Both other comments right now complain about the bs that is also abundant... to both I can only say: that is the price to pay. You don't come to a place like this and expect everything to be ready for digestion and indisputable fact, you still have lots of work to do to seperate wheat and chaff. Of course this sub is being played by disinfo agents, and honest people who allow themselves to be misled by "news" that are too good to be true. Often, the best way to discern the grain of truth from the outright lies is to browse the comments and look at the styles of argument of proponents and debunkers. It's part of the experience and schools critical thinking and research skills. It's what makes this sub such a wonderful place.

Well said indeed.

Lol.. he stalks you too, huh? Keep up the good work, bud. The heat is on him, so he is going to fake playing nice for a few days, then he'll be back to insulting everyone and derailing every thread he can.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3bmr14/does_anyone_feel_like_ever_since_they_fuzzed_the/csnkv8h

[deleted]

Forget to change back to your WideAwakeNWO Account?

He's not WideAwakeNWO... People that operate in darkness don't like having light shone on them.

LOL oh look my harasser is defending me! LOL jesus fucking christ.

Witness the consequences of your actions, irrational harassment by others. Thanks to you I have been put into a witch hunt. Where people make false assumptions because of stuff other people have claimed.

You made me into a conspiracy theory way to go.

People that operate in darkness don't like having light shone on them.

When all you have left is to pretend to be a victim after you were caught red-handed, maybe you should own up to your shame.

Nope, see you are totally off base I have done nothing wrong. You are the one distorting information and outright fabricating lies to make me look bad.

Don't worry though all this bullshit you are doing is totally going to backfire on you. You know you are the harasser here.

Maybe you should own up to that aspect eh?

All you do is lie and then tell more lies. I'm going to make sure everyone knows about it. I don't need to do anything more than to tell the truth:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3bf43o/the_modtalkleaks_continue_major_moderators_caught/

If you didn't want people to point out what you do, then perhaps you shouldn't do it in the first place. Not only that, but if the mods won't do anything about it, then the least I am going to do is make sure everyone knows about your past.

Your bullshit is right out of the hasbara playbook. "Oh man! Look at what a victim I am! Waaaaah!" You got caught and you look like a chump.

You are going to regret all of this mark my words, your harassment is going to backfire

What? /u/WideAwakeNWO is not my account, never has been. I feel this harassment I have subjected to is now going deep level off the wall here.

Jesus Christ you want some cheese with that Whine.

Any reason why you are attacking me for no reason?

http://img.foodnetwork.com/FOOD/2012/05/23/HE_swiss-cheese_s4x3_lead.jpg

Ha. Why would I be trying to get my account banned if this was mine? What even gave you the Idea this was my account? Are you FlyTaping me?

[deleted]

What the hell does that mean?

Oh look, a pathetic SRS groupie.

SRS? What the are you even talking about? Oh look a 4 day old account, that's not suspicious at all.

Right

Hey look, we actually agree on something.

Of course this sub is being played by disinfo agents, and honest people who allow themselves to be misled by "news" that are too good to be true.

And that should be the first indication that you're on the right path.

Yo yeah.

Hear, hear

^real muthafuckin talk

Samuel? Samuel Jackson? Is that you mutha fucka?

Say what...I dare you.

Twat? I cunt hear you. I have a slut ear infucktion. I have to go to the dicktor to get some peniscillin

The best way to discern truth is to do your own research.

If you read an article look at their sources if they offer any. If not I would take their conclusions and even observations with a big grain of salt.

I agree with your sentiment, I would also add that this sub should also not be free of healthy debate. When someone posts a link that is obviously distorted, or outright false. That the user should not be offended when people do not agree with their beliefs. My biggest fear is that this sub becomes an echo chamber and not a place of debate.

Where'd that flat-earth deluge go anyway?

Not familiar with that, care to elaborate?

It was about 3 weeks ago... Someone started several threads along the lines of "Wake up sheeple, the earth is actually flat!" with links to images and YouTube videos that "proved" all spherical-earth claims were part of a conspiracy.

There were couplafew redditors weighing in on the flat-earth side, but I suspected possibly all the same person.

The ludicrousness boggled my mind but somehow I couldn't look away, like a car crash, and i too tried to refute their claims... But their response style gave no room for moving at all.

Basically the article said it looks flat, but that's just the part we can see.

"All we can truly conclude is the volume of the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."

So yeah, that about sums it up.

As a side note, maybe if Palestinians would stop firing bottle rockets at Israel things would be going smoother over there. Don't poke a lion with a stick and you won't get bit. Stop circle jerking with your racist "Israeli liar" comments.

Lying isn't ok, but neither is terrorism. And I'm not Israeli. Neither side of that conflict is right, period. They're both doing bad things. I know the history of that area, but that's not the point, the point is that terrorism is never going to fix it.

And they specifically said what we can observe. That means what we can see is flat. They can guess about the rest of the universe, but they don't know. It's an estimate.

Seriously, some of the posts here just make me laugh. I never heard of this flat earth theory being pushed. Just googled it, holy shit. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

That is some freaky science denial stuff right there.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/search?q=flat+earth&restrict_sr=on

It's "cognitive infiltration of conspiracy theories". You should google that one too.

I dont (yet?) buy into the flat earth idea, but i wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss it outright. Try to find some info and ideas other than from TFES and some of shit shittier yutube videos. I'm not gonna give you links because I'm mobile right now, and nobody gave me links anyway. If your interested, you can look for yourself, if your not interested, no worries. Im not someone who will buy outlandish theories easily, but I am open to exploring many possibilities even if they seem extremely improbable at first glance as this idea does.

The flat earth theory is actually very sound and well argued. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the flat earth society though as I heard there's a whole bunch of disinfo floating around over there. The entire movement is full of suspicious trolls and disinfo but that just begs the question: who is trying to dilute all the truth? Trust me, if you sift through the religion (interesting but not factual) and get to stuff like GPS plane routes and Bedford Level experiment it gets really interesting.

The flat earth theory is actually very sound and well argued

If the earth were flat the gravity would be strongest around the edges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs

And an object in space with that mass (Earth) would naturally be pulled into a ball.

it's an interesting concept but I have seen the curvature of the Earth in a plane.

May I ask where you've seen that curvature? You need to be VERY high up... You can't even see it from an aeroplane. Sorry, gonna have to call bs :-s

I've seen that video. And it's correct ASSUMING what we know about gravity is 100% correct AND that the flat earth would be a thin disk in space just like in the video. While an interesting point on it's own, it does little to disprove the rest of the arguments. I've also heard of some massive Japanese bridge (the details escape me) that was built WITHOUT Earth's curvature in mind. That shit goes both ways.

Honestly, if we're discussing a hypothetically flat Earth then why keep the same old assumptions about the universe? It could be an infinite plane for all we know and also infinitely deep. It wouldn't even have to be infinite, it could just have the same amount of mass extended on the outer-side of the disk as the inner. Then gravity would be even again... I think? Anyway I hope you see that animation is far from concrete proof.

A lot of the other points in the video have already been explained (the boats over the horizon etc) and his condescending tone when talking about some of these explanations is kind of annoying since they technically make sense. Also the whole tin foil hat bullshit when he starts talking about "big globe" is just extra proof that instead of proving things wrong people can just call "conspiracy" and be done with it.

