全 164 件のコメント

[–]Akareyon 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is an utter victory.

How often would you run into one of those 9/11 discussions where someone "debunked" your tincrack nutpot theory saying the jet fuel melted the steel (and voilà collapse). The hivemind is educating itself. Don't say that, it makes you look stupid discussing truthers.

And now they think it's some sort of abracadabra that makes the evil demons of 9/11 go away. Shut up, conspiracy theorist!

Another 14 years and they'll somehow understand towers don't usually explode like that either.

[–]KnightBeforeTomorrow 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The, blinded by science, public first needs to understand where the term 'conspiracy theorist' came from.

This might help.

I recently posted most of the following in /r/showerthoughts and in /r/worldnews Just to keep 'em thinking

Origin of the term Conspiracy Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Crimes_Against_Democracy

DeHaven-Smith has shown that the conspiracy-theory label was popularized as a pejorative term by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in a propaganda program initiated in 1967.[20] The program was directed at criticisms of the Warren Commission’s conclusion that President Kennedy had been assassinated by a lone gunman. The propaganda campaign called on media corporations and journalists to criticize “conspiracy theorists” and raise questions about their motives and judgments. The CIA told its contacts that “parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.”

http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html

Maybe they need a little clearly understood information from a graphic. Here's 2 just to be sure.

Conspiracy in the henhouse.

http://i.imgur.com/2huvpNh.jpg

Who is a conspiracy theorist.

http://i.imgur.com/SYCUGE8.jpg

Thirdly they need to be made aware of the works of Edward Bernays who invented propaganda and public relations.

His proven theory was that all that is needed to convince the public of any idea at all no matter how adversely it might affect it is to have the idea of your choice repeated publicly by 'experts' . Whatever is repeated by experts becomes the truth no matter what.

Bernays proved his theory correct in the 1920's by having millions of women take up smoking cigarettes. He just had paid 'experts' call cigarettes 'Torches of Freedom' repeatedly in public.

Here's his book explaining his invention of propaganda in pdf format.

http://www.whale.to/b/bernays.pdf

Edward Bernays quotes. http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/481391-propaganda

[–]realister 3ポイント4ポイント  (22子コメント)

Because 14 years has past and conspiracy theorists still have no direct evidence.

Every single conspiracy about 9/11 provides ONLY circumstantial evidence. That is laughable, hence the memes.

[–]eirikeiriksson 0ポイント1ポイント  (21子コメント)

Please explain what "direct evidence" you're looking for, and how the official fire scenarios meet this requirement.

[–]realister 3ポイント4ポイント  (20子コメント)

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible.


The burden of proof is not on NIST in this case its on a party that makes "extraordinary claim" ie we all saw what happened right, planes hit the building it caught on fire and collapsed. Now conspiracy theorists are making an "extraordinary claim" that what we saw was faked and as you know "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It is central to scientific method, and a key issue for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere. You can't just rely on circumstantial evidence in this case its just not admissible. You can believe whatever you want but without direct evidence there is nothing. Urban legends follow the same scenario, some people believe in a UFO aliens, some people believe in BigFoot based solely on circumstantial evidence there was never any direct evidence of BigFoot but that doesn't stop people believing in it same story here.

[–]eirikeiriksson 0ポイント1ポイント  (19子コメント)

You went through the trouble to copy and paste all that, just to tell me you don't have any and you don't need to?

Skyscrapers have never been rapidly and totally destroyed by any other cause than controlled demolition.

You and NIST claim that this pattern was broken three times in a day, and then never again, and you don't think that's an extraordinary claim? Not even just the least bit extraordinary enough to do basic tests for explosives and accelerants, just as they'd do if your house burned down?

Get outta town.

[–]realister 5ポイント6ポイント  (8子コメント)

once again the burden of proof is not on NIST its on conspiracy theorists. Doesn't matter what they claim in a broad sense.

If I claim pink unicorns exist its not YOUR job to disprove me, its my job to prove pink unicorns exist.

[–]eirikeiriksson -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

If I claim pink unicorns exist its not YOUR job to disprove me, its my job to prove pink unicorns exist.

I fully agree with you.

Total rapid collapse of a skyscraper from fire is the unicorn. Try and find another one, go ahead!

[–]realister 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Again you are trying to place the burden of proof on me for some reason. That's not how it works I am afraid, you are the accuser that means the burden of proof is on you.

This is basic law I am talking about here.

If you are stating that a skyscraper cannot collapse from fire you need to prove it. A lot of conspiracy theorists tend to forget that the burden of proof is on them. They tend to throw out accusations left and right expecting someone else to provide proof of the contrary for them.

Burden of proof is always on the accuser. Notice how its always the plaintiff that needs to bring the evidence up.

[–]eirikeiriksson -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I get it - your position is so obviously correct that it doesn't need to be backed up by anything! Duh!

The US Government accused people and countries for this, the burden of proof is theirs, and yours.

