I've pretty much given up trying to convince people of all this. We are living in truly apathetic times. I actually can't wait for shit to go sideways so that people might actually wake the fuck up. Although I genuinely don't know what it will take for that to happen.

Boiling frog syndrome

I'd say more 'bread and circuses', but samie-same.

There's a popular quote out there that I think applies to this kind of situation.

“How did you go bankrupt?”

“Two ways,”

“Gradually and then suddenly.”

When it happens and shit hits the fan either economically, socio-politically or both, a lot of people are going to be taken by complete surprise.

Wait, I'm confused by this conspiracy sub. If TBTB are so efficient at organizing themselves...why would shit ever hit the fan? Wouldn't they WANT everything to be borderline stable so they could stay in power?

It'll hit the fan for us, not them. If the market crashes, they can consolidate. If people protest, they have even more reasons to "justify" the use of drones and other military techniques or martial law on us.

But where's the reward in that? You risk outright rebellion, which means lost profits, lost workers and loss of faith in the ruling powers. There is literally no benefit to letting the economy collapse for any ruling power, that's goddamn suicide.

They consolidated in 1929 and 2008 and gained substantially by doing so.

I'm sorry, but in 1929 communist movements were growing worldwide, Hitler had nationalized all of Germany, Japan was moving against European imperialist interests and old regimes around the world were falling apart at the seams. I'd hardly consider that "gaining substantially".

You have some homework to do my friend. Market crashes suck all the wealth from small time investors, retirement funds and so on and give it all to the big banks. Small and medium sized banks falter once a bubble bursts and get bought up by the big banks.

Watch all wars are bankers' wars if you think hitler, communism or specific political regimes are what matter to the illuminati.

Ah yes, Hitler, who denied internationalism and the global Judaism, who nationalized industries and enslaved political opponents, who wanted to expand Germany into a massive self-serving empire....was working for the illuminati? You really think that Hitler, the greatest isolationist and nationalist of all time, was working for globalization? Or are you saying that the Illuminati didn't mind the rise of Hitler, even though he came very, very close to dominating Europe and expelling the international banking influence.

I think it's incredibly odd that according to this subreddit, all wars break out because of....banks? I mean, it ignores so much history, so many factors, my god, it's just such a simplistic worldview.

Why do you figure the illuminati let Iran nationalize, or North Korea? Wouldn't that just be more work for them in the future? Furthermore, how do you figure TBTB orchestrated a market crash, with billions of independent investors and consumers uncontrollable?

No, Hitler was a force dangerous to the illuminati and that is why they knocked him off. You really should watch it. I'll even link it for you. If you still feel like arguing after that I'll be impressed.

Why did they wait to knock him off until AFTER he had invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Benelux, Yugoslavia, Scandinavia and the USSR? If he was such a threat, why didn't they take him out before his nation was on the edge of final victory?

You're picking bizarre details to argue over. I'm not going to sit here and try to imagine the finer points of global banking strategy because I think you're not really hearing me anyway. All I have left to say is watch the link, for real.

That's not "bizarre" details, that's the "Illuminati" almost letting Hitler take over Europe.

And if bankers are so anti-Nazi, why was Switzerland, the banking capital of the world, helping Nazi Germany out?

These aren't finer details; these are legitimate contradictions to the bullshit you're trying to spoon feed me.

Did you watch the movie?

I'll watch it sometime tonight.

Jenga! I came here for my daily dose of lunatic and got something sensible. Bravo

Jenga! I came here for my daily dose of lunatics and found this missive of sense. Bravo

Edit: I don't actually think all conspiracy theories are piffle, just a lot/most and get pissed off by lots of the people who do believe in them but asert their beliefs in the same way as the Daily Mail/Fox (who they complain about) - i.e. in a blinkered way chasing their own agenda regardless of facts and good science

They own jets and islands. We don't.

Jets and islands don't mean shit if you don't have fuel and landscapers.

Fuel and landscapers can be stockpiled.

No, they manufacture crisis and make money from it. Go do some research about who has gained the most since the 2008 crash and the bailouts and look at who caused it.