If you actually think you can trust NASA or other space agencies at this point then you've been mislead and/or are wilfully ignorant. From the Challenger shuttle crew who AREN'T ACTUALLY DEAD and are living good lives with high up positions in society to the obvious ISS hoax (long permed hair, green screens, harnesses) you can see that NASA is full of shit and shouldn't be trusted. The Chinese space walk video where you can see the bubbles from the tank they film in is just hilarious. If you have questions then do some research as there's lots of info out there. I'll leave you with a few links.

CHALLENGER CREW ALIVE http://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/23/breaking-news-theyre-alive-challenger-space-shuttle-crew-safe-and-employed/

BUBBLES IN SPACE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYX9LyxfgJ8

SPACE HAIR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NtKpHK-mBQ

LONGER WITH DETAILS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e-RnKAN9qY

Lemme know if you'd like more :-)

I saw the curvature of the Earth on top of Mt. Baker

Here is an image (not my photo)

http://images.everytrail.com/pics/fullsize/1111152-Mt._Baker_7-13-08_41.jpg

You can also see the curvature of the Earth while traveling in an airplane and have seen it many times traveling.

http://s249.photobucket.com/user/michael_ennis/media/earth.jpg.html

And it's correct ASSUMING what we know about gravity is 100% correct

It's been pretty well established that we know how gravity works. I'm not in favor of making assumptions that gravity isn't real to prove some obscure point.

Honestly, if we're discussing a hypothetically flat Earth then why keep the same old assumptions about the universe?

Because we don't have a flat Earth and to make an argument that we do have one means you have to completely reject science.

That's not a good start to convince people.

Then gravity would be even again... I think? Anyway I hope you see that animation is far from concrete proof.

Your doubt makes me trust the video rather than your opinion. Sorry no offense.

A lot of the other points in the video have already been explained (the boats over the horizon etc) and his condescending tone when talking about some of these explanations is kind of annoying since they technically make sense.

I don't find his tone condescending, why would anyone believe the Earth is flat when we can see the curvature of the Earth in a plane or from a high mountain? His arguments make perfect sense.

Also the whole tin foil hat bullshit when he starts talking about "big globe" is just extra proof that instead of proving things wrong people can just call "conspiracy" and be done with it.

That's what a lot of people do though. I've seen it myself on here for example. (this sub)

If you actually think you can trust NASA or other space agencies at this point then you've been mislead and/or are wilfully ignorant.

Calling me ignorant for believing in NASA is not a good way to prove a point. I have 100 more reasons to trust them over some people trying to convince me the world is flat. When I myself have seen the curvature of the Earth.

From the Challenger shuttle crew who AREN'T ACTUALLY DEAD

See now you are starting to talk about crazy stuff with no proof.

ISS hoax

The same ISS I can see from a high powered telescope? Come on now this conversation is getting super tin-foil.

I don't think the Earth is flat, it's scientifically impossible.

It is not well established that we know how gravity works. If you look at the Thunderbolts Project they will tell you that gravity isn't even the dominant force in the universe and their models/predictions make more sense than NASA's. So even under their own rules, NASA's data doesn't make sense.

A flat earth doesn't mean there's no curvature to certain parts of terrain. Some models look more like a wavy disk. Moreover, I have no idea what lens that guy used. I have seen footage of rockets flying higher than that and I saw no curvature. Moreover, the horizon is always at eye level.

You cannot see curvature from a plane. If you use your brain and continue that same curvature you see in that picture then the Earth is TINY lol. Don't trust a view out of a glass window, that's partly how they faked Apollo 11.

I don't reject science, I studied Physics in university, I just know that half of it is made up of mathematical goose chases and wishful thinking. Search for Stephen J Crothers and he will show you how black holes don't exist and they're just a mathematical construct.

Don't trust me or the video ... use your brain. If the disk was expanded past the other side of a hypothetical barrier then the gravity would be equal. I said "I think" because I haven't done calculations but it's an obvious thought experiment.

His tone is very condescending. Smug condescension is what people like Neil Degrasse Tyson use when making up facts to belittle religious people. Science should never have to resort to that. He has not made any arguments I have not heard an answer for.

So because a lot of people dismiss arguments simply for being "tin foil hatty" it's an ok thing to do? Why are you even in this sub if you reject what sounds crazy?

My points about NASA were more to prove that the VSauce guy was full of shit for making a space agency conspiracy sound stupid. I gave you plenty of evidence to suggest that you cannot trust them and you simply ignored it. How do I not have proof when I sent you links?

You can no longer trust what you see in the sky with 100% confidence. The ISS could be a project blue beam hologram, it could be a high altitude drone, it could be real but it is DEFINITELY unmanned. Go to Crrow777's youtube channel and have a look at the moon wave. Just try and tell me you can ignore that as proof things aren't what they seem.

I'm not even trying to prove flat earth to you. I'm trying to make you see the arguments are sound. You say you saw the curvature from a mountain. At the same time I can say the Earth isn't in space cos I can't feel it spin. Personal experience only gets you so far while things like GPS plane routes on southern hemisphere, Bedford Level experiment, and the fact that boats DO NOT disappear below the horizon as we are told are irrefutable.

"Scientifically impossible" simply means impossible by the current model we are fed. The model is outdated and needs to be changed. I knew this long before I heard about flat Earth because the Thunderbolts Project pretty much tear NASA a new one on a weekly basis.

Don't trust me or the video ... use your brain

Okay then, the Earth is a sphere. The moon is a sphere, the sun is a sphere, Mars is a sphere, Venus is a sphere, in fact all the planets in the solar system are spheres.

How can you explain the seasons on a flat earth?

Dude, I'm not gonna bother If you're just going to ignore 90% of what I said. I expected some kind of insight into the separate points I made, but I guess the discussion is over.

You didn't even comment on why you still trust NASA!

I'm not trying to convert you, I'm trying to make you realise that the research is worth doing on YOUR part because it's safe to say 90% of the information that is spoon-fed to us is wrong. I don't care what bloody shape Earth is, I just want the truth!

This took just a quick google search to find btw, and is one possible answer to your question: http://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F

I'm at work right now, I don't have time to read a wall of text and answer every question. Give me some time to respond.

Also that explanation you linked to is BS, it's basically saying the sun isn't real and isn't a giant fusion reactor in the middle of our solar system.

I'm sorry but I just don't believe anything in regards to the Earth being flat.

Again, if you researched the Thunderbolts Project or electric universe in general, you'd see that the Sun ISN'T a giant fusion reactor (repeatable experiments are one thing NASA does not allow). The gravitational model given to us by Newton and Copernicus which is being upheld by NASA and friends needs to be thought over.

Planetary terrain recreated in laboratory with electrical discharge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyRN3ooCSto

When you have finished work please review my previous posts and check the links / look up anything you don't know about. I'd like to hear a more thought out opinion. If we get anything out of this, it should be that you at least rethink the standard explanation of the origins / mechanics of the universe :-)

Flat earth theory is that the sun revolves around the Earth. I call bullshit 100% bullshit.

I said come back after reading everything! I talked about a lot of stuff, not just flat Earth. Trying to have an intelligent discussion here... :-|

And this is my first time posting on Reddit... Is it always like this? Just dead end answers?

The video you linked to is just a cymatics experiment, I know all about that stuff. Yes, our body is made up of electrons and atoms but the majority of what we deem as matter is composed primarily of empty space. When two objects of matter come into contact one another it's not a collision of matter, but a collision of forces. This is well known and quite basic science.

