Jet fuel can't melt steel. (But it sure can weaken it)


Recommended Posts

mudslag
1 hour ago, monkeylove said:

You're not helping yourself in any way. The fact that debris was stolen and that investigators acknowledged that 80 percent of the debris was not examined before the report was published makes matters worse! Or are you claiming that the police and fire experts are not telling the truth?

 

 

 

 

 

You don't understand the report that you posted, you clearly have no clue what you're even arguing for.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan
15 hours ago, mudslag said:

 

 

You don't understand the report that you posted, you clearly have no clue what you're even arguing for.

Laymen with no understanding who also appears to willfully read it wrong and misinterpret a highly technical report, made for people who have "tech translators" to help them understand it...  this is why sometimes it's better to not release them. 

 

Then again, several people here have explained his won points and numbers to him and how he's reading them wrong and not understanding them, and how they didn't ignore 80% of the wreckage. and he keeps on trolling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PsYcHoKiLLa

Yeah, this video proves nothing. He was using a very thin piece of steel, the girders in the twin towers weren't, I think, the same thickness as that, if he could do the same with support girders then I might be convinced. Also how would the heat "melt" all the support girders uniformly so that the whole structure collapses in on itself.

 

Witnesses remember hearing explosions at the base of the buildings just before the collapses which investigators stated was due to rubble and other materials falling down the lift shafts and the internal structures of the building due to the damage at the top, they couldn't possibly have been explosives on the support pillars at the base, even though other witnesses report seeing workmen there in the weeks before the tragedy.

 

The buildings both fell down in the exact manner of a controlled demolition, they didn't tip, even though they were two of the highest buildings in the world, no, they fell straight down.

 

Also, the icing on the cake, one of the hijackers passports was "allegedly" found in the debris in the street afterwards and apparently an ID card was found at the Pentagon after also, so we're to believe that the jet fuel was enough to melt the internal structure of two of the largest man-made structures on the planet but not hot enough to melt a paper/plastic passport. Although, now, apparently, the story is that the passport was handed to the FBI by some "mystery man" who wasn't detained for questioning or interviewed but left after handing it in, also wholly believable obviously.

 

Hmmmm K.

Edited by PsYcHoKiLLa
Link to post
Share on other sites
adrynalyne

:rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K
48 minutes ago, PsYcHoKiLLa said:

Yeah, this video proves nothing. He was using a very thin piece of steel, the girders in the twin towers weren't, I think, the same thickness as that, if he could do the same with support girders then I might be convinced. Also how would the heat "melt" all the support girders uniformly so that the whole structure collapses in on itself.

 

Witnesses remember hearing explosions at the base of the buildings just before the collapses which investigators stated was due to rubble and other materials falling down the lift shafts and the internal structures of the building due to the damage at the top, they couldn't possibly have been explosives on the support pillars at the base, even though other witnesses report seeing workmen there in the weeks before the tragedy.

 

The buildings both fell down in the exact manner of a controlled demolition, they didn't tip, even though they were two of the highest buildings in the world, no, they fell straight down.

 

Also, the icing on the cake, one of the hijackers passports was "allegedly" found in the debris in the street afterwards and apparently an ID card was found at the Pentagon after also, so we're to believe that the jet fuel was enough to melt the internal structure of two of the largest man-made structures on the planet but not hot enough to melt a paper/plastic passport. Although, now, apparently, the story is that the passport was handed to the FBI by some "mystery man" who wasn't detained for questioning or interviewed but left after handing it in, also wholly believable obviously.

 

Hmmmm K.

 

PsYcHoKiLLa  95113-Nelson-haha-meme-imgur-kncuYjp-BPu

 

yea yea yea ... we sure haven't heard all these before.

 

Face it, facts alone are insufficient to dispel or destroy the 9/11 conspiracy theories as the theory itself appeals to the receptiveness of the audience themselves rather than the accuracy of details.  9/11 conspiracy theories (and others) will continue on regardless of what information is given and received as the followers change their emphases and arguments when presented with new information.  In the end, (as Erik Sofge once wrote) it is like arguing over the marching speed of hobbits.  

 

Anyway, the reason I didn't respond directly to your points is that it is an exercise in futility.