Do things look stable to you?

Finally, I have no idea why you are asking me this.

Wait, I'm confused by this conspiracy sub. If TBTB are so efficient at organizing themselves...

I never said this. If you think this is true then explain it, because I never said it.

Well, assuming the TBTB are manufacturing crises like you say, would they not have to be very, very efficient at what they do? After all, manipulating global markets towards your favor is a very, very difficult goal. If these powers somehow have puppeted the entire Western world, I'd hardly consider them amateurs. :P

Although, I won't say there isn't manufacturing of crises. In fact, I think it's very likely. I don't deny corruption, I just deny this subs scale of it. I truly do not believe that the world is in any way organized.

First question is rhetorical. The second two senteces support it.

I believe the world is more organized than you do. I don't believe its one overarching group of control. Perhaps small factions? Perhaps sometimes working towards similar means to an end, and perhaps sometimes not?

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/14/business/la-fi-crisis-winners-losers-20130915

but the frogs have clearly been given enough information to know they're in a pot and it's about to hit a rolling boil... they just don't actually care.

They don't know they are being boiled. They just know they can't escape the pot, and the water is getting warmer.

I think that at a certain point, the complexity of what the governments are doing may be too difficult for the average person to understand. Their reaction, in return, is to oversimplify the situation. In other words, if the complexity of a situation is too much, people who are unable to process it take the most simple route to forming an opinion rather than the more difficult, yet correct, route.

This is the problem with American democracy. We are tied to the irrational voter... the tyranny of the average man, if you will.

If we understand that you can not teach a monkey calculus, why are we forced to be subjected to the whim of the average person with the expectation that they should understand global politics?

I've been feeling this. It seems as if the complexity of the world politics situations is too much for most people, even those who are supposed to be knowledgable about it. Even journalists don't want to spend all their waking hours trying to figure out one thing from another, and with the wildly divergent accounts of what is happening coming from every nation involved, with different levels of truth and propaganda, it seems most have given up and decided to just accept the official story since to go against it is so confusing.

And, it's not just world politics. Technology, science, social sciences, everything, there's just so much to know that nobody feels like they're on top of anything, and that's why nobody seems to have the confidence to really comment or analyze anything, especially not holistically.

People do not want to know the truth. It is more comforting to believe the US is spreading peace and freedom through the world.

That's a tiny minority you're talking about there, considering the US population is only 5% of the world population.

Lack of food and resources. Police will be/are militarized. Things will get tight and can't travel without "papers". But if there is food and entertainment, nothing will change. It will only get worse.

Even then, they won't wake up. It will just be "the new normal"

It's going to suck big time if the government forces Yellowstone to erupt.

If a "natural disaster" is responsible for wiping out hundreds of thousands of people, destroying crops, sending the U.S. into chaos and martial law- how could we possibly pin it on any people?

they would be truly morons of the first degree to do that, there would be nothing left or nothing worth talking about.

I feel like the depopulation stuff is more fearmongering on their part. If population control had been an agenda, surely it would have been more of a focus in the period up till now. Surely it's not a case of procrastination and they let the population explode to its current level and are only now getting round to culling it.

There's no point being rich if everyone on earth is rich. Killing all the 'poor' people just decreases the relative wealth of the rich.

There have to be scary stories for every level of society. The threat of deliberate catastrophe is the one intended for us.

"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." - Adolf Hitler

People do not give Adolf enough credit for being a skillful politician.

He gives an honest insight into the psyche of the controllers. I imagine they use the same methodologies, so we can learn a lot. Knowledge is key, the very word spells it; know - ledge, what you know - gives you a ledge.

"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." - Adolf Hitler

I have read this (or parts of it) many times over the years, and had always assumed that it was a strategy that Hitler himself embraced to control the masses he intended to rule.

One day I came across a longer version of the quote, in context, and suddenly it took on an entirely different meaning. Hitler was not advocating the use of "the big lie", but accusing others of doing so.

