Why must you question everything? Its simple that some dont want to wake up as many put it. Because they are happy with the way things are. They have been convinced that they would be one person. They have also been conditioned to associate conspiracy theorists as lone wolfs.

Its isolation that the masses fear. Its why there isnt much progress in any real theater of this mind set. Until something happens to them then its a fringe thing.

Every single president has been related to one another.

So is every single person on earth.

Unless you consider evolution. Or Creationism.

Everyone on the earth today is related to Noah and his sons. Everyone is therefor related to Adam and Eve.

Even if you believe in evolution, everyone is related to the same rock.

[deleted]

one of three

Religions? People?

I love your passion for these topics, but...don't you feel like you're preaching to the choir? I mean...we're a conspiracy forum.

I kind of feel like you're walking into a UFO conference and started yelling, "How can none of you believe in UFO's!?"

I've been around here for a while, I just typically post in the early morning. It's actually rare when I'm up at this hour.

Hello. Non-believer here. Just strolling through. The reason this doesn't bother me is because, well, there is a rational explanation for all of that. When you conspiracy gets to the point where you reject ration and reason, it's time to find a new hobby.

there is a rational explanation for all of that

Sometimes, however, the rational explanation is what is called a "conspiracy theory".

I have no opinion on chemtrails.

I live in a country where tap water is not medicated, and I think it shouldn't be, people can take their medications when they need them.

When it comes to the Twins, however, simply stating - like the official account does - its collapse was natural and not helped along by a vast amount of energy as proven by the fact that it did collapse, is not a rational explanation. It must be explained why the "virtual work" keeping it up disappeared, vanished into thin air, allowing it to collapse straight down through and out of itself, offering only token resistance ("friction"). Explosives/cutter charges are the most rational explanation.

You described yourself as "non-believer". Be invited to become a not-knower.

Or how about 2 planes knocking down 3 skyscrapers, all in a symmetric near-freefall collapse. Durrrrr!

It's because people generally don't trust their own reason. Rather, they are convinced socially. And when all your friends are laughing at the "truthers", you're gonna laugh too... without ever examining the evidence.

I'll admit, it took my Russian friends laughing at CNN before I considered... "Is it possible this is propaganda?" Just that seed of doubt was enough; logic did the rest. I have a master's degree in mechanical engineering, and it still took that social element.

I totally fell for it as well.

I feel like such a dumbass haha

I did too. See, that's what we're mostly up against; pride. Most people won't accept that they were taken for a fool.

It's bizarrely strong in some people, and the funny thing is they don't even realize. It takes courage, initially, accept that the ideas you were brought up with, the stuff your elementary school teachers taught you, are critically flawed and you've been living a lie.

That's why I wish more people would take psychedelic drugs. It's like the common reaction you see in people who do Ayahuasca rituals these days on account of it becoming more available:

"Well, I guess I was wrong about absolutely everything."

Imagine if everyone could realize that they're probably wrong about everything and that a more open-minded paradigm is in order...

I'll try to take a stab at some of these:

How do you convince yourself that nothing is going on behind the scenes?

I don't, I know there is plenty behind the scenes. That said, I need adequate evidence to be convinced of an specific thing.

When there is a magical bullet that kills the POTUS, how does that not draw your attention to it?

All of my research indicates the "magic bullet" theorists are not taking into account specific factors in the assassination, specifically the seating arrangements in the car. I'd expand more but it has been a while since I did much reading on the subject. I could be convinced something was up with the right evidence.

When the jet fuel is so hot that it melts 100+ stories of steel and is a molten pool for months later, yet they find the paper passport of the "terrorist" on the sidewalk, how do you stay asleep?

This is well tread territory, the steel didn't have to melt, just be weakened. I won't go into all the details of the theory most engineers have behind the collapse, as this is not the intent of my post, but I will say I have been given far more reason to believe the academic community then the conspiracy community regarding this. The fact that no one in the 9/11 truth has bothered constructing a model of the collapse is a red flag for me, expecially when AE911 truth brags about having 2000 engineers supporting them.

Every single president has been related to one another. Why doesn't this raise any suspicions?

Don't know anything about this, but then again I'm not American. Seem a little far-fetched/sensationalized. That said, I'd like to see some evidence, I've got no problem believing those in positions of power work to secure that power for generations to come.

Why it is that only some planes, sometimes, leave trails of cloud behind them on a clear day?

Look up basic weather mechanics. Chemtrails are possibly the most laughable conspiracy out there.

Why are so many questions not allowed to be asked?