Edited by jjkusaf
That meme fits perfect ... it was like it was meant to be
Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag
3 hours ago, PsYcHoKiLLa said:

Yeah, this video proves nothing. He was using a very thin piece of steel, the girders in the twin towers weren't, I think, the same thickness as that, if he could do the same with support girders then I might be convinced. Also how would the heat "melt" all the support girders uniformly so that the whole structure collapses in on itself.

 

Try this then 

 

 

 

 

 

Witnesses remember hearing explosions at the base of the buildings just before the collapses which investigators stated was due to rubble and other materials falling down the lift shafts and the internal structures of the building due to the damage at the top, they couldn't possibly have been explosives on the support pillars at the base, even though other witnesses report seeing workmen there in the weeks before the tragedy.

 

Ear witnesses is no different then eye witnesses, it's all subjective and not the most reliable. There are many reasons for hearing what could be passed off as explosion sounds. None of which automatically equate controlled explosions. 

 

 

The buildings both fell down in the exact manner of a controlled demolition, they didn't tip, even though they were two of the highest buildings in the world, no, they fell straight down.

 

 

Actually no, it's not even close to an exact manner of a controlled demolition. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Video after video shows actually controlled demolitions and they all have commonality to them, multiple explosions going off first, then the buildings coming down from the bottom up. WTC towers 1 and 2 both fell from the impact points downward, which resulted in the pancaking from top down.  So when you say it's exactly like a controlled demolition, you're not even in the same ball park as those.

 

We haven't even touched on the fact that in order to even begin work on such a magnitude of a project of bringing down the WTC towers, that even smaller buildings takes weeks and months to setup and prepare. Even then they have to go over the lines and charges after being placed multiple times in case of faulty wiring or any other potential issues that could cause the building from setting off properly. The man hours and work forced needed for such a project would be huge and yet we're supposed to believe that no one ever let anything slip? Our gov has a history of not being able to keep secrets but somehow the untolds amount of people that would have been needed all were able to stay quiet. That sounds logical. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

But it's so much easier to believe that

1. Thousands of involved people in this planned destruction kept quiet

2. Hundreds of explosives where planted and wired in the buildings without anyone noticing

3. The plane hijackers managed to hit the EXACT right floors of the buildings where the bombs where placed

4. The plane crash didn't distrupt any of the hundreds of carefully placed explosives. 

5. The massive fire from the jet fuel didn't burn up any of the thousand of meters of detcord laid outfor the detonation

6. They used secret explosives that don't actually explode... or ... eh... something... Maybe those secret new Area 51 Implosives....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove
On 3/20/2016 at 1:29 PM, adrynalyne said:

Yeah and conspiracy theorists just make crap up to support their ridiculous claims. 

Except that what I shared isn't conspiracy theory. All points refer to the FEMA report and mainstream newspaper articles, not to mention one NIST FAQ that was supposed to counter my argument but only reinforced it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove
On 3/20/2016 at 2:39 PM, trag3dy said:

 

This guy.

 

He keeps asking other people to prove his case for him and that's just not how things work.

 

I can't help but think he's trolling at this point. 

 

I'm not asking for a case to be proven. I'm asking why most of the physical evidence was destroyed without careful examination and for no reason at all. There is nothing in the FEMA report that answers these questions, and every counter-argument I've been getting in this thread consists of nothing but illogical excuses and claims of conspiracy (which I never made).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan
Just now, monkeylove said:

I'm not asking for a case to be proven. I'm asking why most of the physical evidence was destroyed without careful examination and for no reason at all. There is nothing in the FEMA report that answers these questions, and every counter-argument I've been getting in this thread consists of nothing but illogical excuses and claims of conspiracy (which I never made).

 

And you've been answered, countless times. Actual experts determined what evidence was needed, and DID, in fact, examine that evidence. From said evidence, their expertise allowed them to determine the causes of the collapse, and that is clearly stated in their expert report, which is then dismissed by people who's only expertise lies in their ability to type nonsense.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove
On 3/20/2016 at 2:56 PM, mudslag said:

 

 

You don't understand the report that you posted, you clearly have no clue what you're even arguing for.

