Hitler wrote in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):
All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. …
The victor will never be asked if he told the truth. - Adolf Hitler
What good fortune for governments that the people do not think. - Adolf Hitler
When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.” - Adolf Hitler
I read your hyperlink and while it dwells on the jet fuel fire in attempting to suggest a government conspiracy, it fails to take into account the physics of mass collision. An airliner weighs a few pounds and at speeds above 200 mph, taking out the support columns was indeed a physical possibility. The fuel fire might have helped, but the type of structure used wasn’t meant to withstand the devestating force received by the mass of an airliner with or without fuel. Moreover, the the type of structure used is an integrated support system. Once a main support column failed, the rest of the structure failed catastrophically. The idea that the base of the building should support the weight of the severed top floors suggests that the people who wrote this article have very little undertanding of engineering.
I watched a documentary on the collapse produced by people not connected to the government, not connected to any official investigative group. It was focussed entirely on the engineering design of the WTC, and the conclusion was that the collapse occurred because the design was never intended to deal with the magnitude of forces generated by an airliner.
In short, like all conspiracy theories, they can’t be proven or disproven, but the hyperlink cited focussed on the wrong issue, or conveniently ignored the engineering evidence.
As for the big lie concept? Sure. It’s been around for a long time.
Hitler was admitting that people are indeed sheep and that even though there might be those few lions in the crowd, it would make no difference because the majority are sheep and will believe whatever you tell them. I was drawing a parallel between the American government and Hitler.
Tentative, what about WTC 7? It appears from the pictures and the video that there are buildings between WTC 1 and WTC 2. I’m very concerned how that building collapsed all on its own.
WTC7 didn’t collapse on its own. The whole complex collapsed as the towers dropped and the mass of materials obliterated everything at ground level. I know it is difficult to envision, but dropping that much mass at perhaps 40 or 50 MPH by the time it reached ground levels is a force that goes well beyond any building design. No building, regardless of the engineering is designed to withstand the kind of forces that would be generated by the falling towers.
Something to consider: Building demolition, and the setting of explosive charges to take down a building the size and height of WTC7 , would have required major structural mods just to put the charges in place. Not the sort of thing unobservable by the people using the building on a daily basis. The pattern of falling debris could indeed have taken out WTC7 and left building intact in between.
There are too many physical possibles and impossibles for anyone to make the conclusions being made in the hyperlink you provided. This link reads very much like all the ‘grassy knoll’ speculation associated with the Kennedy assasination.
As far as government and the big lie, please show me one that doesn’t. The parallel between Nazi propaganda and American government is the same parallel between all governments - even Whitehall.
I feel like I should be helping your cause in spreading a big lie about 9/11. I think we should start by attacking the victims of 9/11. Well, someone beat us to it but it fits perfectly since it is in keeping with our Hitler theme.
Compelling video evidence, not the least of which includes an “on camera” admission by Larry Silverstein that building 7 was “pulled” (a demolition term used to describe the controlled implosion of a building) was ignored.
Building 7 is the third building that went down. Seems it was definitely demolished with detonators - to stop fire spreading. Why hasn’t this ever been acknowleged by the govt? Because if they acknowledged that the building was demolished then it would raise huge suspicion over the way and how the twin towers went down - in the same imploding manner.
There is a decided difference between finishing the take down of a building already half destroyed and initiating the demolition. LA, You’re buying into a completely implausable scenario. It would take weeks of setting up a building for demolition. Exposing support beams on multiple floors, miles of wire strung to detonators. You couldn’t do that without everyone noticing. The whole idea is preposterous. This isn’t to suggest that the government didn’t take full advantage of every possible way to cover up inadequacies in security measures, but the idea that any of those buildings were wired with explosives is misinformation to the max.
The execution of such an enterprise simply couldn’t be hidden. I’ve a small amount of experience with demo explosives and while I’m a long way from expert, I am knowledgable enough to know that what is being suggested is impossible. It simply wouldn’t be possible to rig any building without being completely obvious.
Thirst until you grow up, stop posting pictures in an attempt for an argument I’m gonna have to ignore you while the adults have a little chit chat.