No one I have ever met, conspiracy believer or not, thinks this is the case. The problem I have, is that false information is hurtful to the truth, whether it is against the government or not. Chemtrail accusations hurt the cause of people who want to fight corruption of political offices, overbearing police forces or corporate violation of rights. The goal should be to ask questions, find the answers then ask more questions. Unfortunately, with many theories, people seem to ask questions, get answers, deny answers and then continue asking the same, already answered questions for decades.

All I want to know is, how do none of these things wake you up? Explain to me how you can ignore them and go on with your life as if everything is OK?

I am awake and everything is not O.K.. Fucked up shit is happening every day; corruption, human rights violation, restriction of personal freedoms, overbearing surveillance. Just because I don't think there is sufficient evidence for 9/11 being an inside job or chemtrails does not mean I sit here happily eating everything the government feeds me.

In fact, I would argue that my skepticism goes further than many here. I am skeptical not only of the government but of all sources of information, Including natural news, globalresearch, infowars and other conspiracy standbys. Their manipulation of information is just as obvious and shameless as those from Monsanto or the U.S. government.

I guarantee that no matter what I say, I'll attract the shill accusations because of my post history. But I thought I should at least throw down my input, as I felt your post was attacking an idea that doesn't really exist in the real world.

No offense, but you're not awake. Until you understand that 9/11 was an inside job, you're not awake. The implications are life-changing. The implications are that the U.S. govt is a terrorist organization that uses the media to cover its crimes. Until you understand that, you're fast asleep.

But good answer. This is probably pretty representative of the mindset, which I shared up until a year ago.

"Believe what I believe, or you are a sheep." Fantastic.

This is probably pretty representative of the mindset, which I shared up until a year ago.

Funny, I was once a conspiracy theorist.

Funny, I was once a conspiracy theorist.

Walk us through that.

I was a teenager who learned that there were alternate explanations to events that I had never heard. Someone showed me Loose Change (this was back shortly after it came out), and I believed it. Like many teenagers, I think the idea of knowing something that the majority of people didn't, ("being awake") appealed to me. I found myself looking for me sources that confirmed what I had seen on loose change, and I tumbled down the rabbit hole a bit.

As I got older and learned more about the scientific method in late high school and early university, I found myself revisiting my initial beliefs and finding that they often weren't supported by much professional research. I read about what went into the analysis of 9/11 and things like vaccines and learned that my standards of evidence were biased toward the side I perceived as "anti-authority". When I readjusted my perspective, I realized that the research being performed by scientific organizations and the information resulting from it was often far superior when compared to many conspiratorial sources.

Now, I still find myself very interested in conspiracies, although more out of interest rather than actual belief. I like challenging ideas because I believe it is important, and despite the near constant personal attacks and shill accusations I tend to get here, I think participating helps me to learn more and further explore my own beliefs and biases.

Hahaha you just convinced me, as well, that you're almost certainly a shill. Or Hasbarah. Well done.

Wow, you went from understanding to stereotypical, closeminded idiot really quick! That has to be some sort of record.

Anyway, thanks for the shill accusation, another notch in the belt.

Have a good life.

You do good work. My compliments to your commanding officer.

Mr. Weinstein gives you his regards.

Heh..

Dude everyone on this sub calls you a shill if you don't readily accept every conspiracy on here. I don't think sandy hook was a false flag or made up thing and yet I get called a "shill" for even mentioning it

You know the memorials on facebook and charities were set up before Sandy Hook happened right?

You got evidence of this?

Someone could have changed the name from an existing group.

Why are there no screen shots? Nice evidence gathering nutter

Have you ever sent an IM from the future? I have. Timestamp and timelines on the internet can fail sometimes. This event happened to be big enough where you'd notice a discrepancy. Nobody gives a shit when exactly the page "I suck all Conspiracocks" was made, and would have no way of corroborating the date anyways so you dont notice that it says it was created 2 days before the admin created it

Its too bad you didnt find the admin of those pages. Thats something called a lead, which you failed to pursue, and have left us with nothing. Tell me, what conclusions are you supposed to draw from these pages being before the event. That someone who's powerful enough to plan such a conspiracy is dumb enough to start a facebook group about it beforehand?

You off your thorazine m8?

Show me the pages in question.

Jesus christ, are you folks not embarrassed by how often you throw around shill accusations?

Seriously, all you are essentially saying is that you believe anyone who thinks different than you must be paid to do so. It is ignorant, arrogant and above all childish.

Your conspiracy theories are often not nearly as air-tight as many would have you think, and the fact that you feel the need to attack and insult me because my views differ from yours is a testament to your utter lack of maturity and intellectual honesty.

You should be embarrassed, but I fear you lack the capability to understand why.