This video from Moody Science 1945 demonstrates this perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM-PMgKbQYU

Your video is quasi Cymatics. True cymatics states that vibration composes atoms into their configurations, essentially a standing wave that traps matter into a shape. And the shapes can be mimicked by different vibrational frequencies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Io6lop3mk

However, none of what I said about the sun being a giant fusion reactor is false, we have had satellites monitoring the sun for decades. The sun operates on well known models of fundamental science. It's electrodynamic for sure, I mean it's made of plasma. So saying the sun is electric is technically true, because it generates electromagnetic energy. But at the same time saying it's a fusion reaction is true, because that's what the sun is doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29

Like the 911-truth reddit. anything or anyone that subscribes to the official version is literally off topic there. Way to broaden your view and take in different viewpoints if you only accept those already blessed.

I think healthy debate is good medicine to be truly informed. Regardless of viewpoint if a person has sufficient evidence and factual information to back up their claims it should be considered.

However on the same coin, there are some beliefs, some arguments that have been made that have no valid identifiable evidence.

The 9/11 truth movement does make some extremely valid points for example. But other points don't hold up to scrutiny when evidence is required. This doesn't invalidate a claim, but it does invite discourse .

Agreed... I think it is a bit ironic when truthers who tell others to "open their minds" and "take in both sides" are as openly hypocritical as they are on their subreddit.

The r/911truth sub is now specifically for the 9/11 truth movement. You can make r/911truthdebate if you like. Did you see the sub before that rule was made? Disinformation trolls do not debate - they disrupt, distract, lie, insult, and brigade. It was a constant battle not a debate.

They might as well not have a subreddit at all if they're gonna forbid and censor opinions that differ from their own. As for trolls and such, that's up to the mods to work with. Just look at this subreddit. Way more traffic coming through, and no censorship/deleting of uncomfortable opinions... I don't see any battles here.

They might as well not have a subreddit at all if they're gonna forbid and censor opinions that differ from their own.

Complain that in /r/science, quoting the bible to prove your point on evolution is not as well received as you, a devout Christian, would expect.

Thats a false analogy... Do I really need to explain why?

Yes, please. Because I find it is a perfect analogy. One holds up the scientific method, asks for evidence, verification, experiment and observation, wheras the other stubbornly relies on appeal to authority by proxy.

It was a rethorical question, but I'll answer it anyway.

In your example, you compare(in your own words):

One holds up the scientific method, asks for evidence, verification, experiment and observation, wheras the other stubbornly relies on appeal to authority by proxy.

As if to say that the truther movement rely on the scientific method as opposed to "the others" who rely on faith. This, of course, is not the case, thus making it a false analogy.

As if to say that the truther movement rely on the scientific method as opposed to "the others" who rely on faith. This, of course, is not the case,

You can try and prove me wrong, but it won't be easy. At least in the discussions I had on reddit so far 9/11 "debunkers" always proved to be "faithers" in the end. They would make a claim and then bring up a thousand excuses for why they won't or can't provide an experiment that proves their claim. OR they bring up an experiment that actually proves 9/11 Truth right, but sincerely believe it is in favour of their case.

Sometimes it has a level of meta-humor because as a truther, you often feel compelled to quote from their Holy Scriptures and prophets and priests (NIST/Bazant) to show what illogical, unscientific and outright superstituous belief systems they adhere to or even to prove it does not say what they think it says and then they go "I thought you don't believe in the Holy Scriptures why are you quoting that!?"

So if you have ever debated a good Catholic or Jew or Wahhabite about trinitarism or geocentrism or evolution or god or creation or circumcision or the position of the woman and gay people in society, you know you have lost by default.

Likewise, truthers lose by default in discussions with faithers, debunksters, shills, trolls and sheeple about whether the official story holds any water or not.

thus making it a false perfect analogy.

This is why the official story is as haram in /r/911truth as is Genesis 1 in /r/science.

You can try and prove me wrong, but it won't be easy.

This study is commonly referred to by truthers as proof of nano thermite:http://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOCPJ-2-7

(This can be found on the wiki of the reddit page as well, if you were wondering where I got it from)...

This "study" is full of inconsistencies and doesn't follow the scientific method even in the slightest. There is one example. I have plenty others. Feel free to give some of your own. I'll happily refute them.

How in the world do you think /r/911truth is gonna be able to expand and spread the truth if they only allow those who have already seen the light, into the discussion. It's counter-productive... and really unintelligent.

It's bad enough to be closeminded, but atleast be honest about it.

Pffff, I don't need magic pixie dust to make my case.

How can a tower collapse the way the Twins did?

As always: let's skip the "planes" and "jet fuel" dance.

Have it all on a silver platter. I'll believe you everything you tell me about how the fires melted the steel beams and the plane cut half of the core columns apart and how collapse initiated in the first place. Okay, I play.

That's half as good as saying "let us say there is a mechanism where lifeforms adapt to their environment within a few generations".

But I go all in: the assumption is that a whole floor evaporated instantly and the top 1/4 free falls on the lower 3/4.

Explain the mechanism.

How can a tower collapse the way the Twins did?

How did you expect it to collapse? Like a tree?

Have it all on a silver platter. I'll believe you everything you tell me about how the fires melted the steel beams(continuing on)

Who ever mentioned anything about the office fires melting steel beams? Not me, atleast. Strawman if I've ever seen one.

But I go all in: the assumption is that a whole floor evaporated instantly and the top 1/4 free falls on the lower 3/4. Explain the mechanism.

Below you can find a peer-reviewed article talking about the collapse. It will probably answer most of your questions.

http://debunking911.com/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

Peer-reviewed... And I Quote:

As generally accepted by structural engineering and structural mechanics experts (though not by some laymen and fanatics seeking to detect a conspiracy), the failure scenario, broadly proposed by Bazant (2001), and Bazant and Zhou (2002), on the basis of simplified analysis, and supported by very realistic, meticulous and illuminating COMPUTER simulations and exhaustive investigations by S. Shyam Sunder's team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, 2005), may be summarized as follows:

1. About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed-tube (and about 13% of the total of 287 columns) were severed, and many more were significantly deflected. This caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the load of some columns, near the load capacity for some of them.

2. Fire insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by flying debris (without that, the towers would likely have survived). In consequence, many structural steel members heated up to 600±C (NIST 2005) (the structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength already at 300±C, NIST 2005, and exhibits significant visco-plasticity, or creep, above 450±, especially at high stresses that developed; see e.g. Cottrell 1964, p. 299; the press reports right after 9/11, indicating temperature in excess of 800±C, turned out to be groundless, but Bazant and Zhou's analysis did not depend on that).

3. Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The sagging trusses pulled the perimeter columns inward (by about 1 m, NIST 2005). The bowing of columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multi-story buckling. The lateral deflections of some columns due to aircraft impact and differential thermal expansion also decreased buckling strength.

4. The combination of six effects a) overload of some columns due to initial stress redistribution, b ) lowering of yield limit and creep, c) lateral deflections of many columns due to sagging floor trusses, d) weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffess of sagging floors, e) multi-story buckling of some columns (for which the critical load is an order of magnitude less than it is for one-story buckling), and f) Local plastic buckling of heated column webs finally led to buckling of columns (Fig. 1b). As a result, the upper part of tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part far exceeded the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of tower. (Bazant, Verdure, 2006)

As for the claim of freefall:http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Another scientific paper.(ELI5 explanation://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html)

Was there anything else?

How did you expect it to collapse? Like a tree?

Not quite. More sorta like... a tower for example.

Who ever mentioned anything about the office fires melting steel beams? Not me, atleast. Strawman if I've ever seen one.

Uh, that's what experts and debunkers said for over a decade. Suddenly, everyone is "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams".

