This sub has suffered an increase in debunkers lately and most of them are not that different from conspiracy theorists
28 2014-04-01 by [deleted]
After my before last submission I noticed a great discrepancy between conspiracy theorists and debunkers involved in the conversation, together with considerably obviously focused downvotes and upvotes, respectively.
This was in the first 12h (I am not certain of this period) or so, after which the votes returned to the norm that is expected from this sub.
I was surprised to see how much derailment the thread suffered before the few conspiracy theorists got involved in the discussions and decided to find out how many debunkers and r/conspiratards have joined the sub. One reason was because I wanted to add the new ones to my RES tag list so that I know who is worth wasting time with and who isn't, the other was just to have an idea of their numbers and I have to say that it was what I expected and more.
For this research I had to use a dubious bait thread, something that would make them comment and become involved in the comments and in essence becoming themselves a bait for other debunkers and r/conspiratards. So I decided to use an article about a WTC1 fire in 1975 which was posted here 1 year ago and attracted a few debunkers, and I also made the title a itsy bit sensationalistic by claiming the fire to be more intense than 9/11's and had no fire-resistant materials.
Just so it is clear, I do not believe that the fire mentioned in that thread is a valid example of comparison for 9/11's. I am sorry if some of you believe or you don't and get offended by this, this is purely my opinion but I don't think that we have enough details to make a good comparison between both fires. Again this is just my opinion and I have no interest in discussing this, it is merely an FYI note.
Before I continue be cleared that I will not be naming anyone except me, to avoid violating any rules I am going to simply be generic about them instead of pointing fingers, if you whish you can come to your own conclusions by reading the thread's comments and see who is what. For the maximum effect I replied as I would normally reply: counter-points, address fallacies, expose lies, etc, and I would also stick with the exagerated thread fire claims. Provoking was also used but not much, I don't enjoy doing it.
Returning back to the research, the bait thread was a success. Within an hour it was already filled with debunkers and a few r/tards yelling "no airplane hit it" clearly ignoring what I posted in a comment (which was downvoted hard) stating that it wasn't the issue here. Others claiming that the fire wasn't that big of a deal and was just in one floor, etc. The usual along with the odd upvotes and downvotes that favored the debunkers and r/conspiratards.
Hell, I could describe every single one of them but it would make this post even longer than what it already is, anyone of you can easily see for themselves what went down in that thread.
But then, as I got more involved in the comments to create a bigger attraction to other debunkers and r/conspiratard readers, I noticed something strange. Some of them sounded like 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
In the midst of the few lengthly discussions with some of the debunkers, they started demanding for evidence to prove my claims, stating that I was exagerating and couldn't compare, empty claims are worthless, they started using logic to counter-point my itsy exagerated claims and reasoning. This is what discussions should all be about so when I was aware of this I tried to shift it to the isses with the NIST version of events and show them that they also didn't provide evidence for their claims and that as such their claims are worthless. That's when the good and well thought reasoning jumped out of the window.
Except for 2 debunkers (I think) that actually noticed the oddity of the NIST's lack of evidence for their claims, the rest just decided to NOPE! and stop using the logic they were using just a reply before.
The result of all this was:
19 debunkers - 2 of which I already had on my list and 1 had all of his comments removed, so 17 NEW debunkers.
Out of those 19 there were 7 r/conspiratards, one I already had on my list.
I don't know if you guys have noticed this but I have and this thread is a great example for what has been happening increasingly in the previous 9/11 related discussions.
I have also posted the same thread in 2 other forums but the results weren't as big as they were in here so I don't see those as being as relevant, but in any case I mentioned them just in case.
Out of this little personal research I was really glad to see that some of the debunkers do have resonable crticism and are focused on the right questions, sadly most of them turn off that gift when they are confronted with the serious problems regarding the 9/11 official version of events.
Another good aspect of this research was finding out that I am considered to be a "Renowned truther" by r/conspiratard. I do not see myself like that but I guess I must have given them quite an impression. I was even surprised that it made it there because of all of my threads, the only one they decided to mock was a bait thread. I considered also doing the same over there but after a while I realized that it would be pointless so I just let it go.
