NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
watch the buildings fall. controlled demolition. you dont even need the tons of proof to see it was controlled. its like... duh.
That's exactly how I feel about it. I think the 911 cover story is a classic case of allowing an outside source to over-ride one's own senses and reasoning.
I think a good analogy would be watching a video of two guys throwing a big ball back and forth. Someone insists to you that the ball is made of lead, but to your eyes the ball is clearly made of something more like styrofoam.
The proponent of the lead-ball theory could say, "How could you possibly know that? You're just a layman, not some sort of architect or physicist with a phd in aerodynamics. It's obviously lead, and here are mathematical figures written by experts to prove it."
Well hey, there's the math written out by experts, they must be correct right?
That would be sufficient to convince many people that the ball was made of lead, even though their own senses told them differently.
And if concluding that the ball was made of styrofoam also implied something else very unpleasant, people would be very inclined to grasp for any reason at all to believe the more pleasant fiction.
Without an outside influence most average people could correctly gauge whether a ball was made of lead or styrofoam by watching two people throwing it back and forth. We're not scientists, it's simply that we all have an innate understanding of physics, which arises from our lifelong existence in the physical world.
The collapse of the buildings makes no visual sense and doesn't match with how the collapse was supposed to have happened. I always leave open the possibility that I may be wrong, but to me it is ridiculously obvious that something else happened to bring down those buildings.
there is plenty of solid proof. it just happened to be left out of the official story.
I find it amazing how taboo the 9/11 truth subject is with the general population. I literaly feel more comfortable telling people I believe in UFOs than I believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy. The irony is that there is literaly TONS of evidence that tells us 9/11 WAS a conspiracy, and the evidence for UFOs is thus far anecdotal.
I find it amazing how taboo the 9/11 truth subject is with the general population. I literaly feel more comfortable telling people I believe in UFOs than I believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy. The irony is that there is literaly TONS of evidence that tells us 9/11 WAS a conspiracy, and the evidence for UFOs is thus far anecdotal.
the evidence for UFOs is thus far anecdotal.
This is false. Landing trace evidence, radar data, and multiple, independent witness data are not anecdotal.