FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Glenn Beck explains how conspiracy theorists work

Glenn Beck explains how conspiracy theorists work

(1:35) While discussing Sandy Hook truthers (believe it or not, there are those who claim Sandy Hook shooting is a government hoax) and other conspiracy theorists, Glenn Beck explains, utterly without irony, how they work and why they are so dangerous.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guestkjhkd (1732 days ago)
70% of people, still do not know that, THREE buildings collapsed on 9-11 - like in a controlled demolition! (See WTC 7) and the BBC reported the 3rd building collapsed an hour before it actually did!
ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment
70% of people, still do not know that, THREE buildings collapsed on 9-11 - like in a controlled demolition! (See WTC 7) and the BBC reported the 3rd building collapsed an hour before it actually did!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Your Nan (1733 days ago)
Prick.
ReplyVote up (87)down (103)
Original comment
Prick.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1733 days ago)
No, One of the intelligent smart guys around. I feel sorry for all of the parents and friends who had to suffer though tragedies and now have to listen to "Conspiracy" nutters saying that it didn't happen. Such cruel and evil bull!
ReplyVote up (149)down (82)
Original comment
No, One of the intelligent smart guys around. I feel sorry for all of the parents and friends who had to suffer though tragedies and now have to listen to "Conspiracy" nutters saying that it didn't happen. Such cruel and evil bull!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Conspitheo (1732 days ago)
Dana, you let your emotions dictate the truth then you are the easiets person in the world to fool. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist is just using a derogatory term for a critical thinker. This guy is a well known govt spin monger and no doubt in 'the club'. Open your eyes, wake up, they are running amok killing tens of thousand weeklya nd one day, when Agenda 21 kicks in big time they will come for you.
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
Dana, you let your emotions dictate the truth then you are the easiets person in the world to fool. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist is just using a derogatory term for a critical thinker. This guy is a well known govt spin monger and no doubt in 'the club'. Open your eyes, wake up, they are running amok killing tens of thousand weeklya nd one day, when Agenda 21 kicks in big time they will come for you.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1732 days ago)
:-) Can't argue with someone that thinks like you do. Hope your future is better than you expect.
ReplyVote up (88)down (136)
Original comment
:-) Can't argue with someone that thinks like you do. Hope your future is better than you expect.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: paul w (1732 days ago)
"Like"....that's your proof, it was 'like' a controlled demolition? Way to go, Sherlock... Also, the BBC knew WTC7 was going to collapse because everyone there did - the building as leaning over alarmingly due to a huge gash in it's side from damage caused by the collapsing towers. One bottom corner was also missing. Read the damn reports, you moron.
ReplyVote up (81)down (101)
Original comment
"Like"....that's your proof, it was 'like' a controlled demolition? Way to go, Sherlock... Also, the BBC knew WTC7 was going to collapse because everyone there did - the building as leaning over alarmingly due to a huge gash in it's side from damage caused by the collapsing towers. One bottom corner was also missing. Read the damn reports, you moron.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1732 days ago)
Could you please tell me on what page mentions building 7 in the official report on 9/11? Just curious.
ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment
Could you please tell me on what page mentions building 7 in the official report on 9/11? Just curious.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1732 days ago)
It's on page 278, 279, 284, 302, and 305. LINK
ReplyVote up (86)down (103)
Original comment
It's on page 278, 279, 284, 302, and 305. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1732 days ago)
Oh I'm sorry... perhaps I should have been more clear. Where does it mention that WTC7 was: Damaged? On fire? Collapsed?---Yes, the building existed... which is about all those pages note. I was talking about mentioning the way it was damaged/destroyed...you know.... useful information that reports like that are supposed to provide.
ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
Oh I'm sorry... perhaps I should have been more clear. Where does it mention that WTC7 was: Damaged? On fire? Collapsed?---Yes, the building existed... which is about all those pages note. I was talking about mentioning the way it was damaged/destroyed...you know.... useful information that reports like that are supposed to provide.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1732 days ago)
Maybe you misunderstood the purpose of the official 9/11 report. It was not to report how buildings failed and ultimately collapsed. It was supposed to detail how the attack was planned, who was involved, and what we should do as a country to prevent similar attacks from occurring in the future. It was not developed to be an architectural document.
ReplyVote up (122)down (111)
Original comment
Maybe you misunderstood the purpose of the official 9/11 report. It was not to report how buildings failed and ultimately collapsed. It was supposed to detail how the attack was planned, who was involved, and what we should do as a country to prevent similar attacks from occurring in the future. It was not developed to be an architectural document.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1732 days ago)
So... exactly how is failure to acknowledge that 2 planes brought down 3 buildings doesn't help prepare your "country to prevent similar attacks from occurring in the future."