It's not that we are crazy because we claim inside job and we claim Bush did it, it's that the reason for most of us to think like this is because of the impossible claims made by the official entities that have not provided any evidence or scientific data to corroborate them. Scientific studies are conducted by peer-reviewing the claim's data and validate it accordingly. For a claim to have foundation it needs to be subjected to public scrutiny and validation OR rejection (In case of an erroneous study). Failing to do so it is just another person claiming to have made a perpetual motion machine and avoiding the public testing of this claim.
Believing in NIST's claims without any evidence just because they are "official government entity" is like believing in the Pope when he says God exists without evidence just because he is an "official religious entity".
To end this already too long of a post, this sub is being drowned in derailments and debunkers, there have been fewer conspiracy theorists participating in the discussions and the vote brigades in the comments have been immense - at least for the 9/11 related threads. I won't say what should or shouldn't be done, in the past I already left this sub until the debunkers and r/conspiratards invasion was controlled and now it is happening again and even worse than back then. I leave this to the mods.
This is just my personal research which I decided to share with you, I do not have any interest in discussing it but that doesn't meant that you can't. Feel free to comment if you want, just don't expect me participating in the discussion.
39 comments
11 Wild2098 2014-04-01
The reason your post on the '75 fire was "trolled" by "conspiratards" is because you had a weak argument.
You failed to demonstrate how the fire in '75 was as intense or worse than what happened on 9/11, other than that of went for 2 hours longer. So what? It could have been a low sizzle for 2 hours for all we know.
Then, the way you respond to anyone who questioned you, by calling them conspiratards and responding with anger, did not help your cause.
-2 rand0mnewb 2014-04-01
well, the fire spread to 6 other floors beyond where it started. i'd hardly call that a slow sizzle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCcX9c4cdNM
3 Wild2098 2014-04-01
Would you call it equal to a passenger jet slamming into the building fire?
Edit: Plus one of the main points of their original post was that the trusses did not fair the same as on 9/11. So the more clear question is, were the trusses exposed to the same intensity fire in '75 as on 9/11?
0 iamagod_ 2014-04-01
The designer and complex architect took care of this question. The buildings were designed and built to withstand exactly what occurred. Blowing the fire protection from the steel is insignificant. This due to the fact that the fires built Ned nowhere near the temperature required for the highly flawed thermal expansion theory. As well, exactly ZERO physical evidence has been provided to back the flawed theory.
5 thinkmorebetterer 2014-04-01
"The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field)." -- Leslie E. Robertson, Spring 2002. [My emphasis]
0 iamagod_ 2014-04-01
I'm afraid you're incorrect. The towers were all built and designed to withstand MULTIPLE impacts. Multiple impacts. The core strength of the towers is not in its skin, and they could in fact remain standing with only the core columns intact.
Impact didn't fell the towers.
Simple office fires, since nearly all fuel was consumed in the fireball at impact (and the people standing in the supposed areas that reached temperatures capable of softening steel), did not fell the towers.
Conventional explosives, as seen in all collapse videos is what fell the three towers that day.
2 stormin5532 2014-04-01
Source please on how they could survive that.
1 iamagod_ 2014-04-01
Absolutely. Here you are. Pay close attention to the full parameters that are compared. Very interesting read. Straight from the horse's mouth.
10 shadowofashadow 2014-04-01
I appreciate everything you do in this sub, I think you're one of the best posters here... but I'm going to be honest when I say I'm a little miffed that you'd post something you didn't believe in in order to bait responses.
This is too close to what bipolar did to make me comfortable. I can see a certain sub using this as ammunition.
EDIT: Still upvoted you because this is good for discussion.
6 thinkmorebetterer 2014-04-01
That seems stupid. Even people who agree with 9/11 conspiracy theories said it was a stupid post.
What is your point in tagging "debunkers"? Is fairly obvious in most cases they will be the ones debunking - what do you achieve?
Why not judge comments and posts by their contents instead of some arbitrary tag you've assigned them?
Did you tag me? Hope so - I'm a sceptic and I've never made any attempt to hide that, nor have most of the other people who post here with sceptical views.
