the concept of conspiracy theorists is far older- you seem confused or deluded.
War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy mentions many (from 1865)
Yet even further back we find The Art of War (Sunzi bingfa) a 5th-century BCE military treatise written by the Chinese strategist Sun-Tzu (aka Sunzi or Sun Wu)
You really haven't got much of a clue about these topics have you ? Why not do more research before pontificating, or at least show some respect to those who are obviously better informed and intelligent than yourself ?
Please read my comment more carefully before attacking me, as it makes you look foolish !
I wrote: "The concept of "conspiracy theorists" was first introduced re 9/11 as a way of propagandising people to ignore the laws of physics."
"re" means with respect to i.e. that 9/11 was just an instance of the concept of "conspiracy theorists" being used NOT the first and NOT the only example.
What CONCEPTS of conspiracy theorists were INTRODUCED re 911 ?
You're use of incorrect words makes you instantly appear 'foolish', and semi-articulate. 🙄😂
The idea of introducing conspiracy theories wasnt to evade any laws of physics , if the entire event was initially a SPECTACLE,no laws of physics were being portrayed , just a fantastic evasion of structural engineering capabilities IF considered 'real' among spectators. The 'physics' of it are beyond most people scope unless educated in Architectural design.
Conspiracy theorists discussed the matter of their own will,Plants discussed it for various agendas , primarily to counter-act 'valid' conspiracies.
You seem keen to promoted the dubious idea of GRAVITY , yet can not respond to any questions regarding more potent influences of why things may fall to the ground.
Now, please answer those questions instead of being typically conceited and shallow,
You ask: "What CONCEPTS of conspiracy theorists were INTRODUCED re 911 ?"
My answer is the concept that the laws of physics don't apply to the collapse of building 7 as published in the NIST report. Such laws don't need to be "portrayed" they simply exist and can be seen on the films of the collapse of building 7.
If you think "GRAVITY" is a "dubious idea" then good day to you.
So, you cant answer any of the questions raised, and instead retreat into repetition-
no one considers the 911 event as you do, the whole event difies reason, logic & possibility- PLANES dont function as portrayed for a start.
The REASON for 911 was as a catalyst for 'the US empire to use the radicalism caused by its military violence in the middle east to justify more military expansionism in the region, leading to more military violence.'
You seem to be in disagreement with the article itself here.
Dub SurgeOn please calm down mate! To suggest that "no one considers the 911 event as you do" is patent misreading of what I have written and all the links to I give in particular Architects for 9/11 truth.
The point I am making is that the ONLY observation needed is that building 7 collapsed at free fall speed ergo the NIST report account is all lies. Who did it, why, and how are irrelevant, to come to the conclusion that the US government are lying about it.
the concept of conspiracy theorists is far older- you seem confused or deluded.
War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy mentions many (from 1865)
Yet even further back we find The Art of War (Sunzi bingfa) a 5th-century BCE military treatise written by the Chinese strategist Sun-Tzu (aka Sunzi or Sun Wu)
You really haven't got much of a clue about these topics have you ? Why not do more research before pontificating, or at least show some respect to those who are obviously better informed and intelligent than yourself ?
Please read my comment more carefully before attacking me, as it makes you look foolish !
I wrote: "The concept of "conspiracy theorists" was first introduced re 9/11 as a way of propagandising people to ignore the laws of physics."
"re" means with respect to i.e. that 9/11 was just an instance of the concept of "conspiracy theorists" being used NOT the first and NOT the only example.
What CONCEPTS of conspiracy theorists were INTRODUCED re 911 ?
You're use of incorrect words makes you instantly appear 'foolish', and semi-articulate. 🙄😂
The idea of introducing conspiracy theories wasnt to evade any laws of physics , if the entire event was initially a SPECTACLE,no laws of physics were being portrayed , just a fantastic evasion of structural engineering capabilities IF considered 'real' among spectators. The 'physics' of it are beyond most people scope unless educated in Architectural design.
Conspiracy theorists discussed the matter of their own will,Plants discussed it for various agendas , primarily to counter-act 'valid' conspiracies.
You seem keen to promoted the dubious idea of GRAVITY , yet can not respond to any questions regarding more potent influences of why things may fall to the ground.
Now, please answer those questions instead of being typically conceited and shallow,
thanks.
You ask: "What CONCEPTS of conspiracy theorists were INTRODUCED re 911 ?"
My answer is the concept that the laws of physics don't apply to the collapse of building 7 as published in the NIST report. Such laws don't need to be "portrayed" they simply exist and can be seen on the films of the collapse of building 7.
If you think "GRAVITY" is a "dubious idea" then good day to you.
So, you cant answer any of the questions raised, and instead retreat into repetition-
no one considers the 911 event as you do, the whole event difies reason, logic & possibility- PLANES dont function as portrayed for a start.
The REASON for 911 was as a catalyst for 'the US empire to use the radicalism caused by its military violence in the middle east to justify more military expansionism in the region, leading to more military violence.'
You seem to be in disagreement with the article itself here.
😂
Dub SurgeOn please calm down mate! To suggest that "no one considers the 911 event as you do" is patent misreading of what I have written and all the links to I give in particular Architects for 9/11 truth.
https://www0.ae911truth.org/
The point I am making is that the ONLY observation needed is that building 7 collapsed at free fall speed ergo the NIST report account is all lies. Who did it, why, and how are irrelevant, to come to the conclusion that the US government are lying about it.
🙄🥱😴😴😴😴😴😴