Completely the opposite. The fact that I shared it to disprove claims that most of the evidence was not destroyed and was examined strengthens my argument further. No one even noticed the cover sheet for the spreadsheet that shows that only around 40 out of the 150 or so pieces were kept.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove
10 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Laymen with no understanding who also appears to willfully read it wrong and misinterpret a highly technical report, made for people who have "tech translators" to help them understand it...  this is why sometimes it's better to not release them. 

 

Then again, several people here have explained his won points and numbers to him and how he's reading them wrong and not understanding them, and how they didn't ignore 80% of the wreckage. and he keeps on trolling.

Wrong! Not only did I read the report carefully, I even pointed out the fact that most of the 156 pieces was not kept. Some of them were even left at the yards!

 

The newspaper article I shared earlier refers to fire experts acknowledging that 80 percent of the debris was not examined. There is also no evidence whatsoever in the FEMA report that shows otherwise. Worse, the NIST FAQ given later even referred to ANOTHER number of pieces that were recovered. Care to explain that?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove
1 hour ago, HawkMan said:

But it's so much easier to believe that

1. Thousands of involved people in this planned destruction kept quiet

2. Hundreds of explosives where planted and wired in the buildings without anyone noticing

3. The plane hijackers managed to hit the EXACT right floors of the buildings where the bombs where placed

4. The plane crash didn't distrupt any of the hundreds of carefully placed explosives. 

5. The massive fire from the jet fuel didn't burn up any of the thousand of meters of detcord laid outfor the detonation

6. They used secret explosives that don't actually explode... or ... eh... something... Maybe those secret new Area 51 Implosives....

Actually, it's more difficult to prove that. One has to examine much of the steel debris to do so, among other things. But that's no longer possible.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove
13 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

And you've been answered, countless times. Actual experts determined what evidence was needed, and DID, in fact, examine that evidence. From said evidence, their expertise allowed them to determine the causes of the collapse, and that is clearly stated in their expert report, which is then dismissed by people who's only expertise lies in their ability to type nonsense.

 

There is no evidence in the FEMA report which showed that the evidence was selected carefully. In fact, the same report even pointed out that investigators had to go through unsorted pieces in less than two months. Also, a newspaper article shared earlier refers to fire experts acknowledging that 80 percent of the debris was not examined. Finally, out of the 150 or so pieces, many were even left at the yards or were "accidentally" scrapped.

 

And don't forget the NIST FAQ which refers to ANOTHER number of pieces gathered.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
+trag3dy
54 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

I'm not asking for a case to be proven. I'm asking why most of the physical evidence was destroyed without careful examination and for no reason at all. There is nothing in the FEMA report that answers these questions, and every counter-argument I've been getting in this thread consists of nothing but illogical excuses and claims of conspiracy (which I never made).

 

Geez you're a broken record.

 

Go figure it out on your own because you've already decided that what anyone else has to say isn't good for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan
2 hours ago, monkeylove said:

Completely the opposite. 

 

Your one single goto argument, NEVER ever followed up by relevant factual statements as to why this is so. when actual facts and your own report says, not it's not "completely the opposite".

 

what you're spouting IS the same cnspiracy theory BS that the conspiracy theorists throw around without understanding what they're talking about. 

2 hours ago, monkeylove said:

Wrong! Not only did I read the report carefully, I even pointed out the fact that most of the 156 pieces was not kept. Some of them were even left at the yards!

 

The newspaper article I shared earlier refers to fire experts acknowledging that 80 percent of the debris was not examined. There is also no evidence whatsoever in the FEMA report that shows otherwise. Worse, the NIST FAQ given later even referred to ANOTHER number of pieces that were recovered. Care to explain that?

 

 

 

You may have read it, but you didn't understand it, not do you have the tehcnical understanding TO understand it. 

 

yes, 80% wasn't examined because they didn't need to, Again, they knew where the biulding collapsed to less than 5% . they didn't need to examine 100%... omgidbi

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan
2 hours ago, monkeylove said:

Actually, it's more difficult to prove that. One has to examine much of the steel debris to do so, among other things. But that's no longer possible.