3 Wild2098 2014-04-01
He made a list of people who disagreed with him, because obviously they are conspiratards. And oh look! /r/conspiratard linked to this story. Why? Because it's fucking whack. And op's like op give this sub a bad name.
4 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-04-01
Look at your downvotes already.
I also think it's pretty telling when every comment in support of the official 9/11 story receives mass upvotes and every comment in opposition to it receives mass downvotes when we're on a discussion forum that's supposed to be about exposing/discussing possible conspiracies and/or problems in "official" narratives.
TL;DR: We can't even discuss conspiracies on this forum (which exists to do exactly that) without being downvoted to oblivion or having the entire thread completely derailed.
4 thinkmorebetterer 2014-04-01
The reality is that these ideas are controversial. There are clearly plenty of people who take part in this sub who are, generally, sceptics. Beyond that there are also many others who hold different opinions on many ideas and aspects of various conspiracy thinking.
The inherently controversial nature of the posts and comments seems to assure that voting will be dramatic. For all the posts and comments that are downvoted (for whatever reason) look at those that are upvoted.
Beyond that, the sub is ostensibly "a thinking ground" and it stands to reason that some amount of that thinking will not be in agreement.
2 iamagod_ 2014-04-01
Quite telling. This is where they fuck up. To have such a high up or downvote count, there would be more posts. They can't even get this right, fools.
4 bannedofshadows 2014-04-01
How is putting an article up that you yourself say "do not believe that the fire mentioned in that thread is a valid example of comparison for 9/11's"proof of debunkers? It was a bad article. The worst part is that not everyone here called it out for using a false equivalence.
Also, how is this different that what /u/BipolarBear0 did? Everyone was up in arms about that, you do the exact same thing and get slaps on the back. How sad.
2 joseph177 2014-04-01
We have enough trash being posted, why are you conducting experiments when all of this 'research' is laid out in JTRIG?
1 Ocolus_the_bot 2014-04-01
Conspiratard "baits" the non-believers into conversation and totally RES-tags them. CHECKMATE DEBUNKERS!
by: /u/Shredder13
Upvotes: 29 | Downvotes: 18 | Timestamp of this thread.
Upvotes: 2 | Downvotes: 0 | Timestamp of cross-posting thread.
If this was an error, send me a message
1 [deleted] 2014-04-01
[deleted]
5 thefuckingtoe 2014-04-01
Mods are very careful not to offend those who perform the task of 'controlled opposition.'
2 Mr-GishGallop 2014-04-01
Probably. The mods here are on a tight leash, abiding by the rules set by the admins which the members know nothing about. Mods come and go and nothing changes. I wonder why...
I think MV has a special place in all of this, that's why he gets a free pass for eternity. I wonder how many more like him are still around.
5 thefuckingtoe 2014-04-01
I couldn't have said it better.
Edit: I have no axe to grind with one /r/conspiracy mod in particular. I've received the exact same responses as you.
Trolls are allowed to roam free on /r/conspiracy, hitting post after post with disinformation, deception, fabrication and half-truths.
That being said, I'm rather tired of /r/conspiracy mods being the main sympathizers for /r/conspiratard posters on the /r/conspiracy sub.
Mods, it's insulting to our intelligence to ignore the trolls.
THAT being said, reddit is a privately owned company. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
It would be silly to think a moderator of /r/conspiracy has any real power.
2 [deleted] 2014-04-01
[deleted]
1 iamagod_ 2014-04-01
Who is he referring to?
0 Sabremesh 2014-04-01
Whilst I agree with your stated objectives, I don't condone this tactic. I think you should have squared it with the mods beforehand (and I doubt they would have approved).
Since our primary objective is to always get to the truth, we should work to an honour code on /r/conspiracy that we agree never to post stories, or make comments, that we know to be false or fabricated.
-1 lucycohen 2014-04-01
No genuine poster here will still believe the 9/11 Official Story; it's the most obvious conspiracy.
With a topic like vaccines you'll get a mix of /Conspiracy people, some who have looked into them and know they're bad, others who are still falling for the propaganda; it's a far more complex topic.
WTC7 gives the game away for 9/11, so by default anyone here arguing against it is a paid propagandist.