I'm quite certain this guy is no more than 15 years old. No self respecting adult speaks the way he does.

Either that, or he's running a Tony Clifton con job on the regular posters here.

Keep it coming with the shill stuff, I love it. My Jewish masters pay me 20 shekels every time I am accused of being one.

While we are on the topic of dishonesty, let's review your honesty in this thread:

1- You create a thread asking people who don't believe what you believe to explain themselves.

2- I respond with my own reasoning, remaining completely civil and trying to be understanding with those who challenge me. (until provoked of course, but you'll notice my intentions to remain civil to those who offered me the same courtesy)

3- You respond to my comments, which you specifically asked for, with insults and shill accusations.

You have effectively demonstrated your dishonesty. You lied about your intentions in creating this thread. You were not asking honest questions, you were throwing insults to an enemy you probably hoped would remain a figment of your imagination. When I actually appeared to defend my views, you became aggressive and condescending.

Your intention in creating the thread was obvious from the start. You were looking to punch a strawman while claiming to be asking honest questions.

You should be embarrassed, but I fear you lack the capability to understand why.

professional research.

heh

How do you know that for 100% truth?

You never know anything for 100% truth. I don't know the sun will come up tomorrow for 100% truth. But the US govt has been caught in so many lies, this is as obvious as it gets. One could easily turn the question around: "How do you know the official story is 100% truth?

You "know" by investigating the stories, by not just accepting as "100% truth" what the teevee says. Use your own logic, your own reason. For me, I'm confident enough that I left the country, mmkay?

You just have to pay attention, and most of us aren't.

You left the country? Damn, that's some intense paranoia. Have you been to a psychologist? What other country did you go to?

Not at all. Once you know what's up, you don't want to be anywhere near it. Guess you don't know yet.

You sound schizophrenic, delusional, in severe denial of reality. Have you been to a psychologist?

Country is Costa Rica. Sitting here outside in shorts and a tank. Gonna DJ a gig at a little surf camp in an hour. Went surfing a couple days ago. And it's mango season. I stand by my decision.

Schizophrenic and delusional? What? Also that does seem pretty sweet. Nice choice

What do you mean? I know the government has done and probably still is doing a bunch of shady shit but it's not nearly the levels of "absolute world domination and slaving the population" this sub makes it out to be

What are you talking about?

I rarely get jealous but I felt a little tinge there. The Beaver needs some Sun.

"I don't know 100% the sun will come up tomorrow"

I hate when people say stuff like this.

I know, right? We could all be in a simulation! (bet u hate that one more)

Pretty easy to prove we are, really, but I dunno what it gains us.

Still working on that, myself. Four ayahuasca sessions deep, still just scratching the surface.

What I don't understand is what happens when I bend reality to my will while your bend reality to your (opposing) will. Who wins?

Or, put another way: Since you understand all this, could you please bend reality to end all these illegal wars? And if you can't do that, how do you reconcile that fact?

But then that's not very interesting. That's just saying if I work harder to achieve my goals than you, and do more to make that happen, then I may achieve my goals and you may not. Nothing esoteric or spiritual or reality-bending there.

Wish I had a good source for those other mind tools. I'll start asking around.

C'mon now, that's weak; I'm trying to figure this out. This gets at the heart of the New Age movement.

You say I can manifest my own reality through sheer force of will. Okay that sounds awesome. But then, when I dig for more answers, that just seems to mean "Work hard, plan well, organize a solid team, be sure your finances are straight, keep working hard, watch those sales numbers, cut expenses, put in a few all-nighters..." which is not anything new.

Is this what's at the heart of New Age? "Hard work pays off" wrapped in mystical sounding language?

The fact that no one in the 9/11 truth has bothered constructing a model of the collapse

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=340cf2655f&e

Fantastic, I was wondering when they'd do it. Looking forward to reading it.

I imagine it'll be quite a while before it's completed. They're going to be very careful about dotting their "i"s and crossing their "t"s. And I'm confident they'll also release all the data they use as opposed to NIST refusing to release the data they used.

I believe there is more than 9/11 truth sites would have you believe. The files were all part of the ANSYS 16-story collapse model. They do not represent the whole of the collapse modelling. (Edit: I was mistaken on this point, see correction below). It was also not raw data. All raw data was taken from blueprints and NISTs own analysis of collapse footage. Anyone is capable of conducting their own study, and they have. Finally, you can see on the FOIA request response that AE911 truth has linked that the information requires a specific license. Meaning it was released to those meaning to peer review it. For further confirmation, here is a quote from ASCE, an organization that peer reviewed and corroborated NIST's conclusions, regarding it's needs for information when reviewing a study.