Below you can find a peer-reviewed article talking about the collapse. It will probably answer most of your questions.

http://debunking911.com/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

Oh, that's a new one.

The same model I proposed, how funny. Take the top, drop it on the rest.

So it proves the momentum is enough to crush one floor, therefor, it is proven by video evidence the whole tower had to "collapse" progressively, totally and inevitably and no explosives were needed because W[g] > W[p] because, as we see in Fig. 3, mg > maxwell line.

So, yeah, if you want to get that technical: how do you build a tower that satisfies Eq. (6)?

And since when do you accept a "peer-reviewed" paper without experimental proof?

As for the claim of freefall

Do you even read, bro? I wrote:

the assumption is that a whole floor evaporated instantly and the top 1/4 free falls on the lower 3/4.

Free falls ON. That's the model. The same model proposed by the paper you linked. It's the gift I made to you so you don't have to explain how jet fuel melted weakened all the columns.

After that, the fall is slower of course - not by much, and therein lies the problem.

So again, how do you make it so a tower collapses like the Twins did?

Another scientific paper.(ELI5 explanation://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html)

Oh please. You want to haggle over seconds? Let's say 17 seconds, for argument's sake, if that's what saves your boat from sinking.

Not quite. More sorta like... a tower for example.

And how did it not collapse like a tower then? These semantics are meaningless, just get to the point please.(1)

Uh, that's what experts and debunkers said for over a decade. Suddenly, everyone is "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams".

Show me one expert claiming jet fuel can in fact melt steel beams. Under normal circumstances, they can't, and no one is claiming otherwise.

Oh, that's a new one. The same model I proposed, how funny. Take the top, drop it on the rest. So it proves the momentum is enough to crush one floor, therefor, it is proven by video evidence the whole tower had to "collapse" progressively, totally and inevitably and no explosives were needed because W[g] > W[p] because, as we see in Fig. 3, mg > maxwell line.

So, yeah, if you want to get that technical: how do you build a tower that satisfies Eq. (6)?

You would have to ask an engineer about that. Try /r/science or some engineer subreddit, I'm pretty sure it should exist one.

And since when do you accept a "peer-reviewed" paper without experimental proof?

Not all papers are about things which can be reproducible in a lab, for example a paper regarding the collapse of a building. Do I really need to explain to you how scientists work? How they collect and use evidence?

Free falls ON. That's the model. The same model proposed by the paper you linked. It's the gift I made to you so you don't have to explain how jet fuel melted weakened all the columns.

Free fall is NOT ON. The paper I linked literally refutes the claims of free fall.

Look at page 6 in the paper I linked, or read the ELI5-link.

So again, how do you make it so a tower collapses like the Twins did? See (1)

And how did it not collapse like a tower then? These semantics are meaningless, just get to the point please.

Towers usually only collapse partially, never completely except in controlled demolitions (and even then you must know what you're doing), or buckle, or break as a whole and topple and fall over even in demolitions. And they never collapse starting at the top going straight down to the bottom, unless specifically designed to. That is the point.

Show me one expert claiming jet fuel can in fact melt steel beams. Under normal circumstances, they can't, and no one is claiming otherwise.

Okay. University of Colorado civil engineering professor Hyman Brown:

It is correct that the towers did not collapse because of the airliners hitting it. But we do know how it collapsed and it has nothing to do with conspiracy [...] What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel and the fire-suppression system that we now have, which basically blocks off five-floor blocks, so the fire can’t go up and the fire can’t go down. You now have a fire confined to a five-floor area, burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts. All the tonnage above the five-floor area comes straight down when the steel melts. That broke all the connections, and that caused the building to collapse.

.

You would have to ask an engineer about that.

Why, I'm asking you, you offered to debate me, don't hide behind the experts now. When you whipped out Bazant, I had hoped you know what you're looking at. If you wish, I can explain it to you.

Try /r/science or some engineer subreddit, I'm pretty sure it should exist one.

I asked the appropriate one for permission, they declined.

Not all papers are about things which can be reproducible in a lab, for example a paper regarding the collapse of a building.

But there should be at least an experimental model. The scientific method: experiment or GTFO.

Do I really need to explain to you how scientists work? How they collect and use evidence?

Yes, please explain how NIST collected evidence, I'd like to hear that story :)

Free fall is NOT ON. The paper I linked literally refutes the claims of free fall.

In the model by Bazant one whole floor disappears instantaneously. There is a one story free fall of the top on the bottom. After that, it falls in what NIST FAQ calls "essentially" free fall. It's not about the word free fall, man. I already made you another gift: 17 seconds instead of 10 or 11 or 12 or even 15. A little friction on the way. Shall we calculate that friction?

I have to tell you that I've never stumbled across such a wide bunch of enlightened individuals in all my time using the internet. I've used a lot of forums and chat apps, and there are usually less than a handful of people in each who understand how things really work in the world.

'In this moment I am euphoric...'

There really is no need for circlejerk backpatting.

Yeah, this post (OP) is why people laugh at this sub.

No, the same kind of masturbation goes on in every sub.

Sure. But this is particularly stereotypical for this one. It literally is about us being "enlightened" and with the pretense of intellectual superiority. It's basically calling everyone else "sheeple".

Every sub has its own characteristic circlejerk material. This is /r/conspiracy's. It's why people laugh at any sub.

Can you give me an example of another?

/r/atheism

4500 upvotes for a circlejerking quote

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.

Good call.

This is really blatant masturbatory rhetoric. This is something straight out of /r/circlejerk.

people like Quantumhead are indeed why people laugh at this sub.

[deleted]

What?

I can set my damn watch to these posts.

A lot of fundies here too. Consider the posts about the rapture and related nonsense about prophesies, etc.

Also a lot of unsourced stories that are probably hoaxes and frauds. Consider anything from Infowars, prisonplanet, alex jones to be an outright fraud; and anything from Veterans Today to be at least 40% lies (according to Veterans Today Editor, Gordon Duff).

Sure people here are less likely to believe whatever latest crap is being trundled out by the main stream media, but there's a lot of alt media crap posted here also.

The price you pay for alternative news I suppose; you've gotta' take everything you hear with a grain of salt or expect to get played.

[deleted]

I suppose. I don't usually take things my friends and family say with a grain of salt though =3

The way I figure it, if they are hawking water filters, prepper supplies, medical marijuana or a book or something, then they are doing it for the money. Of course that filter doesn't always apply. For example, James Corbett is selling his "inside scoop" to subscribers...

So what are some of the alt media sources you like?

James Corbett / Corbett Report is top on my list

Techdirt / FastCompany / Ars Technica for inside scoop on tech

Schneier on Security for NSA / Encryption

We Are Change (although they have gotten worse over the last year or so, linking up to InfoLiars too frequently for my taste)

The Intercept

Of the MSM, I read the New York Times headlines, and other related sites, just to get a sense of what's going on.

I skim the new posts off GLP to see if anything grabs my attention (it's mostly junk, but once in a while something interesting appears).

Then just a shitload of other middle-of the road sites that are too peripheral to mention here. I read between the lines and don't take anything too seriously...I read them to get a general "pulse" of what's happening

Thanks for that. I always enjoy finding new sources I may not have known about before, which other people find credible.

Red Ice

Infowars articles are heavily sourced. More than usual because of these accusations. Alex Jones is not the enemy, msm is the enemy. He's not perfect but he's probably woken up more people than anyone else. He's also been warning people for longer than anyone else. There has been a very successful disinformation and discrediting campaign against Alex jones which has turned many of the more easily swayed against him. I admit his antics and excitability make it easier but his heart is in the right place. To say that everything from infowars is an outright fraud is pretty ridiculous though. Can you link to an example?