Continuing the Hitler quote from where you left off:

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. From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community, where as in reality they are a race? And what a race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and exactly true. Schopenhauer called the Jew "The Great Master of Lies". Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail.

Mein Kampf, page 134

Jewish Virtual Library

There are many more examples of the misuse of Adolf's quotes. For example when talking about genocide he said: "Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?" People often say that he was referring to the extermination of the Jews, he wasn't. He was referring to the extermination of the Poles.

Its the same source I took the quote from. Even if he is not advocating the use of the lie, but accusing others of doing so, it just rings true of many methods of manipulation that have been or are being used against the people.

Indeed, and perhaps ironically, the "big lie" quote itself, taken out of context, has been used to further the "big lie".

Yep, a triple whammy.

Hmm, I thought the lie was that they were a race, not just a religious community. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question mark.

Also, the additional context is interesting. I always thought Hitler was referring to his intention to use the tactic of telling whoppers. A clever sleight of hand.

I always thought Hitler was referring to his intention to use the tactic of telling whoppers. A clever sleight of hand.

That is the way the quote is almost always portrayed, but in context, he was warning the readers to beware of those who use "The Big Lie".

Sheds a whole new light on the matter.

Shut up, conspiracy theorist!

Last winter, coldest in a hundred years. Last year, Sun was at a 100 year solar minimum.

IPCC: Sun is not primary driver of climate change

Even common sense deduction would lead you to the fact these people are fucking morons or liars.

The planet is still warming.

Last month was the warmest September in historical temperature records that date back more than 130 years, NASA said Sunday in its .

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/september-2014-warmest-record-nasa-20141014

Also, global warming was not rebranded as Climate Change.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326

Additionally, Anthropogenic Climate Change is not a conspiracy. Instead, it is the side effect of too much human pollution.

Regardless, too many conspiracy theorists are still wrong about vaccines & Autism. Those death panels were not implemented by Obama Care and dissidents were not indefinitely detained in FEMA camps. Reptilians do not rule the world and Obama was not born in Kenya.

Some conspiracy theorists are idiots & morons. Others are not.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Gandhi

I feel we're somewhere around stage 3 now. Not fighting in a literal sense but they are taking active measures to discredit us and flood the populace with disinfo.

Much like "SweatyBollocks" below, I've given up trying to convince people. Now when something comes up in conversation I say what needs to be said and remind them that in a few years time they will look back and realize we were right.

Quoting Mattavich below:

Normal people know all these things

If by "normal people" you mean the general populace then you are incorrect. The general populace believes what they are told in the MSM and do not question the 'official' story. After all, the media and our government wouldn't lie to us just like they would never spy on us.

Even when you have THOUSANDS of architects and engineers, experts in their given fields, stating the twin towers could not have fallen at free-fall speeds given the damages they sustained without either: a) Removing all (most) resistance between the top of the tower and the ground or b) Re-writing the laws of physics and they STILL believe the towers collapsed due to the planes hitting them and the resulting fire.

Thinking otherwise would be too painful a realization for many.

I'm just replying to your comment to tell you Ghandi actually never said that. I thought he had for a long time.

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0603/Political-misquotes-The-10-most-famous-things-never-actually-said/First-they-ignore-you.-Then-they-laugh-at-you.-Then-they-attack-you.-Then-you-win.-Mohandas-Gandhi

Thanks for the correction. TIL... :)

Good post except for the ignorance concerning anthropogenic climate change. You should watch the documentary "chasing ice" very educational.

Manning, Snowden and Segarra all broke the rules of their jobs. They may have done it for all the right reasons and end up being viewed as heroes. But they did break the rules and punishing them for it is not out of the ordinary. I don't think that most people will be outraged at the idea that someone who does something illegal or publicly questions their bosses will get fired.

If some entity is trying to knock off nations without central banks, Andorra, Monaco, Kiribati, Tuvalu or Palau should be in the news soon. People would probably be outraged if all of those nations were somehow systematically influenced by an organized groups in the near future, but that probably won't happen.