ReplyVote up (170)down (149)
Original comment
So... exactly how is failure to acknowledge that 2 planes brought down 3 buildings doesn't help prepare your "country to prevent similar attacks from occurring in the future."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1732 days ago)
This video was about conspiracy theories. Then, some guest (don't know if that was you or not), asked where building 7 was mentioned in the official 9/11 report. Just because it doesn't mention the way the building collapsed in that specific report, does that mean there's a conspiracy? What if it was documented in a different report instead - -one that was developed for that sole purpose? Why does it have to be mentioned in the official 9/11 report to not be a conspiracy? I'm sure the insurance companies and owners of the building wanted to have a full report about how it was destroyed. It just wasn't important to know that in the 9/11 report because that's the wrong documentation.
ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment
This video was about conspiracy theories. Then, some guest (don't know if that was you or not), asked where building 7 was mentioned in the official 9/11 report. Just because it doesn't mention the way the building collapsed in that specific report, does that mean there's a conspiracy? What if it was documented in a different report instead - -one that was developed for that sole purpose? Why does it have to be mentioned in the official 9/11 report to not be a conspiracy? I'm sure the insurance companies and owners of the building wanted to have a full report about how it was destroyed. It just wasn't important to know that in the 9/11 report because that's the wrong documentation.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1732 days ago)
I look forward to you showing me this official government report that documents the events of the day including building 7.
ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment
I look forward to you showing me this official government report that documents the events of the day including building 7.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1732 days ago)
9/11 _was_ a conspiracy. Plain and simple... if you believe the official version of events... some guys from Alqueda got together to hijack planes and fly them in to symbols of American power... Guys...getting together=conspiracy. Now to suggest involvement of other outside forces is conjecture (fantasy?) but it drives me insane to suggest that there was no conspiracy on 9/11 when there most obviously was.
ReplyVote up (125)down (156)
Original comment
9/11 _was_ a conspiracy. Plain and simple... if you believe the official version of events... some guys from Alqueda got together to hijack planes and fly them in to symbols of American power... Guys...getting together=conspiracy. Now to suggest involvement of other outside forces is conjecture (fantasy?) but it drives me insane to suggest that there was no conspiracy on 9/11 when there most obviously was.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1732 days ago)
I believe you have this all misunderstood. When people are referring to a conspiracy regarding 9/11, they are referring to the possibility the government ( or someone else) destroyed the buildings and they did not fall on their own after the plane crash. The conspiracy theory has nothing to do about if a group of people were involved in a terrorist act or not. An example is that some people think no plane crashed into the Pentagon and they show several photos where you cannot see any plane parts. However, they hand picked photos that purposely did not show any parts when hundreds of other photos do show plane parts. That's how conspiracies start -- one person injects doubt into the minds of the people by including some truth (some of the photos) while not telling the whole story. Then, when people challenge you, you say "Where did those other photos come from? How do you know those weren't created to fool you into thinking there was a plane? How can you trust that source?" Do you understand this now? If not, I recommend watching the video again.
ReplyVote up (103)down (79)
Original comment
I believe you have this all misunderstood. When people are referring to a conspiracy regarding 9/11, they are referring to the possibility the government ( or someone else) destroyed the buildings and they did not fall on their own after the plane crash. The conspiracy theory has nothing to do about if a group of people were involved in a terrorist act or not. An example is that some people think no plane crashed into the Pentagon and they show several photos where you cannot see any plane parts. However, they hand picked photos that purposely did not show any parts when hundreds of other photos do show plane parts. That's how conspiracies start -- one person injects doubt into the minds of the people by including some truth (some of the photos) while not telling the whole story. Then, when people challenge you, you say "Where did those other photos come from? How do you know those weren't created to fool you into thinking there was a plane? How can you trust that source?" Do you understand this now? If not, I recommend watching the video again.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1732 days ago)
Can you direct me to some of these "hundreds of photos" that show plane parts?
ReplyVote up (153)down (108)
Original comment
Can you direct me to some of these "hundreds of photos" that show plane parts?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1732 days ago)
You know, you could have used Google to find them yourself but here's one link that you can use. If you want more, look for them yourself: LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
You know, you could have used Google to find them yourself but here's one link that you can use. If you want more, look for them yourself: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1732 days ago)
Latest comment: Thanks... never seen many of those. Never doubted a plane hit the pentagon though.
ReplyVote up (100)down (96)
Original comment
Latest comment: Thanks... never seen many of those. Never doubted a plane hit the pentagon though.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Harvey Weinstein body language
Harvey Weinstein body language
David Pakman - Trump doesn't understand how money works
David Pakman - Trump doesn't understand how money works
David Pakman - Trump furious with consequences of his policies
David Pakman - Trump furious with consequences of his policies
Gwyneth Paltrow on Harvey Weinstein (1998)
Gwyneth Paltrow on Harvey Weinstein (1998)
TYT - Does Trump have Alzheimer's?
TYT - Does Trump have Alzheimer's?