Can you link to an example, oh heck since you say they are all "heavily sourced", how about the latest top 3?

So you don't have an example to support your claim that anything at Infowars is an outright fraud. I guess you heard or read that somewhere and decided to repeat it without seeing for yourself?

I have hundreds. Let's start with yours, because they should be easy to produce

I can't find an article that is not sourced. The first article "Texas Clinics Turning Away Unvaccinated Children" has nine links to sources. It's obvious that you are misinformed so thought I'd let you know that Ron Paul will be on the Alex Jones show on Thrus. Today Nomi Prins author of "All the Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden Alliances that Drive American Power" and former Goldman-Sachs director gave an interview about the MF Global scandal, bank bailouts, and the coming collapse. My point is that the show and site have value and your poorly informed opinion should be revised.

please post the original article with the sourced links

hurr hurr, /u/jafbm said "undies"

What I like is when /r/conspiracy discusses something and everyone calls them crazy and then a few months, or year goes by and the same topic is on the Front Page with everyone validating it.

It's a frustrating life

They call /r/conspiracy crazy because there have literally been satire articles unironically voted to the front page.

Just curious, when has this ever happened?

The pedophile ring in the UK and the NSA leaks for example.

And you'd think at that point there would be validation but every time it's like, "OK, you were right THIS ONE TIME, I guess if you throw a thousand things at the wall a couple are bound to stick" just pure intellectual slack.

Isn't this just circlejerk though? I mean, of course you're gonna think the people here are the "brightest" and most enlightened... In the same way that a Real-Madrid fans of course thinks their subreddit is filled with the smartest and most knowledgeable football goers out there... and how holocaustdeniers of course consider other holocaust deniers on holocaust-denier subreddits and forums think the same.

[deleted]

A what now? Ad hominem never gets old, does it?

I really enjoy this forum because of its user base and the amount of open minded users...Have been to David icke forums and the info wars jazz among many other fringey type sites. Been here for a while, love it and not going anywhere soon.

I did a quick cringe starting at "David Icke", but I quickly recovered.

Yeah that place is a bit scary lol

Knowlege reigns supreme.

Krs the teacher

I have learned so much here, esp after I first found it in January 2009. Now it is honestly rare for me to learn something completely new. But the education I've received here is priceless.

Well, some of the most insane ones are in here too...

At least most people here are open minded and not thoroughly brainwashed like the majority of the hive mind

Come see /r/C_S_T

Bit of a stretch for me. While I agree with your statement on it's face, I also disagree. Respectfully.

Basically only with the assumption about "our" beliefs.

Can't imagine we fit in a neat category. But I'm open I guess.

This sub is a cest pool for alarmists, shills and the good people you describe. I really wish there was an outlet for only the good, but unfortunately the entire internet is vulnerable to such fuckery.

cest la vie

One of things that they try to teach you in university is to think critically and to read critically.

In other words, "people who agree with me" == "sanest".

Haha I agree with this completely. I've asked legitimate questions about some theories and instead of critical thinking to come to an answer people just downvote you and then it becomes a bandwagon of downvoting.

Hive mentality - "I didn't even read your comment but since others downvoted it, or it questions a conspiracy theory I blindly believe without having used critical thinking as to other possibilities, scenarios, or having to ask/answer legitimate questions, I think I'll downvote you as well, you fucking shill. You can't fool me!"

get off your high horse. you make the decent people of this sub look like elitist snobs

[deleted]

a sub full of enlightened critical thinkers

And comments like this are why /r/topminds exists.

dunces corner?

Thank you and I about halfway agree, since at least half of what's on this forum is disinfo, outright lies, distraction &/or insanity.

But there's a lot of truth here, a lot of good stuff. People lifting the veil(s). We make them -- whoever they are, different factions, fighting each other slightly less than they're fighting us -- nervous, at least a little bit. I think.

Depends on your definition of "sane".

Reminds me of a quote from John Locke from LOST, "crazy people don't know they're going crazy, they think they're getting saner."

Along with /r/TheRedPill and /r/DarkEnlightenment

How much karma does it cost to say what you think? It depends. It usually costs me about 35 for a downvote to oblivion if I mention Israel. They can use much more, if necessary.

fuck karma

I feel the same as OP and not because I always agree with what is said here, but for the manner thoughts are generally expressed in.

We could be a touch more respectful but I tell people to fuck themselves all the time too. Sometimes topics are heated, it happens, but we still all come from the same core value of trying to find truth. /r/conspiracy is more like /r/antipropaganda

What method do you use to baseline sanity?

The law of reason has become a variable. Just like science can be used effectively when an an officially endorsed source needs to wordsmith bullshit. Science is a shaky ground for this matter. It appears that the conspiracy enthusiasts on this forum have a tendency to assume that their conclusions are correct or almost correct.

lol

Until the Shills come on.

Kinda fun, ey?

Yes and no, we do have a dude floating around here that think he's the Second Coming or something. He's got some buddies that share a folie a deux. They even have their own sub with "proof" that he's the Chosen One.

Actually, IMHO, as of late, most of the postings on this subreddit that make the front page are just plain shit. Many people who comment are more clueless than people addicted to watching reality tv shows. Not judging, making a statement, or harping on the OP's posting, I'm just voicing my honest opinion.

Browse /new, you'll see a lot of nonsense come up.

Mostly folks trying to discredit this sub.

Besides, a healthy dose of nonsense every once in a while is fun.

bullshit gets downvoted fast, well i dont need to tell you that.

Good.

Apparently a really decent chunk of this sub hates free thinking.

And they say this sub is being targeted. Haha

"Sanest" here meaning...least sane?

I don't think everyone here is sane as I see too often for some posters that every little thing is some kind of conspiracy, and that's not healthy thinking. But I do agree there are alarming incidents of conspiracy in the past (like 911), and what's going on now (TPP, War on Terror etc).

"Sane"

This subreddit is also rife with people who fear monger with failed predictions.

http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/39v4pb/watch_out_for_an_emp_in_texas_tomorrow_i_love_you/

https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/38llwz/obama_alex_jones_looking_to_stage_open_carry/

Give it up, you're getting old.

speculating something may happen is not a prediction. you may want to look up the definition of "will" happen and "may" happen on dictionary.com

nobody is claiming to be nostradamus or having insider knowledge here. we see patterns and likelihoods and sometimes comment on such.

You my friend seem to come to this sub an awful lot, and usually just FlyTape and mock the users here. If you have such disdain for conspiracy theorists, why are you here so much?

I'm not /u/FortHouston, but I'll tell you why I'M here:

These conspiracy theories do real harm. We should oppose falsehoods.

If the lesson we learn from 9/11 is "govt is evil" or "the Jews did it", when the real lesson (I think) is "we should stop supporting dictators and invading countries", we risk more 9/11's.

If the lesson we learn from big events (9/11, Boston Bombing, HIV/AIDS, Ebola) is "don't trust anything the govt or scientists say", that helps lead to "deny climate change, refuse vaccines, deny evolution".

Conspiracy theories generally are a form of religion: belief without evidence, even belief despite the evidence. This harms our country and our society.

Yes, there have been real conspiracies. Yes, there is plenty of malice and incompetence by govts or govt agencies. But these conspiracy theories are a different thing: start with desired conclusion, and invent/deny facts to justify it.

http://www.billdietrich.me/Reason/ReasonReligion.html#conspiracytheories

So what you're saying is, in your ideal society, everyone would just v blindly accept the government, and the television without even questioning whether the information is true?