No one cares about the details of who is selling what drugs, as long as drug related crime isn't a problem in their neighborhood. And the majority of people understand that large corporations don't pay a lot in taxes because they can afford teams of lawyers and accountants.

Conspiracy theorists aren't idiots or morons, they just aren't good at presenting their ideas in a compelling and easily to understand manner. If respect is the goal, find examples of corruption that will really upset the average person. Things that have reasonable explanations or examples that don't resonate with most people won't have the intended effect. Don't worry about what people think of you and focus on putting a good story together.

Don't worry about what people think of you and focus on putting a good story together.

Bingo. Nice comment BTW.

If respect is the goal

Respect is not the goal. The goal is to find out the truth, or at least to get as close to it as one possibly can.

I fuckin hate you

[deleted]

CO2 follows temperature.

temperature rises, plants and animals thrive, more CO2 is produced.

And in turn the increased vegetation produces more moisture in the air, which in turn produce more rainfall that reduces temperature. The Earth is remarkably efficient at maintaining homeostasis.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED talk http://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

[deleted]

We do know how electrons interact and this only leads to more questions. When a person observes an electron it acts like a particle, yet when unobserved it acts like a wave of light. As far as climate change goes. The climate is and has always been changing it is one thing you can bank on it will change. As far as what humans are doing to screw up the atmosphere is nothing to what nature is going to do. Yellowstone is overdue for eruption and Is more active now then ever observed. When that goes the united states grain belt will be ruined causing massive famine and the climate will change drastically. Maybe a volcano tax is the answer?

If you advocate the Big Bang that means you advocate the concept of Redshift via Doppler or Redshift via Universe Expansion. This pipe-dream of Astro-photography and Astro-theology is absolute garbage to anyone properly trained in plasma physics, spectroscopy, or quantum mechanics.

The redshift & blueshift phenomenon have nothing to do with expansion or relative motion of heavenly bodies. Redshift is a photonic quantum phenomenon. Astrophysicists are not experts in photonics or quantum mechanics and their hairbrain idea on the topic of Big Bang is nothing more than Creationism. Redshift & Blueshift are both owing to the variability of the Di-electric "constant" in high energy sparse plasma as found in space. This has been proven countless times by world reknown quantum physicists going back to Bohr & Fermi.

Big Bang Creationists live in a pure fantasy land. End of discussion.

mathematical models,

have to be used with caution, wonderful tools for formulating theorys, testing ideas, playing the what-if game.

but the idea that a single computer model is a true model of the world and can accurately predict the future is laughable.

a lot of the skeptics of AGW are not stable Earth believers, we know that things change, and not always for the better.

but tell the fcuking truth, do not lie and put the whole science sphere into disrepute with the public and the politicians.

The Club of Rome, Originators of the Global Warming Hoax http://youtu.be/aIxy0fXW7o8

What is the point of faking climate change?

A good question to ask might be: What are the implied "solutions" to the problem? What segments of the world population might these "solutions" affect, and in what ways?

Well in 10 years, the "elite" will have won at the pace it is going now. They only have a few country to invade, bomb and regime change to finish a "NWO" there isnt much country left that arent controlled by the 'same central banking cartel' When that happen, they will push to merge all the government to one entity and it will be over. But before this there will be war, because some country woke up to this strategy and are rallying, China, Russia, Syria, Iran and few others. But their military might is so thin they dont stand a chance vs the all mighty 'NWO military might' They only stand a chance economicly, that is why everyone is turning away from the petro dollar. Every last 100 years wars have been closely related and tie to the petro dollar survival, doesn't need a PhD to understand and see the facts. If you don't know all of the above, im sorry to teach you the facts and if you dont believe them your just a headless chicken running around on the roulette.

Listing Global warming as a conspiracy... lol Can we please stop denying science. "Since the warming stopped", You obviously don't understand even the basics of climate science.

