Discussion:
IN AMERICA WE FEAR THE TERRORISTS!!! The psychology of why 94 deaths from terrorism are scarier than 301,797 deaths from guns
(too old to reply)
Mr Merrick
2017-08-10 01:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The psychology of why 94 deaths from terrorism are scarier than
301,797 deaths from guns

ccording to the New America Foundation, jihadists killed 94 people
inside the United States between 2005 and 2015. During that same
time period, 301,797 people in the US were shot dead, Politifact
reports.

At first blush, these numbers might seem to indicate that Donald
Trump’s temporary ban on immigrants from seven countries—a goal he
said was intended to “protect the American people from terrorist
attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States”—is
utterly misguided.

But Trump is right about at least one thing: Americans are more
afraid of terrorism than they are of guns, despite the fact that
guns are 3,210 times more likely to kill them.

https://qz.com/898207/the-psychology-of-why-americans-are-more-
scared-of-terrorism-than-guns-though-guns-are-3210-times-likelier-
to-kill-them/
Topaz
2017-08-10 01:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Since the USA government did 9/11 is disarming the citizens really a
good idea?

CIA insider tells 9/11 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
America!



The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small
fires and superficial debris damage could not account for this
collapse, which had all the earmarks of controlled demolition by
explosives. Videos clearly show this. Such demolitions take many days
or weeks to set up - not the few hours between the plane "attacks" and
the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be put in place
BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of previously placed
explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like the badly
damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have
remained standing.

Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological
denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it
obviously was, and they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and
fabrications, elaborate lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to
defend their indefensible position. The REAL terrorists are desperate
to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the century - the permitting
if not perpetration of, and subsequent political and economic
exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster.

Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's
most sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible
morning? I don't think so!

There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable
than the explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing
down of NORAD. Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on
the roofs of nearby buildings. These were too far away to be from
jumpers from the towers. If the towers simply collapsed from damage
and fire alone, what blew these bodies to smithereens and sent the
fragments flying for considerable distances? The plane impacts did not
have the explosive brisance (shattering force) necessary to do this -
only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits and throw them such
distances.

So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than
their being the result of high explosives being detonated in the
towers?


The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the
falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade
Center building collapses:

SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK

On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
Center (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent
people. Videos of the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for
days. About 5 hours after the towers fell, WTC building 7 also
collapsed suddenly, completely, and straight down at near free-fall
speed. This steel-framed building was not touched by the planes that
struck the towers, and had sustained relatively minor debris damage
and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily damaged remained
standing.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan
Reynolds, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates stated, "The American people know what they saw with their own
eyes on September11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government
conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale."

We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's
tale that's "beyond the pale!"

Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics,
and the emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have
stymied objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of
authoritarian assertions?

The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told
us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now
referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government
claims, the plane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet
fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated the UL-certified structural steel to
the point where it was significantly weakened, which is very difficult
to believe, never mind repeat in an experiment. Even with massive
fires that incinerate everything else, the steel frames of such
buildings generally remain standing.

According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical
evidence was quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly
caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the
tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain
reaction of the lower floors sequentially, one at a time, yielding to
the weight falling from above.

There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the
observed facts

* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical
steel core columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the
next.

* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
gravity
alone.

This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from
the air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the
tower. Those undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered
resistance thousands of times greater than that of air. Those lower
stories, and the central steel core columns, had successfully
supported the mass of the tower for 30 years despite hurricane-force
winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the
way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction
as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing
the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers
could not have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower
stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is
shown to be physically impossible!


So WHERE DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?

Conclusions

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
observed duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more
of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met

* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero
resistance to the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
expenditure of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by
magic.

None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible,
conditions can be accounted for by the official government theory of
9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to
prop up this official myth of 9/11.

The Bottom Line


It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the
WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the
plane impacts.

The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that
the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but
rather they came down because something else was causing them to
disintegrate.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates'
other premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is
left to you to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly
incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, also
collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever
collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel
columns

Understanding the full truth of 9/11 seems to require two separate
awakenings.

The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the "official 9/11 story,"
is a pretty simple brain function and only requires a little study,
logic or curiosity. We can help a lot with that part here and it's a
major purpose of this site.

The second step, however, consciously confronting the implications of
that knowledge--and what it says about our media, politics and
economic system today--is by far the harder awakening and requires an
enormous exercise of nerve and heart. (As the Chinese say, "You cannot
wake up a man who is pretending to sleep.") In other words, this part
of the journey depends more on character than on maps and evidence so
we can't help you much here, except to point out inspiring heroes and
heroines who have courageously faced that truth, spoken out, and
survived...



www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
Scout
2017-08-10 09:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mr Merrick
The psychology of why 94 deaths from terrorism are scarier than
301,797 deaths from guns
ccording to the New America Foundation, jihadists killed 94 people
inside the United States between 2005 and 2015. During that same
time period, 301,797 people in the US were shot dead, Politifact
reports.
So we just ignore 9-11?

Makes me wonder about your numbers, and exactly how you are choosing the
data to include.
SeaSnake
2017-08-10 14:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mr Merrick
The psychology of why 94 deaths from terrorism are scarier
ESAD, albasani whore!
duke
2017-08-22 17:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mr Merrick
The psychology of why 94 deaths from terrorism are scarier than
301,797 deaths from guns
ccording to the New America Foundation, jihadists killed 94 people
inside the United States between 2005 and 2015. During that same
time period, 301,797 people in the US were shot dead, Politifact
reports.
At first blush, these numbers might seem to indicate that Donald
Trump’s temporary ban on immigrants from seven countries—a goal he
said was intended to “protect the American people from terrorist
attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States”—is
utterly misguided.
But Trump is right about at least one thing: Americans are more
afraid of terrorism than they are of guns, despite the fact that
guns are 3,210 times more likely to kill them.
Yeah, but in terrorism, innocent people die, and with guns, bad people kill each
other.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****

Loading...