Conspiracy theorists handle information and events almost the exact same way that scientists treat testing hypothesis through scientific method.

For example. A scientist uses the scientific method below to turn their hypothesis into a scientific theory;

1. Make an observation or observations.

2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.

3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.

4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.

5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.

I handle events and information in almost the exact same manner. I refuse to just blindly accept what I see on TV, or what the government tells me to believe, regardless of how many other people do. I critically examine the information and test it to see if it is true or false. Most of the time, it is usually a little bit of truth mixed in with a lot of deceit.

Society's that demonize critical thinkers and those who question information (propaganda) will not progress, and more likely regress. There would be no new innovations or discoveries in this world if everyone blindly accepted all information as fact.

Hah. Cute.

Here you've described that you understand the scientific method. In another thread you've used a single correlation you noticed in your own daughter to imply vaccines cause brain damage and other developmental disorders.

So do you just only pay attention to science and the scientific method when it suits you?

In an ideal society, you would start from evidence, and follow it where it leads. If it turns out to show that a govt conspiracy occurred, fine.

Instead, CT's start with a conclusion, usually "govt is evil". Then they invent "facts", or throw doubt, or deny facts to try to fit their conclusion. It is a dishonest way of reasoning.

I start with the premise that governments and the news media are willing to lie to further an agenda. I then go through the information and use their own official story and test it to see if the evidence fits their story or not.

9 times out of 10, it doesn't, and there's usually evidence that completely contradicts the official story. Once you continue finding more and more anomalies in their story, the only logical conclusion is that they're usually lying about something, or omitting key pieces of the story in order to further their own agendas.

I don't start with the premise that government is evil, but I do start with the premise that they may be lying. Do you think that governments always tell the truth, no matter how damaging the truth may be to their agenda? How about the news media? If you say you think they always tell the truth no matter what, I can see why you have such disdain for conspiracy theories.

Sure, govts lie or make mistakes. Happens all the time.

But look at it this way: you theorists have been plugging away on 9/11 for almost 14 years now, and what evidence have you developed ? Not one single, positive piece of evidence to support ANY of the theories. The only thing that even comes close is the nano-thermite stuff, and that has problems with chain of evidence, two labs disagreeing, no control samples.

But look at it this way: you theorists have been plugging away on 9/11 for almost 14 years now, and what evidence have you developed ? Not one single, positive piece of evidence to support ANY of the theories.

Now you're just FlyTaping me. Not a single positive piece of evidence? Come on now. We don't have the smoking gun so to say, but when you take all of the anomalies put together and tested against the official story, you can say without a doubt that if the government is going to lie about some of the details, it's quite possible they're lying about most of the details.

Take this video for example. This video proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the feds absolutely did lie about the cell phones call made from the airplanes on 9/11.

They even proved beyond a reasonable doubt that one of the planes, flight 93 I believe, didn't have any telephones at all in the plane, and there was no way that the call happened at all, let alone in the manner the official story says. This was uncovered by a 9/11 "truther" if you will. That's a single, positive piece of evidence right there.

We don't have the smoking gun so to say,

We have: the "collapse" mode.

As I said, you have no positive evidence to support any of your theories. No explosives, no one who's come forward to say "I helped do it" and show documents, no pieces of missiles, etc. All you have is sniping at the govt evidence. And that sniping is quite unconvincing, and often outright false. I've read a lot of it.

Here's a discussion of the phone call issue: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Cellphone_calls_faked

I had never seen that site before. I read some of it based on my knowledge of Dr. Griffin's work, and immediately caught something which discredits their refutation of Dr. Griffin's research.

In reality, FBI testimony at the Moussaoui trial spoke of only two cellphone calls from Flight 93 (although they admitted the possibility of at least one more). Dr Griffin concedes the point later, after a fashion:

...when the Government was in court, where its claims might have been challenged, it was not willing to risk having to defend the claim that nine or more cell phone calls had been made from Flight 93, most of which would have been from six miles up. It suddenly reduced the claim to only two calls. Chapter 1, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, David Ray Griffin

Here he presents the total of "nine or more cell phone calls" as though it was a Government claim that they've been forced to retract, but that is false. That total comes from people like Morgan, who are simply assuming that reports of cellphone calls are accurate, and contradictory claims of using airphones are not.

Were there even airphones of the American Airlines flights, though? It's been reported that they were deactivated by that time. However, American Airlines manager John Hotard says that while the deactivation order preceded 9/11, he could find nothing to say it was carried out on Flight 77:

Engineers at our primary Maintenance & Engineering base in Tulsa tell me that they cannot find any record that the 757 aircraft flown into the Pentagon on 9/11 had had its seatback phones deactivated by that date. An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time... It is our contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working because there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected. John Hotard, Corporate Communications, American Airlines

See that slight of hand and deception there? Dr. Griffin is claiming that Flight 93 was the flight that had NO airphones on the plane at all, therefore no calls ever originated from that plane, but The site your linking to gives John Hotard's statement regarding Flight 77, not Flight 93.

It's complete disinfo and a red herring, but yet you still believe what this site tells you?

Were there even airphones of the American Airlines flights, though?

Here's where they broaden from flight 93 to "[any] of the American Airlines flights". Nothing deceptive about it. Some people have claimed the airphone technology didn't exist at that time, or wasn't installed on any of the planes, or was deactivated.

But again, none of this, even if true, supports any of the conspiracy theories. It's all just sniping at the govt evidence.

Here's where they broaden from flight 93 to "[any] of the American Airlines flights". Nothing deceptive about it. Some people have claimed the airphone technology didn't exist at that time, or wasn't installed on any of the planes, or was deactivated.

No the claim was actually that they weren't ever installed on Boeing 757's by American Airlines. Flight 93 was a Boeing 757, Flight 77 was a Boeing 767, which did have airphone's installed on all American Airlines pre 9/11, and there was an order for their removal shortly before (or after). Dr. Griffen is not questioning that claim.

This is very deceptive actually, because the real question is not;

Were there even airphones of the American Airlines flights, though?

But instead: Were there even airphones installed in Boeing 757's at the time of 9/11, which even according to American's Airlines, no they were never installed in that model airplane. Also you'll see in the follow up statement by the PR guy (spin doctor), he still doesn't fully deny the claim that there wasn't planes on the aircraft.

These conspiracy theories do real harm. We should oppose falsehoods.

Theories aren't fact, by definition. The point of this sub is discussion. People saying otherwise are likely to have an agenda counter to the free exchange of information and ideas. That would be the enemy.

In science, a theory is supposed to be an explanation that is based on a set of facts, a generalization from those facts.

There's nothing noble about pushing claims without evidence, theories without facts. Such a claim should be considered false until supported by evidence. And those claims and theories are harmful.

It's as if you aren't aware of the scientific method at all. If we followed your advice, we'd still be in caves.

Edit, just to clarify my point:

You say:

In science, a theory is supposed to be an explanation that is based on a set of facts, a generalization from those facts.

This is not true.

In science, a theory, or "hypothesis," is defined as a "supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

You come up with a theory, often (but not always) based on observed correlations, and then go about proving it. It's not initially based on known facts. It becomes your conclusion after you are able to prove it.

What you're saying here is that no one should ever come up with a hypothesis nor attempt to prove it unless all the facts magically exist to begin with. Which would have us all sitting around with our thumbs up our noses, never exploring, never discovering.