I really don't feel like giving you a college education over reddit. Essentially though climate doesn't work that way, you can't just say "it's going to get hotter". Climate at its core is a trend and there are going to be variations in the "weather". See there is a distinction climate is the whole picture while weather is on the smaller more individual level. You have the two confused. Just because it is really cold one year doesn't mean the climate has changed that is simply a weather event. Whatever little "AH HA! Gotcha!" you have have already been thought about by scientist, which are certainly aware and take into account the sun and its cycles. We can see an accelerated trend in the data we have collected that is certainly unusual. We compare this to data taken from ice cores which archive previous atmospheres thousands of years ago on Earth. There are multiple methods scientists use to make sure all the data is consistent. This all points to the conclusion that the huge and constant release of greenhouse gases has an effect on global temperatures. Many greenhouse gases have a heating AND a cooling effect both of which can be equally bad. There are many natural buffering systems in place on Earth that help to keep climates relatively stable however once these are stressed enough, bigger changes can happen rapidly. There are a lot of things to understand and take account of, it's a very interesting and complex field.

The issue is not the accuracy of global warming.

The issue is that almost everyone arguing for and against global warming don't have a sufficient scientific background to have an opinion on the subject and their position on the issue is based solely upon politics and not science.

Global warming discussions are political discussions not scientific discussions.

That's what nearly every issue becomes. It's kind of irrelevant to say, " well some people made it political".

That must be why stupidly rich loon Lord Monkton gets voted up here, because he agrees with the group mind here on climate change denial.

Never mind that he's a director of Resurrexi Pharmaceutical!

You forgot to include and share that NSA data gathering tidbit also Flytape. You idiot ;)

Conspiracy theorists are the top 2% of the population as regards IQ, the rest are morons.

Can people stop defining themselves as "conspiracy theorists"? First of all none of you, as far as I know, are conspiring anything. People who question beliefs are called skeptics, why let such a loaded term as "conspiracy theorists" be a noose around your neck?

Sceptic is a noun. A sceptic is someone who has doubts about things that other people believe. Sceptical is an adjective. If you are sceptical about something, you have doubts about it.

/r/skeptic is full of a bunch of non-skeptical people who defend the official story and only show skepticism toward anything that would challenge the official story.

ditto JREF and the r/conspurtard peoples.

My point exactly. The CIA came up with the term "conspiracy theorist" to discredit people questioning the official narrative. Why are people who are, by the very definition of the word, skeptical of the official narrative, so eager to be labeled by a term that the very people who are concocting conspiracies coined in order to discredit any opposing point of view? I mean I know what a conspiracy is, this sub is called "conspiracy", but why are people here so ready to label themselves as conspiracy theorists, it doesn't do us any good. Being skeptical just means having doubts about other people's beliefs, especially those taken for granted.

I know "conspiracy theorist" is supposed to have a negative connotation, but I never let that bother me... like being labeled a "nerd" in school by the kids at the bottom of the class.

Well, assuming we want to get a point across, most people scoff when they even hear things like "a conspiracy", or "conspiracy theory". It is said the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.

I also think skeptic is a good word to use. Skeptic has connotations of credibility in mainstream society, so you're pretty much turning it on its head in our context, which is pretty effective.

It's like Hunter S. Thompson in his campaign for sheriff. His credibility was being questioned because he was seen as a beatnik/hippy (in addition to having some pretty wacky policies), so he shaved his head and started referring to the incumbent sheriff as his "long-haired opponent". We need thinking like this.

^ This! You got it :)

I know you and I have gone through this all before, but I'm going to say this again.

Until you know actual understand the mathematics and data assimilation that go into climate modeling, you should probably avoid pegging it as being an "obvious conspiracy".

GIGO

So, Atmospheric CO2 concentrations haven't been rising then?

depending on your source, the northern ice cap has either melted to the point where the northwest passage is open to shipping...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

or the northern ice cap has more ice than any time since the 1970's

as for GIGO, that is why people upvoted the comment, because they know if you put "garbage in" you will get "garbage out", so asking me if CO2 levels have changed is a matter of how much confidence you have in the data.