 

 

Actually it's not, since 

1. they already proved it

2. no they don't need to examine all the steel, just the ones that actually failed and collapsed.

3. unlike you, they know physics. 

2 hours ago, monkeylove said:

There is no evidence in the FEMA report which showed that the evidence was selected carefully. In fact, the same report even pointed out that investigators had to go through unsorted pieces in less than two months. Also, a newspaper article shared earlier refers to fire experts acknowledging that 80 percent of the debris was not examined. Finally, out of the 150 or so pieces, many were even left at the yards or were "accidentally" scrapped.

 

And don't forget the NIST FAQ which refers to ANOTHER number of pieces gathered.

 

 

oh, you mean, besides where they point out where every detail examined piece of steel came from....

 

:motherofallfacepalms:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove
On 3/21/2016 at 5:56 PM, trag3dy said:

Geez you're a broken record.

 

Go figure it out on your own because you've already decided that what anyone else has to say isn't good for you.

And how do I "figure it out on [my] own" if most of the physical evidence has been destroyed?

 

Given that, I'd say the problem isn't that I'm a "broken record." It's that you can't understand the logical point that I've been raising.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove
On 3/21/2016 at 7:40 PM, HawkMan said:

Your one single goto argument, NEVER ever followed up by relevant factual statements as to why this is so. when actual facts and your own report says, not it's not "completely the opposite".

 

what you're spouting IS the same cnspiracy theory BS that the conspiracy theorists throw around without understanding what they're talking about. 

 

You may have read it, but you didn't understand it, not do you have the tehcnical understanding TO understand it. 

 

yes, 80% wasn't examined because they didn't need to, Again, they knew where the biulding collapsed to less than 5% . they didn't need to examine 100%... omgidbi

How is it a conspiracy theory when what I've presented comes from the FEMA report and mainstream newspaper articles? Or are you implying that these sources are questionable? How about the NIST FAQ which I didn't even share showing another number of pieces of steel debris kept for evidence?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
+trag3dy
31 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

And how do I "figure it out on [my] own" if most of the physical evidence has been destroyed?

 

Given that, I'd say the problem isn't that I'm a "broken record." It's that you can't understand the logical point that I've been raising.

 

I understand it perfectly well.

 

Your argument is that the evidence was destroyed despite what literally every other person has to say on the matter. They concluded they did not need to go over every single piece of steel yet you think they should have because apparently you know more than the experts who actually worked on the debris. It is your job to prove why they should have thus supporting your position. Which you have not done in any way, shape, or form.

 

The two arguments are one and the same which is the logical point that you keep misunderstanding, intentionally, it seems.

Edited by trag3dy
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove
On 3/21/2016 at 7:43 PM, HawkMan said:

Actually it's not, since 

1. they already proved it

2. no they don't need to examine all the steel, just the ones that actually failed and collapsed.

3. unlike you, they know physics. 

oh, you mean, besides where they point out where every detail examined piece of steel came from....

 

:motherofallfacepalms:

That makes absolutely no sense at all! How do you know "the ones that actually failed and collapsed" are the only pieces if the rest were not examined at all? Your second point is not only contradictory but disproves the first.

 

Your third point is countered by the second one as well. Why do you think the debris is carefully sorted and analyzed in air crashes and fires?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove
13 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

I understand it perfectly well.

 

Your argument is that the evidence was destroyed despite what literally every other person has to say on the matter. They concluded they did not need to go over every single piece of steel yet you think they should have because apparently you know more than the experts who actually worked on the debris. It is your job to prove why they should have thus supporting your position. Which you have not done in any way, shape, or form.

 

The two arguments are one and the same which is the logical point that you seem to keep misunderstanding, intentionally, it seems.

What "every other person has to say on the matter"? The FEMA report shows that most of the evidence was destroyed. If you are claiming otherwise, then let us know where most of the steel debris is stored.

 

One more time: how is it possible to state that around 150 pieces of steel debris collected (with only 40 left as samples were used from some and the rest "accidentally" left at the yards) out of 350,000 tons are "representative" of physical evidence when 80 percent was not examined at all and around 5 percent stolen?

 

I have shared my sources, including the FEMA report and mainstream newspaper articles.