It's as if you think scientists form ONE hypothesis and grind away at it for 14 years, finding NO facts to support it, yet keep sticking with the same hypothesis.

Not at all, to what are you referring?

9/11 theories. Almost 14 years now, and CT's have not come up with a single solid piece of positive evidence to support any of the theories. The closest is the nano-thermite thing, which fails on several points. Yet the CT's keep sticking with the "the govt did it" hypothesis.

There's more to conspiracy theory than 9/11. And so many have proven correct. Personally, I don't think the government did it, but I do think that some higher ups in govt know who did it and are covering it up. Plenty evidence points to that, for sure.

From your logic, though, we should just take the official story as fact - while I get annoyed by outlandish theories as they take the heat off hundreds of underlying actual conspiracies (see also the "everything's a hoax!" crew), you can't get to the bottom of a mystery without proposing a theory and questioning the official narrative from the outset.

No, don't take the official story as fact. Acknowledge that the official explanation is backed by facts: video of the hijackers in the airports, video and eyewitnesses of planes hitting the buildings, records of hijackers entering the USA, records of hijackers taking flight lessons, phone calls from passengers saying "we're being hijacked", cockpit voice recorders showing struggles, accidental radio transmissions of the hijackers voices from the planes, Bin Laden claiming responsibility (after first denying it).

But develop your OWN facts to support your OWN theory. Just trying to cast doubt on some piece of the govt explanation doesn't mean that your theory must be right. So far, not a single solid fact supporting any 9/11 conspiracy theory has been developed by the conspiracy theorists.

video of the hijackers in the airports,

So what?

Facts:

1. No authenticated passenger lists (or flight manifests), listing the names of all the passengers and crew members, including those suspected of hijacking;

2. No authenticated boarding cards (or their detached coupons), on which the names of all the passengers and crew members figure, including those suspected of hijacking;

3. No authenticated security videos from the airports, which depict the passengers (and the alleged hijackers) arriving at the airport, in front of check-in counters, passing security checkpoints and boarding the aircraft;

4. No sworn testimonies of personnel who attended the boarding of the aircraft;

5. No formal identification of the bodies or bodily remains from the crash sites, including chain-of-custody reports.

   Source

In addition to no forensic id of any of the 9/11 planes.

records of hijackers entering the USA

The Commission noted that the "reasons for the State Department`s adoption of these visa policies in Saudi Arabia the UAE [United Arab Emirates] and Germany have never adequately been explained."

phone calls from passengers saying "we're being hijacked"

Same ones that said mace was sprayed in business class in an airplane cabin and continued to talk on the phone for 20 minutes. We're the hjackers gas masks burned up?

ERJ 145

Just after reaching our cruise altitude of FL350 we noticed a faint, unidentifiable burning smell. We double checked all circuit breaker panels and found them all to be normal. We then called the flight attendant, who was in the rear of the aircraft. We asked her if she had notice an odor. She in fact had noticed an odor while retrieving something from the galley and was now, along with the passengers in the rear of the aircraft, noticing the odor in the rear of the cabin. Cabin Fumes PDF

PERSONAL DEFENSE SPRAYS: EFFECTS AND MANAGEMENT OF EXPOSURE

Federal laws prohibit the transportation of defense sprays on commercial aircraft.44 The reason for this prohibition is obvious; given the fact that most aircraft recirculate a considerable percentage of cabin air, a leaking or ruptured canister could incapacitate the flight crew as well as passengers.

Anxiety, fear, and disorientation, sometimes to the point of panic, are normal reactions in untrained individuals
It is inevitable that patients wearing contact lenses will be exposed to defense sprays.
the vast majority of spray victims will recovery in an hour or less with no complications. Source

What really happened?

cockpit voice recorders showing struggles, accidental radio transmissions of the hijackers voices from the planes,

Could have been transmitted from anywhere.

Bin Laden claiming responsibility (after first denying it).

Weak at best.

FBI FOIA Request. Documents that demonstrate chain of custody of the December 13, 2001 Osama bin Laden video from the time it was discovered in Afghanistan until it was released for media consumption." DENIED.

On the passenger manifests: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/No_hijackers_on_the_passenger_manifests

If you're convinced what about this link convinced you?

The fact that there ARE passenger manifests showing the hijackers names, contradicting what you said ?

So you saw them?

Easy to prove me wrong. State a single, solid, physical piece of evidence supporting one of the conspiracy theories, right here. Not a link to a YouTube video, not someone's opinion that it must have been an inside job, not a criticism of the govt's evidence. A piece of solid, simple evidence supporting one of the theories. Go !

I'm asking you for evidence to support your claims. You have none.

There's nothing noble about pushing claims without evidence, theories without facts.

Wise men understand it is possible to consider a concept without first accepting it as true. This is called discussion. It's what we do here.

Wise men don't spend 14 years trying to force the conclusion they desire, despite zero evidence for it.

An honest discussion would be something like "any evidence of explosives in the 9/11 sites ? any evidence of missile parts ? any evidence from some govt person who says they personally helped do 9/11 and have docs to prove it ? No ? Well, I guess the only explanation that has any evidence is the govt explanation".

hahahahahahaahaha

An honest discussion is weighted at the outset towards one side being more truthful than the other? Ho ho, that is brilliant, sirah!

An honest discussion starts with evidence.

But you just said all the evidence is on the side you've already deemed to be the 'correct' side. Ignoring the fact that there's been plenty of nuanced discussions by people more connected than you and I, you show you remorse about displaying your bias and and therefore your unwillingness to engage honestly.

I'd be delighted if someone proposing one of the conspiracy theories would present some actual solid, physical evidence. I'm telling you that 14 years after the event, no one has done so.

I'd be delighted if someone proposing one of the conspiracy theories would present some actual solid, physical evidence.

I've been saying the same thing about the official conspiracy for 14 years.

Here you go ! Evidence that supports the govt explanation: video of the hijackers in the airports, video and eyewitnesses of planes hitting the buildings, records of hijackers entering the USA, records of hijackers taking flight lessons, phone calls from passengers saying "we're being hijacked", cockpit voice recorders showing struggles, accidental radio transmissions of the hijackers voices from the planes, Bin Laden claiming responsibility (after first denying it).

video of the hijackers in the airports

I've seen stills, no video. What nationality were they again? What countries did we attack?

video and eyewitnesses of planes hitting the buildings

There's also video and eyewitnesses to explosions that are very like demolitions charges being set off.

records of hijackers entering the USA

CIA gag order on questions about entry visas

records of hijackers taking flight lessons

CIA known to have been operating Florida flight schools for multitheather operations.

phone calls from passengers saying "we're being hijacked"

Calls that were impossible with 2001 cell technology.

cockpit voice recorders showing struggles

Only one cockpit voice recorder was recovered. From Flight 93. The flight full of narrative necessary heroes that vanished into a small smoking crater without a trace. Right?

Bin Laden claiming responsibility (after first denying it).

LOL. If I stood in front of a camera and claimed to be you while wearing your clothes, would I actually be you?

Enjoy your conspiracy theory!

Still waiting for a single piece of solid, physical evidence to support ANY of the conspiracy theories.

Despite your inability to provide any for your own conspiracy. Hilarious.

Yes, there is no direct evidence linking OBL to 9/11, except his own statements, and apparently KSM's statements (perhaps under torture). That's how organizations work; pinning criminal charges on the guy at the top is very difficult, because there are so many people between the act and the boss.

This FBI statement is not saying "OBL is innocent" or "OBL didn't do it".