Why does Club of Rome think using environmental issues like climate change is a good way to get people worldwide thinking of a common enemy so they can unite under a New World Order?

this is the same M.O. as Project Blue Beam

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Beam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_drama)

Others blamed the radio audience for its credulity. Noting that any intelligent listener would have realized the broadcast was fictional, the Chicago Tribune opined that "it would be more tactful to say that some members of the radio audience are a trifle retarded mentally, and that many a program is prepared for their consumption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

No, I mean, empirically, have CO2 levels increased in the past 50 years or not?

not sure. I haven't personally been taking measurements. have you? are you going to trust someone else's data? ill bet whoever you cite as a source would have critics. what would the critics say?

are you going to trust someone else's data?

Yes. Unless someone can provide me with convincing evidence that the observation people have been lying directly and personally to my face, yes.

How is solipsism this time of year?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism #Solipsism

Epistemological solipsism is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic philosopher can be known. The existence of an external world is regarded as an unresolvable question rather than actually false.

unresolvable question: this was the inspiration for 9/11 truth matrix

we don't know what to believe, but we can categorize info for easy reference for researchers.

http://friendfeed.com/groups/search?q=0p6d #0p6d

http://friendfeed.com/groups/search?q=0p4c #0p4c

http://friendfeed.com/groups/search?q=0p64s #0p64s

. #Op6Degrees #Op4Colors #Op64squares

in operation 6 degrees, we map out social networks of crimimal networks and connect the dots, and leave an easy trail to follow so others can connect the dots too.

in operation 4 colors, we describe people, places, events, etc with description words/ tags/ hashtags for easy collation and reference

in operation 64 squares, we put faces on a chess board, starting with the kingpin in the top left corner, and filling in the boxes with faces as they are uncovered.

You mean making climate models that fail to predict reality?

Do you know anything about verifying and validating climate models. How can you say they fail to predict reality when you can't name a single metric that would be used to gauge their accuracy.

This is no different than those dooms day cults which are forced to constantly redo the math every time their dooms day prediction fails to happen.

All your saying is "I don't know anything about their models, or how they are checked for accuracy, I only know that they are somehow wrong."

Huzzah for scientific illiteracy, I suppose.

Their predictions weren't accurate

By what metric?

By the few scientists who deny climate change and a bunch of bloggers's metric.

I'm hoping someone can give me a L2-norm of the residual of some distributed quantity or something. I'm not exactly holding my breath though.

there are key players in academia who collaborate with each other to stifle any opposition, and this is about the definition of the term conspiracy... so take the modelling elsewhere, because climate science if chock full of factual conspiracy without even getting into modelling and data..

I'm a numerical modeler, so I'm going to focus on numerical modelling, because that is what I know. The notion that there is some conspiracy in academia that is working to suppress publication of contradictory work that stands up to peer review is laughable; any scientist in any field would kill for such a paper that would turn the current orthodoxy on its head; they'd never have to worry about finding funding ever again.

The reason why that hasn't happened is because an such paper would fall apart under scrutiny.

Normal people know all these things. The difference between typical conspiracy theorists and normal people is that conspiracy theorists want to believe something is real when there is no credible evidence or their belief can be rationally explained by something much simpler.

I don't think anyone believes you are a moron for debating global politics, big brother society and other very tangible parts of our world. Maybe you're the one imagining that bit.

so explain why there are professional paid (not necessary performance) shills and trolls in almost every forum decrying any mention of CT.

if the ideas and theories and observations are so so very wrong, why are there salaried shills doing duty rubbishing every theory and idea. by their presence they admit theres fire before the smoke.

you could understand a few people just doing shilling and trolling for a hobby, but the sheer number of very well written and long hour duty shills points to organized social engineering.

a lot of them are as dumb as a bunch of rocks, but they are able to follow their bullet points.

the oddity is the number who tell lies about capital crimes, go along with the lies over 9/11 or Sandy Hook, they open themselves up to legal action down the road. 'accessory after the fact' etc. covering up mass murder etc.

these people that do this have to be dumb, anybody with a brain would not put themselves into such a legal predicament. not to mention 'other' revenge activities sometime down the road from the 3000 9/11 families that had people murdered by the criminals on 9/11.

you've moved from conspiracy theorist and so far past that even the people who are taking you seriously and trying to disprove bullshit is an actual conspiracy in itself!