Tentative,
Airplanes have crashed into buildings before. In fact there was one of substatial size (admittedly not as big as a 747) that crashed into a building in New York city in the… 80’s I think. Burned for like 23 hours - didn’t come close to falling. Now, the plane wasn’t as big, but the building wasn’t as advanced either. The WTC were not designed for a plane hitting it sure, but they were constructed way above the standard when they were built. It’s not like the other building -was- designed for a plane’s impact.
Alright, this is confusing because I read it as a contradiction. If it takes so long to set up a construction, how was it they were able to ‘pull’ it in one afternoon and shrink a week’s work of preparation into a couple hours? Also, before when you said that building 7 was hit with falling debris, that’s an exageration. It was barely hit at all and for some reason it had to come down? come on… It wasn’t going to fall down, they -brought- it down, all with the same explosives you claim couldn’t be there.
I wonder what was in building 7? Oh that’s right… the…shit I forget but it had something to do with FCC or department of Defense. Something like that, and all of their information inside… gone.
Tent, just answer me a couple questions.
How could the towers fall at terminal velocity? If it collasped the way they said it did there would be a delay, as well it certaintly wouldn’t just turn to dust in mid air. There would be alot less of a cloud in the upper areas as the tops of the buildings -should- be relatively intact. There was nothing pushing down on the top of the towers other than gravity, and gravity doesn’t incinerate buildings.
What 60’s demolition kit instruction manuel have you been reading? Do you know what year this is? You don’t think they would rig up a building in secret? Give your head a shake man!
Use your fingers for ear plugs, Gobbo, and repeat your big lie until people are deceived.
By the way: that’s the behavior of a child that can’t accept the truth.
Remember to do your homework and for now, you are dismissed.
There is a lot of difference between an externally supported building and one with an internally integrated support structure. You’re mixing peas and carrots. You have to have a grasp of the engineering prniciples to see what happened.
There is a big difference in the deliberate planning and execution of controlled take down and the emergency knocking down of a building.
I guess you don’t remember the pics of the mountain of rubble that had been the WTC or the pics of the damaged buildings in the area surrounding the site.
You obviously know nothing about the nature of demo work. Again, I’m certainly no expert, but I know enough to say with confidence that there is absolutely no way that any of those buildings could have been secretly rigged for demolition. The amount of explosives, detonators, the necessary placement to effect a take down, there simply is no way to disguise that sort of activity. This whole scenario is the wildest speculation that flies in the face of physical reality.
Thank you for your 10 cents. What you should have said is that it is impossible to ‘convince’ a conspiracy theorist so therefore in your view the argument should be shut down.
It is an interesting subject matter which is more psychological in nature. That is once we get past all the ‘you’re a liar, no you are, no you’re a drug addict blah blah blah fishcakes’!
Failing your participation in what might be an interesting discussion, you are welcome to offer your valuable opinion on another thread.
This is an argument entirely constructed on the presumption that peopel aren’t stupid, ill-informed and totally oblivious to things that go on under their noses because they are spoon-fed excuses every hour of every day. I dunno what world you are living in, JT, but in the one I seem to live in the people are thick and haven’t a fucking clue what’s going on right in front of them. Have you seen Falling Down? Remember the construction crew, the road, the underground passage, the shoulder-mounted rocket launcher?
I think that you have far too much faith in man’s capacity to be critical and sceptical, particularly in the US. I don’t know why you’d use this as the basis of your argument and criticise the ‘conspiracy theorists’ for doing exactly the same thing. To me, this seems confused and contradictory.
Like I say, I don’t know what happened. None of the stories, including the official one, check out. None of them account for all the facts, all of them contain contradictions and massive gaps. So I’m thinking that what really happened is something that we won’t work out for some time. But being blase and ignoring the inconsistencies in the official line doesn’t really achieve anything.
Repeat a lie often enough and people start to believe the lie.
Is that the social-psychological premise behind this thread?
But that’s foreplay! I thought people, especially women, enjoyed foreplay?
Just for SIATD:
Milhouse: The Rand Corporation, in conjuction with the saucer people… …Under the supervision of the reverse vampires… …are FORCING our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner!