 

In contrast, you and others have shared nothing to prove your arguments. Where is your evidence showing that most of the evidence was not destroyed? That most of it was examined carefully? (The report says that the debris was not even sorted!) And which number should we consider: that from the FEMA report or from the NIST FAQ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K
9 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

I understand it perfectly well.

 

Your argument is that the evidence was destroyed despite what literally every other person has to say on the matter. They concluded they did not need to go over every single piece of steel yet you think they should have because apparently you know more than the experts who actually worked on the debris. It is your job to prove why they should have thus supporting your position. Which you have not done in any way, shape, or form.

 

The two arguments are one and the same which is the logical point that you to keep misunderstanding, intentionally, it seems.

psst....ignore trollove and he might go away. :)

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
+trag3dy
10 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

What "every other person has to say on the matter"? The FEMA report shows that most of the evidence was destroyed. If you are claiming otherwise, then let us know where most of the steel debris is stored.

 

One more time: how is it possible to state that around 150 pieces of steel debris collected (with only 40 left as samples were used from some and the rest "accidentally" left at the yards) out of 350,000 tons are "representative" of physical evidence when 80 percent was not examined at all and around 5 percent stolen?

 

I have shared my sources, including the FEMA report and mainstream newspaper articles.

 

In contrast, you and others have shared nothing to prove your arguments. Where is your evidence showing that most of the evidence was not destroyed? That most of it was examined carefully? (The report says that the debris was not even sorted!) And which number should we consider: that from the FEMA report or from the NIST FAQ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's almost like we're both typing words in english yet only one of us actually understands what they mean.

 

And for the record I have in fact not made any claims or arguments at all other than you're a broken record. Worse you're a broken record of Milli Vanilli. 

 

Anyways, don't bother replying to me again. I'm done with this thread and as jjkusaf pointed out, this is a waste of time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan
7 hours ago, monkeylove said:

How is it a conspiracy theory when what I've presented comes from the FEMA report and mainstream newspaper articles? Or are you implying that these sources are questionable? How about the NIST FAQ which I didn't even share showing another number of pieces of steel debris kept for evidence?

 

It doesn't come from the FEMA report, it comes from your twisted interpretation of it. whether that twiestedness is willful or due to ignorance, I don't know. but it sure has little relevance to what the report actually says, especially since you're ignoring the other half of the report that explains everything and says you're wrong and explains why. and that has been pointed out numerous times in this thread with further explanations, references to page numbers and explanations.  

 

That leads me to believe it has to be willful, and thus conspiracy, especially since you're playing their mantras on repeat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Usman Khan Lodhi
      Twitter cracks down on QAnon conspiracy group, bans 7,000 accounts
      by Usman Khan Lodhi



      Twitter announced that it would permanently ban accounts that violate the platform's policies while tweeting about QAnon, the conspiracy theory movement that asserts "deep state" actors are plotting against Donald Trump. In the last several weeks, about 7,000 accounts, which violated the firm's rules against spam, platform manipulation, and ban evasion, have been banned. In a suspension later rolled out this week, the circulation of roughly 150,000 additional accounts will be limited, as they'll stop appearing in recommendations, trends, and search.

      Per online conspiracies, the term "deep state" refers to a combination of elites from intelligence, political, business, and entertainment sectors, and QAnon's theories assert that the "deep state" is a secret war with Trump.

      Twitter stated that QAnon-related links will be blocked from being shared on the platform, and accounts associated with the conspiracy movement will no longer be promoted in search, conversations, or trending topics. The firm didn't elaborate on which forums or sites might be impacted.

      Last year, QAnon was designated as a potential domestic extremist threat by the FBI when it issued a warning about "conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists."

      Source: Reuters

    • By Jonathan Nolan
      YouTube takes on conspiracy videos, offering fact-check links while watching
      by Jonathan Nolan

      YouTube announced this week that it is partnering with information site Wikipedia to offer users "additional information" when viewing videos that might be considered controversial or related to a conspiracy theory.

      The measure was revealed by the company's CEO Susan Wojcicki at the South by Southwest Festival in Austin, Texas. The festival is a major event for 'creating and discovering' for professionals in the video, music, and interactive industries. The plan is that in the near future, should you be watching a video that falls into such a category, a text box called an "information cue" will pop up below the video suggesting you to look further into the matter rather than taking what is said in the video as the full story.