Very wrong about what? Those topics have been talked about for years.

That's not how I remember it. Maybe it was just the people around you?

People with convictions often remember things negatively because they see the world as attacking them when most people are just trying to discuss the topic impartial and show them evidence.

But we know it was the nazis and why they did it.

It also wasn't even conspiracy theorists that revealed the existence of any of these well-known conspiracies. Forums like this are essentially meaningless when it comes to the uncovering of actual criminal conspiracies.

This place is more of a conspiracy coffee morning, where people chit-chat about them, and the work that other people have done.

The things he mentioned in his comment just then are all things that are regularly on the Daily Show and such. Hell, I read an article today on theage.com.au that directly cited wikileaks. I don't know why people think this is something that isn't in the mainstream line of thought, the whole surveillance state and government control. That is a very common conversation amongst people outside of conspiracy theorists as well.

I tell at least one "normal" person a day about building 7 and the molten pools of steel. They have no idea.

If you had any credible evidence then you wouldn't need to convince people.

There are always possibilities that events such at 9/11 are not what they seem. But most of the bullshit conspiracy theorists spouted was so wrong that entire books were written with solid evidence just to disprove them.

How can people be convinced of something they weren't aware of? They don't know there was a building called building 7.

Well that is just not knowing. I know that honey is made by bees, but if I didn't then I still wouldn't believe it was the government creating the honey to feed us "control serum".

That's all I'm saying. I didn't mention of any wacky "theory". We're in total agreement ;)

what type of bees make maple syrup and HFCS, can you tell the difference !?

do you know why the difference is important !?

Straw-man fallacy. Please try again.

Please share the "credible evidence" that convinced you to believe in your crazy conspiracy theory involving 19 muslim extremists hitting the Pentagon with a Boeing 757 on 9/11/2001. Thanks

Yikes, yeah im not even attempting this one, you're a tinfoil hat.

so, you believe that 19 muslims successfully hit the pentagon with a Boeing 757 on 9/11, but you don't know why you believe that? you can't point to one bit of evidence that supports your crazy conspiracy theory? did you get your info from tabloid type sources like #CNN, #FoxNews, #CNBC, #NYTimes #BostonGlobe #HLN #CNNbrk? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E http://friendfeed.com/groups/search?q=0p6d911

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

credible evidence

you live in a bubble if you think the official story of WTC7 has not been blown out of the water.

FEMA and NIST have no credibility left regarding anything to do with 9/11.

FEMA says fuel brought down WTC7, NIST says burning paper destroyed the building.

both cannot be correct.

the NYPD took a 35mm photo on 9/11 of a non United Airlines plane flying into or near the WTC2, looks more like a 737 with smaller engines and the strange pyramid logo or lettering near the front looks very much like a fuzzy ATA, as in 'American Trans Air'

not United Airlines 175

roll #3 number 1.jpg click and download the monster sized scanned 35mm photo, zoom and learn.

I don't believe it was a conspiracy. The have been some details which make me question what they say, but I also know that there is still not enough evidence to support the full theory. Out of any large event like this there will always be questionable details IF you go searching for them. It is a very predictable and well documented trait in humans that they often see what they want to see and any small detail that supports their belief will only make them feel like they're right, often in denial of overwhelming evidence against it. I believe there was no direct government involvement. I believe Islamists with extreme views wanted to suicide bomb the US in the same way they bombed England on 7/5 and the way they continue to bomb just about everyone that is not their branch of Islam.

First you say

I don't believe it was a conspiracy.

[...]

Then you say

I believe Islamists with extreme views wanted to suicide bomb the US...

So you do believe it was a conspiracy.

SHUT UP, CONSPIRACY THEORIST!