"Recognizing that science and engineering are best served when data are made available during the review and discussion of manuscripts and journal articles, and to allow others to replicate and build on work published in ASCE journals, all reasonable requests by reviewers for materials, data, and associated protocols must be fulfilled."

The fact is, NIST's data has been reviewed and accepted by numerous reputable organizations, but the AE911 truth representatives don't want you to know that. So they grab onto what they see as weakness in a study that they have so far been unable to challenge, and try their hardest to tear down the work of others.

Nevertheless, I did not intend to get into yet another NIST debate. I'm happy the folks at AE911 truth are going to be putting their money where their mouth is after all these years. We'll see what they come up with and how it sits with the engineering community as a whole.

Finding Regarding Public Safety Information (PDF)

Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information:

1. All input and results files ofthe ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

Oh, you are correct, I misremembered all the details when I typed up my post. For some reason I was under the impression it only accounted for part of the structure. I will edit my post to reflect this.

This does not, however, effect the primary focus of my last comment.

The fact that no one in the 9/11 truth has bothered constructing a model of the collapse is a red flag for me, expecially when AE911 truth brags about having 2000 engineers supporting them.

But here is the thing. It is up to Purdue, Bazant and NIST to produce a model, because it is their theory about a "new phenomenon" that is being challenged by "troofers".

What kind of model is AE911 supposed to produce? One that collapses? It would require additional energy to overcome W[p] from Bazant/Verdures '07 equation 6. It would require a cleverly hidden mechanism, explosives, cutter charges, a huge weight on the roof, g forces way beyond 20 m/s² - otherwise, it would at worst topple, tip or tilt. Then it would be called a bad model, because it's "not like the real thing".

One that does not, or if at all, only partially, collapse, which is what would normally have happened? Then it would be called a bad model as well, that they made it "too strong", "uneconomic", "unrealistic", although, in reality, gravitational-driven progressive total top-down collapse does not occur, has never been observed, never been predicted or thought to be a possibility (except for Tolkien's Barad-Dûr), and caught engineers and architects world-wide unawares.

No, the way you try to set this up makes it impossible for AE911 to win (I'm not a fan, really not, and I don't understand why they even try to make a model for these very reasons) the argument.

What should be a red flag for you is that the models NIST and Purdue offered are unscientific in the sense that they are black box. Their data is not open. It is like having a huge wire go from your wall socket to your "free energy overunity machine", to, uh, "take measurements" or some such.

I've been a skeptic for a long time, until I understood why it is that not even a house of cards progressively collapses from top to bottom.

What should be a red flag for you is that the models NIST and Purdue offered are unscientific in the sense that they are black box. Their data is not open.

Absolutely untrue. Educate yourself on the document and understand the peer review process worked regarding NIST's findings.

Absolutely untrue.

Absolutely true.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2ucfli/how_do_you_do_it/co7b16n

Educate yourself

Try your own medicine:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Equation 6 states the requirement for a thing to collapse through itself. W[g] > W[p] for all floors, by a factor of three in the case of the Twins. Each and every model would have to satisfy this condition in one way or another. The structure must be three times heavier than it can support to make collapse through itself possible. However, the structure must be lighter than it can support to stay upright (W[p] > W[g]). Did W[g] become greater or W[p] smaller in the time between impact and collapse, and how?

Yes, I read the comment that was addressed to me. Did you bother reading my response? or anything by someone who wasn't actively trying to convince you 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

I'm not really sure what you are trying to prove by linking an article that literally proves your claim wrong. The article literally explains why the progressive collapse was possible, did you read it?

I'm not really sure what you are trying to prove by linking an article that literally proves your claim wrong. The article literally explains why the progressive collapse was possible, did you read it?

I know it almost by heart. What I am trying to prove? Read again.

Equation 6 states the requirement for a thing to collapse through itself. W[g] > W[p] for all floors, by a factor of three in the case of the Twins. Each and every model would have to satisfy this condition in one way or another. The structure must be three times heavier than it can support to make collapse through itself possible within the given time frame. However, the structure must be lighter than it can support to stay upright (W[p] > W[g]) for three decades.

When a fucking plane hits a fucking building and then burns it reduces the amount of weight that section can support.

Some critics have been under the mistaken impression that collapse cannot occur if (because of safety factors used in design) the weight mg of the upper part is less than the load capacity F[0] of the floor. This led them to postulate various strange ideas (such as "fracture wave" or planted explosives). However, the criterion in Eq. (5) makes it clear that this impression is erroneous. If Eq. (5) is violated, there is (regardless of F[0] no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse only driven by gravity.

