The movies Conspiracy Theorist and A Beautiful Mind are two other examples of predictive programming designed to dismiss any potential truth teller as a crack pot.

I also think you are too quickly dismissing the concept of Predictive Programming as a very real part of social engineering. For those interested, I would suggest the following video by Allan Watt on the subject. Try to suspend disbelief as you listen and then check what he is saying through your own research. Waking up from a lifetime of social engineering and operant conditioning is not an easy thing to do. The Rabbit Hole is long and winding and one video is far from enough to get to the bottom of it.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

9/11 happened but I think the concept of predictive programming is silly.

 

[lvysaur]

On one hand: you have a wide array of images depicting destruction of these buildings, far more examples than that of similar iconic structures such as the Eiffel Tower and the Seattle Space Needle.

Proof? Conspiracy theorists haven't scoured the web for images of planes flying into the eiffel tower, so that argument is invalid.

There are plenty of valid reasons to be suspicious of 9/11, no need to look at stupid cartoon tropes as evidence.

 

[Travis]

Proof? Conspiracy theorists haven't scoured the web for images of planes flying into the eiffel tower, so that argument is invalid.

There are plenty of valid reasons to be suspicious of 9/11, no need to look at stupid cartoon tropes as evidence.

This is true, and I was just trying to be equitable. I don't consider cartoons as evidence.

And just to be clear, it was Kyle who first started off this thread—not me.

This isn't a trial, my "belief" in 9/11 conspiracy is an amalgamation of physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, geopolitical evidence, and several other things. Sure, if you want to prove to a trial that thermite was indeed at the site, then finding the exact compositional data is important. Let me know when you're called as a witness on this trial Trav, I'll be there supporting you. For the rest of the time, when talking to normal people, you go into the details *as needed* you don't just autistically data dump everything you know on a topic. That is what you like to do, and some people like it I guess, but to me I think they are just impressed with your seeming knowledge but don't actually get much from these data dumps.

Suggestion: wait until someone *asks you* for details, before posting something several paragraphs long with details that are likely to not be read. Do you think anyone here, after not asking for it, reads and checks the references you cite? That would be a full-time job.

It's important to not attach your emotions too much to your prestige on an internet forum.

Whenever you see something you want to comprehend, you blow it off as marginal. I know or your type. If you don't want to read about something that is fine, but people who do shouldn't be considered 'autistic.' Explanations should be grounded in physical reality, and you can't just wave a magic wand every time you need to explain a gap in a series of events. There can be dozens of explanations for any event, and I think we all know that only one of them can be true.

When asked how ions really were partitioned between the inracellular and the extracelluar space, you just mumbled something lazy about 'ATP' as if that was an actual explanation. I do remember that, and you denigrated a perfectly logical and novel mechanism. All I've ever heard from you were bourgeois platitudes wrapped in flaky logic, probably semi‐plagiarized from Quora.com.

 

[Kyle M]

The movies Conspiracy Theorist

The protagonist in this movie is 100% vindicated in his conspiracy theorizing.

 

[Kyle M]

When asked how ions really were partitioned between the inracellular and the extracelluar space, you just mumbled something lazy about 'ATP' as if that was an actual explanation. I do remember that, and you denigrated a perfectly logical and novel mechanism. All I've ever heard from you were bourgeois platitudes wrapped in flaky logic, probably semi‐plagiarized from Quora.com.

Interesting you could tell I was mumbling over text. Actually I said that the hydrated radius of potassium is smaller than that of sodium, and that ATP is an adsorbent to the surface of proteins, with its three phosphates pulling in positive ions.

Maybe you're just upset that you argued with me so over catastrophic global warming many months ago, and are slowly learning how silly your position was?

I know a bit of your type too, big fish little pond. Nothing you write will ever see print or be read by people outside of small communities like this, where you feel like a big man on campus. I suppose you are that. And you don't use your photograph in your avatar, likely because you look bad and it would hurt your credibility that you so arduously work to build and maintain here.

P.S. - tbh I started to rather like you, but the self-important info dumps that I assure you no one reads the entirety of, and how you lash out when reading something I didn't even mean to offend, reminds me of how awful you were in the climate change debate. Oh well

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Kyle. Whenever you see something you want to comprehend, you blow it off as marginal. I know or your type. If you don't want to read about something that is fine, but people who do shouldn't be considered 'autistic.' Explanations should be grounded in physical reality, and you can't just wave a magic wand every time you need to explain a gap in a series of events. There can be dozens of explanations for any event, and I think we all know that only one of them can be true...All I've ever heard from you were bourgeois platitudes wrapped in flaky logic, probably semi‐plagiarized from Quora.com.

Ironic that even though you are inheritly smarter and infinitely more knowledgeable, kyle is probably more successful and occupies a higher social position.

Kyle reminds me of the socially adroit middle manager who doesn't understand (nor doe he attempt to) the functional aspect of the work he oversees.

Travis reminds me of the intellectually gifted aspie who's lack of interest in monkey politics keeps him from being promoted.

There's a lot of research that shows that "normies" like Kyle live in a socially defined reality where objective facts don't matter as much as socially accepted beliefs. Herd mentality if you will.

For most people, social and sexual selection trumps natural selection. So if they hold certain beliefs about the world that are untrue and could get them killed (i.e. grizzlies are cute and cuddly) it's not nearly as harmful as holding true beliefs that are unpopular or harmful to their socially status (thus reducing their chances of reproduction). Eventually you get a people that are plain out schizophrenic.

That's how cults, religions, fandoms, and pretty much any ridiculous subculture works. A bunch of "normie" schizophrenics succumbing to a convergent delusion. A grand folie de deux.

As an aside, I've been lucky enough to watch certain sly, socially adroit individuals go into a new social atmospheres and espouse the popular political or religious belief with such conviction that they even had me fooled. Watching them, I could see these people becoming head of the church or political gathering...but thatd another topic altogether. I don't think these people were "normies" as some normies actually believe the things they say. They were a different sort. I notice they tended to rub their hands a lot.

Anyways, aspies don't suffer from this convergent delusion mentality. New research is showing that aspies and schizophrenics are opposite sides of the same coin. Aspies often have more brain mass than average in the same locations where schizophrenics have less brian mass than average. Aspies are less likely to suffer from the delusions normies suffer from like a belief in guardian angels or fate or pre determined purpose. Schizos are more likely to suffer from them.

@Travis im very curious what you think of my take on the subject. @Kyle M you as well.

It might simply be the case of two divergent brain morphologies talking past each other