Please share the "credible evidence" that you used to form your crazy conspiracy theory about Osama bin Laden being involved with 9/11, and please dont resort to citing that fake video from 2004 that everybody already knows is fake. Thanks!

The question is: what is the definition of a normal person?

Does it really matter today since "normal people" think inside the box and won't believe anything outside the box unless a higher authority tells them.

I don't think it has to do with "wanting to believe". Its like Area 51. Before that event UFO reporting was not wide spread but the person that saw it knew what he saw and described it the best he could. The mistake he made was calling the authorities which in turn changed the story and everyone believed it.

The modern day world is built upon the proven scientific method. Normal people believe in evidence and dream of more adventurous possibilities. Conspiracy theorists in this subreddit believe in their dreams while ignoring credible evidence and possibilities.

Area 51 existing is proven as far as I know, that's why normal people now accept it.

The idea of a conspiracy theorist is to look into things that people don't believe or don't want to believe because there is no scientific evidence backing it up. I think it's foolish to blindly believe the scientific community because we also know they have been wrong in the past.

Yes some people are gullible that is proven. Even normal people do not know how to do the proper research required to discover the truth. The whole idea of this website is for people to come here in learn and see what other people are doing.

I think today as individuals have to do more then we thought because we've learned the normal sources of information are proven not to be accurate.

This is really really making me facepalm hard.

Science looks into ALL possibilities. If there is no evidence to suggest something, then it is not possible to identify it as a possibility.

Your problem seems to be that you're ignorant of what you're describing as the scientific community. The scientific method is never wrong. The scientific method allows us to make conclusions using the evidence we have and nothing more. If new evidence comes to light, then it will come to a new conclusion. The difference between the scientific method and believing in something is that when you hold a belief you make the choice to ignore the most probable and well supported conclusion and you choose to call your belief fact while being ignorant to evidence that supports other possibilities.

Science looks into ALL possibilities.

we ignore the ghost and monster TV channels, you should too.

Oh boy. This is not a debate about science but a debate on how people think or believe. All I know is that its better to discover things on your own over believing anyone at face value.

Everyone is not the same or will ever be on the same level of thinking. Anyone that thinks they are above someone else (because they think they are smarter) is the real fool.

I don't know what to say to this, its irrelevant.

I don't know which side you're on, global warming being real or fake? Notice the way its always a sarcastic comment, classic ignorance trait.

The scientific method is never wrong.

can be very wrong when scientists lie.

The modern day world is built upon the proven scientific method

http://twitter.com/search?q=CDCwhistleblower+OR+CDCfraud

Boiling frog syndrome

People do not want to know the truth. It is more comforting to believe the US is spreading peace and freedom through the world.

I think that at a certain point, the complexity of what the governments are doing may be too difficult for the average person to understand. Their reaction, in return, is to oversimplify the situation. In other words, if the complexity of a situation is too much, people who are unable to process it take the most simple route to forming an opinion rather than the more difficult, yet correct, route.

This is the problem with American democracy. We are tied to the irrational voter... the tyranny of the average man, if you will.

If we understand that you can not teach a monkey calculus, why are we forced to be subjected to the whim of the average person with the expectation that they should understand global politics?

Even then, they won't wake up. It will just be "the new normal"

It's going to suck big time if the government forces Yellowstone to erupt.

If a "natural disaster" is responsible for wiping out hundreds of thousands of people, destroying crops, sending the U.S. into chaos and martial law- how could we possibly pin it on any people?

there are key players in academia who collaborate with each other to stifle any opposition, and this is about the definition of the term conspiracy... so take the modelling elsewhere, because climate science if chock full of factual conspiracy without even getting into modelling and data..

They don't know they are being boiled. They just know they can't escape the pot, and the water is getting warmer.

GIGO

I don't know which side you're on, global warming being real or fake? Notice the way its always a sarcastic comment, classic ignorance trait.

So, Atmospheric CO2 concentrations haven't been rising then?

^ This! You got it :)

Lack of food and resources. Police will be/are militarized. Things will get tight and can't travel without "papers". But if there is food and entertainment, nothing will change. It will only get worse.