Look, I was done with this comment thread yesterday. I don't know how you thought this, in any way, backs up your theories, but I am done. Have a good one.

Because it requires Eq. (6) to be satisfied for ALL the "fucking" floors of the "fucking" building.

I was not aware of expiry dates for internet discussions, I apologize.

I am sorry to have bothered you with science. Have a nice one too.

Do you know what progressive collapse means?

A domino chain reaction for example? Or the examples for building collapses given by the Weidlinger Associates' book "Why Buildings Fall Down", some of which Bazant also quotes (Ronan Point, IIRC)?

I thought you were done, what are you trying to do now, have the last word?

Or are you genuinely interested in a scientific debate?

Then let's cut the bullshit and get on topic.

Eq. (6) must be satisfied for the whole building, which means it must be - at the onset of the collapse - heavier (W[g]) than it can hold up (W[p]). Only then can the collapse progress after a one-floor free fall of the 58.000-ton Block C initiating the collapse (that Eq. (5) can be satisfied by that nobody can seriously doubt), as in Bazants "Simple Analysis" ('01/02) model. Otherwise, if W[p] > W[g], the impact energy is "damped" and distributed over the whole structure, resulting in the kind of failure to progress well known from building implosion fails.

And herein lies the problem. At some point W[g] < W[p] had to "switch" to W[g] > W[p]. Either it was a built-in mechanical feature, then it was a domino chain reaction -> set-up, literally -> intent. Or a "vérinage", with hydraulic cylinders and ropes and a clever mechanism artificially keeping W[p] > W[g] long enough to "switch" to W[g] > W[p] -> intent.

You fundamentally misunderstand how buildings and building collapses work. Read the article you linked me and try to understand it.

I thought you were done, what are you trying to do now, have the last word?

Ok, Now I'm done, I won't inconvenience you any further.

You fundamentally misunderstand how buildings and building collapses work. Read the article you linked me and try to understand it.

Very, very funny. All my arguments are within the framework of Bazants model. If you understood it, you should have no problem to base your refutation on the formal part, which I would have welcome, agreement or not. Instead, you insinuate I have not even read it. Very poor style.

Your loss.

You should be embarrassed, but I fear you lack the capability to understand why.

You should be embarrassed, but I fear you lack the capability to understand why.

Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Good advice, you should try that out. (edit: also, your OP was a question literally posed to people like me. Now you chastise me for answering it? Are you broken?)

To reiterate:

You should be embarrassed, but I fear you lack the capability to understand why.

Well, the "magic bullet" isn't actually the one that killed Kennedy, it's the one that caused the 7 wounds on him and Connally. The headshot is a separate bullet.

Second, if you look into the "magic bullet", you'll find it isn't magic at all.

Oh right. LHO fired off three shots in 2 seconds, and managed to hit 7 people with one, and make another bullet take a U-turn and hit the president.

Um...what?

3 shots in 8.4 seconds, none of them any longer than 88 yards, the second shot moved in a straight line and caused 7 wounds on Kennedy and Connally because of the way they were seated in the car.

Too bad LHO was already outed as a CIA asset working for RFK, and had nothing to do with the murder.

The memo that "proved" he was a CIA asset was a forgery.

Keep trying though, it's cute when you fail this hard.

I've forgotten more about the Kennedy case than you've ever known.

Actually I was a conspiracy theorist for 15 years (or roughly the length of your entire life if your comments are any indication). I read every major conspiracy author from Mark Lane to Josiah Thompson to Jim Maars to James Fetzer to Jim Garrison.

Once I started reading the opposing viewpoint (something you clearly haven't done) I saw that every single one of the conspiracy authors was full of shit.

Let me guess...evetything you know about the case comes from Oliver Stone, doesn't it?

Just a tip, when you want to troll this sub and pretend to be an idiot conspiracy theorist, try to make it less obvious. You're getting drowned in downvotes, even the regulars here have sniffed you out.

[deleted]

I'm confused...what is that link supposed to show?

Why it is that only some planes, sometimes, leave trails of cloud behind them on a clear day?

The same reason clouds form some times and not others.

Why it is that only some planes, sometimes, leave trails of cloud behind them on a clear day?

Vapor pressure, temperature, altitude, humidity. There are a lot of legit, messed up conspiracies out there. And there are some legit chemtrail theories that may or may not be true. But this is just basic physics.

Listen too this audio. Snakes In Suits

I'm quite certain this guy is no more than 15 years old. No self respecting adult speaks the way he does.

Either that, or he's running a Tony Clifton con job on the regular posters here.