      With respect to the viewing experience, Wojcicki said:

      Conspiracy theories have become an issue for the Google-owned company who previously made changes to search engine results to promote more "authoritative results". It's unclear how many videos may be labeled as such or exactly which ones, with an example mentioned during the presentation concerning the 1969 Moon landing. As it stands, the effectiveness of this change remains to be seen.

      Source: CNBC

    • By Hum
      If there is anything worse than losing a child, it is losing a child and having people taunt you over the loss.
       
      That is what happened to the family of Noah Pozner, a 6-year-old with tousled brown hair and lollipop-red lips, the youngest of the 26 children and staff members gunned down in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
       
      In the years since the massacre that shook the country and opened new anxiety over gun violence, the family has received hate-filled calls and violent emails from people who say they know the shooting was a hoax. Photos of their son — some with pornographic and anti-Semitic content — have been distributed on websites.
       
      These outlandish theories, which hold that the Newtown school shooting was a staged mass murder engineered by gun control advocates, have lived until now in the dark corners of the Internet.
       
      But they have gained fresh momentum in the last several months, residents here say, at a time when conspiracy theorists across the country have attained the status of celebrities, and the nation as a whole is engaged in a contentious debate over the nature of truth.
       
      President Trump and his national security advisor, Michael T. Flynn, have been open enthusiasts of Alex Jones’ Infowars, a Web-based radio and video network that has relentlessly pushed the theory that Sandy Hook was staged by Democrats to advance a gun control agenda. 
       
      An unabashed Trump supporter during the campaign, Jones says he received a personal call of thanks from the president-elect days after the election.
       
      Although Trump has not spoken publicly about Sandy Hook, many residents here say he is nurturing the culture of exaggeration and paranoia on which conspiracy theorists thrive.
       
      Mark Fenster, a law professor at the University of Florida and author of a book about conspiracy theories in American politics, said the Sandy Hook hoax theory was a response to a Democratic-controlled White House of a kind that often shows up in political extremist circles.
       
      An unemployed waitress was arrested in December in Florida on charges of making death threats against Pozner, with repeated phone calls to his home in which she muttered ethnic and racial slurs and profanities. Another man is in Rikers Island prison in New York fighting transfer to Connecticut for a deluge of harassing phone calls to the home and office of the medical examiner who signed the coroner reports for Sandy Hook victims.
       
      Another man was convicted of stealing memorial signs erected in playgrounds to commemorate the dead children. He later called the children’s parents and said they shouldn’t mind because their children never existed.
       
      Most of the families associated with Sandy Hook have removed or protected their social media accounts and unlisted their telephone numbers; some have changed homes.
       
      Newtown residents are distrustful of outsiders. On the fourth anniversary of the massacre in December, there was a low-key prayer vigil in a Catholic Church. An unmarked police car was stationed outside the elementary school to keep an eye out for hoaxers who show up frequently, photographing children and confronting families.
       
      The “Sandy Hook truthers,’’ as they called themselves, tormented not only the grieving families, but teachers, police, photographers, first responders, neighbors, government officials and witnesses — they all were said to be part of the ever-expanding conspiracy to fake the massacre.
       
      The conspiracy theorists have shown unflagging energy. The most persistent, Wolfgang Halbig, a 70-year-old Florida man who describes himself as a retired school safety expert, said he had made 22 trips to Connecticut, wiped out his pension and spent more than $100,000, which he raised online.
       
      His theory is that between 500 to 700 people were involved in the “conspiracy” — including the schoolchildren, parents, teachers and police, all the way up to President Obama.

      full article
    • By Sszecret
      Here's a quote from one of the attendants of the Davos panel (can't be bothered to look up her name): "if  you look nationally, internationally at whether or not there are any human rights, if there's any constitutional protections for something like freedom of thought, or mental privacy or cognitive liberty, nothing like that exists yet."
       
      I am quite interested in neuroscience and this as a scientific advancement is worthy of thought. That said, I can't help but see the potential for massive amounts of nefarious use. Thoughts?