2 thinkmorebetterer 2014-04-01
No one legitimately holds views that are different to yours. Got it.
0 khamul787 2014-04-01
What an insane jump of logic. I hope you're joking. It's April 1st, but sometimes it's hard to tell.
-1 thefuckingtoe 2014-04-01
I just wanted to state it again. I figure the paid propagandists shouldn't have all the fun!
Look at how they attack this mantra. It's their achilles heel.
-2 WadeWilsonforPope 2014-04-01
Thats a very comprehensive post but dude /u/GayUnicorn6969 ...
Edit: His username for people not paying attention.
-4 [deleted] 2014-04-01
[deleted]
10 [deleted] 2014-04-01
Wait have the NIST models been released to the public? Last I checked it was not open for peer review which should make it worthless in the eyes of skeptics and debunkers.
Edit: If you downvote at least explain your reasoning. Proof that all the data used in the NIST models has yet to be released. Feel free to ignore and downvote if you makes you feel better.
2 iamagod_ 2014-04-01
Which remains hidden due to "national security." So much for their independent credibility.
-2 Hammerpantstime 2014-04-01
The simulatins/ models are available online. On nist site. All their methods are available.
Their analysis, approach, models, raw vidoe footage ...everything they used is available.
Everything a qualified peer would need to understand/challenge/query their analysis is there. http://wtcdata.nist.gov/gallery2/v/NIST%20Materials%20and%20Data/Computer+Simulations/
How can you not know that. I suspect you're jsut repeating what other truthers have said and dont actually understand what you're saying.
-do you actually fully understand the role scientific peer review has? when you say its not open for peer review what do you mean? why worthless? -peer review isnt a label that automaticlly makes an analysis scientific. Nists analysis and models are available. if you think something is wrong with them specifically , feel free to point it out.
6 [deleted] 2014-04-01
This isn't true. Lots of the data that was used to recreate the models has been witheld because according to the Director of the NIST it could 'Jeopardize public safety'. Don't take my word for it, feel free to read the various FOIA documents available for anyone to see:
1st
2nd
3rd
Nope, I will never stand behind a point without having researched it myself. Also I don't even consider myself a truther (which is disgusting use of doublespeak) as I don't believe the government was behind 9/11. I just like pointing out strange behavour and events surrounding 9/11 that debunkers ignore such as why both Bush and Cheney didn't want to investigate the attack at all. One again I don't believe anything without researching it myself, here is a video of Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle admitting the administration didn't want to investigate the attacks. If questioning why our government officals didn't want to investigate the largest terrorist attack to ever take place on us soil makes me a truther then I am surprised any rational thinking person doesn't consider themselves one.
Yes I do understand the role, scientific peer review is the only method in which to validate someones claims. In order to peer review someones claims you must recreate their experiements. Wihtout access to all the data the NIST used to build their models it is impossible to accurately recreate. This means it is impossble for people to peer review the NIST model. In the world of science if someone made a claim and then refused to release all the data that led them to make that claim they would be laughed out of the room. This is why the report should be considered worthless until it has undergone the same vigorous peer review that every other scientific claim must undergo in order to be accepted. Peer review isn't a label that makes an analysis scientific because the peer review could find that analysis to be unscientific. It is however the cornerstone of science and is the only way any claim can be taken seriously.
2 thefuckingtoe 2014-04-01
Except for the missing computer simulations of WTC7 that NIST chose to hide. FOIA requests for the 'collapse initiation sequence' computer simulations were denied by NIST, based on the fact that releasing computer simulations would jeopardize public safety.
Oh, and by the way, NIST made a note that says anything they have done is not admissible in an American court of law. NIST won't stand behind their own work.
You've done a good job of misinforming the public. That's why you're here.
1 [deleted] 2014-04-01
[deleted]
-1 thefuckingtoe 2014-04-01
2 [deleted] 2014-04-01
[deleted]
2 quantumcipher 2014-04-01
Please refrain from attacking other users and/or the sub.
Civil debate is welcome here. Personal/ad hominem attacks are not.
2 quantumcipher 2014-04-01
Please refrain from attacking other users and/or the sub.
Civil debate is welcome here. Personal/ad hominem attacks are not.