On KSM's statement, from http://www.veteranstoday.com/2009/10/30/bin-laden-and-9-11-the-evidence/ :

startquote

The Commission, for example, wrote:

Bin Ladin . . . finally decided to give the green light for the 9/11 operation

sometime in late 1998 or early 1999. . . . Bin Ladin also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives. . . . Atta – whom Bin Ladin chose to lead the group – met with Bin Ladin several times to receive additional instructions, including a preliminary list of approved targets: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Capitol.17

The note for each of these statements says: "interrogation of KSM."

endquote

delusional.

Conspiracies are not the same as conspiracy theories. I can't think of a single theory, made up in advance of the facts, that turned out to be true. Other than vague "the govt must be spying on us" stuff.

From http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4364 :

startquote

No conspiracy theory has ever been proven true. I stand by this statement as fact, given the distinction between a real conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. So let's define that distinction clearly.

Conspiracies, as we refer to them, are crimes or schemes carried out in secret by a group of conspirators. Sometimes they are discovered, like the three I just mentioned; and others have undoubtedly successfully remained undetected. These clearly exist. But they are quite distinct from what we colloquially call a conspiracy theory, which is claimed knowledge of a conspiracy that has not yet been discovered by law enforcement or Congress or the newspapers or the general public. They are, in fact, future predictions. They are the beliefs or conclusions of the theorist that they predict will eventually come true or be discovered. ... Unlike a Julius Caesar conspiracy discovered when or after it took place, a conspiracy theory is of a discovery that has yet to take place.

I maintain my claim that a real conspiracy is very distinct from a hypothesized conspiracy; and I maintain my claim that no hypothesized conspiracy, believed within the conspiracy theory community, has ever subsequently been discovered to be true.

endquote

Here's the evidence supporting the govt's explanation of 9/11: video of the hijackers in the airports, video and eyewitnesses of planes hitting the buildings, records of hijackers entering the USA, records of hijackers taking flight lessons, phone calls from passengers saying "we're being hijacked", cockpit voice recorders showing struggles, accidental radio transmissions of the hijackers voices from the planes, Bin Laden claiming responsibility (after first denying it).

As SOON as the Tonkin Gulf incident occurred, the Navy themselves said "you know, we're not sure what happened, reports are conflicting, our guys may have been shooting at nothing, or may have fired first". Then as reports went up the chain, the politicians cherry-picked the story and used it for their purposes. The facts were known to be shaky, right from the start. No CT made a guess, formed a theory, and later was proven correct about it.

In fact, I'm not even sure Tonkin Gulf qualifies as a conspiracy, much less a conspiracy theory. Govt was quite open about it at the time: we're going to war because they attacked us. Later, the shakiness of the underlying facts percolated out to the public.

If every time govt does something, you say "I think their facts are wrong", sometimes you'll turn out to be right. Is that a win for conspiracy theorists ? Was that a govt conspiracy ?

I consider myself quite sane and come here mostly for the comedy you "sane" people provide.

It's actually ironic that you self proclaim this sub as the sane people when everyone else thinks you're mostly insane. So 300k users (who knows how many of those are like me and come here for lol's) out of the millions of reddit are the only sane ones? Yea ok...

sanity rather depends on who is doing the judging and what yardstick they are using. the average sleepwalkers perception of the world is so very far from the actual reality they have no right judging anyones sanity. i was talking to my sister a while back and she was parroting the hope and change bullshit, still (in his 2nd term) and would hear nothing bad said. When confronted on the sandy hook invisible crocodile tears replied "So what?"

This person gets to judge my sanity? lol

What?

But look at it this way: you theorists have been plugging away on 9/11 for almost 14 years now, and what evidence have you developed ? Not one single, positive piece of evidence to support ANY of the theories.

Now you're just FlyTaping me. Not a single positive piece of evidence? Come on now. We don't have the smoking gun so to say, but when you take all of the anomalies put together and tested against the official story, you can say without a doubt that if the government is going to lie about some of the details, it's quite possible they're lying about most of the details.

Take this video for example. This video proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the feds absolutely did lie about the cell phones call made from the airplanes on 9/11.

They even proved beyond a reasonable doubt that one of the planes, flight 93 I believe, didn't have any telephones at all in the plane, and there was no way that the call happened at all, let alone in the manner the official story says. This was uncovered by a 9/11 "truther" if you will. That's a single, positive piece of evidence right there.

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.

Good call.

Any reason why you are attacking me for no reason?

I'm asking you for evidence to support your claims. You have none.

It is not well established that we know how gravity works. If you look at the Thunderbolts Project they will tell you that gravity isn't even the dominant force in the universe and their models/predictions make more sense than NASA's. So even under their own rules, NASA's data doesn't make sense.

A flat earth doesn't mean there's no curvature to certain parts of terrain. Some models look more like a wavy disk. Moreover, I have no idea what lens that guy used. I have seen footage of rockets flying higher than that and I saw no curvature. Moreover, the horizon is always at eye level.

You cannot see curvature from a plane. If you use your brain and continue that same curvature you see in that picture then the Earth is TINY lol. Don't trust a view out of a glass window, that's partly how they faked Apollo 11.

I don't reject science, I studied Physics in university, I just know that half of it is made up of mathematical goose chases and wishful thinking. Search for Stephen J Crothers and he will show you how black holes don't exist and they're just a mathematical construct.

Don't trust me or the video ... use your brain. If the disk was expanded past the other side of a hypothetical barrier then the gravity would be equal. I said "I think" because I haven't done calculations but it's an obvious thought experiment.

His tone is very condescending. Smug condescension is what people like Neil Degrasse Tyson use when making up facts to belittle religious people. Science should never have to resort to that. He has not made any arguments I have not heard an answer for.

So because a lot of people dismiss arguments simply for being "tin foil hatty" it's an ok thing to do? Why are you even in this sub if you reject what sounds crazy?

My points about NASA were more to prove that the VSauce guy was full of shit for making a space agency conspiracy sound stupid. I gave you plenty of evidence to suggest that you cannot trust them and you simply ignored it. How do I not have proof when I sent you links?

You can no longer trust what you see in the sky with 100% confidence. The ISS could be a project blue beam hologram, it could be a high altitude drone, it could be real but it is DEFINITELY unmanned. Go to Crrow777's youtube channel and have a look at the moon wave. Just try and tell me you can ignore that as proof things aren't what they seem.

I'm not even trying to prove flat earth to you. I'm trying to make you see the arguments are sound. You say you saw the curvature from a mountain. At the same time I can say the Earth isn't in space cos I can't feel it spin. Personal experience only gets you so far while things like GPS plane routes on southern hemisphere, Bedford Level experiment, and the fact that boats DO NOT disappear below the horizon as we are told are irrefutable.

"Scientifically impossible" simply means impossible by the current model we are fed. The model is outdated and needs to be changed. I knew this long before I heard about flat Earth because the Thunderbolts Project pretty much tear NASA a new one on a weekly basis.

Dude, I'm not gonna bother If you're just going to ignore 90% of what I said. I expected some kind of insight into the separate points I made, but I guess the discussion is over.

You didn't even comment on why you still trust NASA!

I'm not trying to convert you, I'm trying to make you realise that the research is worth doing on YOUR part because it's safe to say 90% of the information that is spoon-fed to us is wrong. I don't care what bloody shape Earth is, I just want the truth!

This took just a quick google search to find btw, and is one possible answer to your question: http://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F

The fact that there ARE passenger manifests showing the hijackers names, contradicting what you said ?