[–]realister 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

US never sued any country or a person as a result of 9/11 I think you are mistaken. Also the Iraq War was certainly not because of 9/11 either officially as you might remember.

Of course like all major catastrophes government did its own investigation and issued a report but as you know reports are not there to prove anything they are merely the results of the investigation nothing more.

You can't just throw out a bunch of accusations and then say "Ok Government now prove me wrong" thats not how law works my friend.

Plaintiff (District Attorney or Accuser) needs to present evidence.

[–]eirikeiriksson -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wow. Does licking boot taste that good that you should humiliate yourself like this? You don't make any sense.

[–]PhrygianMode -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Burden of proof lies 100% on NIST (the claimant)

They blatantly started that their first Specific Objective was to:

Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;

And did they achieve this?

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

Nope. Turns out they didn't. Just an unproven theory.

[–]realister 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

All NIST did was produce a report they are under no obligation to prove anything to anyone. I think you just got confused in terminology.

[–]PhrygianMode -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

NIST failed their own "Specific Object." The burden is/was/and will continue to be theirs.

they are under no obligation to prove anything to anyone

You just proved my point that they provided and unproven theory. Burden's still theirs.

[–]PM_PICS_OF_ME_NAKED 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

No other skyscrapers have been built the same as the WTC buildings. Pretty easy explanation there.

[–]eirikeiriksson -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

That's not an explanation at all.

[–]PM_PICS_OF_ME_NAKED 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

It is an explanation as to why it happened then and only then. Why the same hasn't been seen before or since; no other building has been built the same so no other building has exhibited the same unique flaw.

[–]eirikeiriksson 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

no other building has been built the same so no other building has exhibited the same unique flaw.

Specifically?

[–]PM_PICS_OF_ME_NAKED 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Do some research yourself. You seem to be so intent on telling others the same. I don't want to have to walk you through something you claim to have already researched. Also, your comment gave me no indication of which part of my comment you wanted specifics on. I assume you meant the flaw part, and that would be the toppling from being hit by planes. That flaw would be the unique way the support for the structure was designed. Remember how the buildings looked? Do you maybe think there was a reason they had the vertical stripes running up the sides?

[–]eirikeiriksson -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Actually, I'm well acquainted with the subject. What was the flaw? In the twins and in building 7?

[–]throwawaymikehawk 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You know whats what. Violent opposition is one of the phases before acceptance. When the mood is right, and TIMING is everything, find the clip on In Plane Site that shows the anomaly and flash on the second plane. The fact that its present on any footage, she can verify by looking all she wants, and be left with saying the same thing we all did. Dam, that dont look right.

Then also the "Oh My God" vid from gen. stubblebine is another one that has been known to sway opinion.

If it is something she just doesnt want to deal with, you may have no choice but to lay down and like it. Which is always better then worring about 9/11.

Now if she thinks Oswald acted alone, you may just have a dumb one. Which is perfect. Dont let her get away. : P

[–]papipapichulo 3ポイント4ポイント  (73子コメント)

They are made fun on

Bcz you present the laughable argument that 9/11 was a controlled demolition Bcz jet fuel can't melt steel beams. It doesn't need to. The science says it doesn't need to. But you guys keep parroting it. So hence the made fun on

[–][削除されました]  (25子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]papipapichulo 4ポイント5ポイント  (22子コメント)

    Oh so I'm a shill because I disagree with you.

    Such nice logic you have:

    • he disagrees with me, he must be a shill. There's no way he can disagree with me. I mean how could he, he's a shill..right?

    And notice how your rant:

    What science are you referring to they explains how the center column beams were cut at perfect diagonal lines?

    Was not at all related to the topic of jet fuel melting steel beams.

    Jet fuel at high temperatures weakens steals and it starts to lose structural integrity. It doesn't need to melt.

    But don't let the science get in the way of ur conspiratorial bubble.

    Please tell me more about how I'm a shill since you can't form a proper argument against my points

    [–][削除されました]  (4子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]DefectiveDetective 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

      because certain parties would pay you well to do exactly what you're doing

      Where can I sign up for this? Seriously. I LOVE debating conspiratards and that would be an absolute dream job. Please hook me up! Where do I go to be a paid shill? Do I have to be Israeli or something?

      [–]eirikeiriksson -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Seriously. I LOVE debating conspiratards

      Why? What motivates you?

      [–]DefectiveDetective 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I like arguing in general, but in person most people don't share that sentiment, and it can be extremely awkward when someone takes the debate too personally. The internet is a safe haven for debating. I also find the cognitive processes of conspiracy theorists very interesting. It is fun to engage them in debate and see what they say.

      [–]Lookingfortruths 2ポイント3ポイント  (16子コメント)

      NIST admits they have no evidence for temperatures high enough to seriously weaken steel, they say this in their own report..

      There is no evidence for these temperatures

      [–]papipapichulo 2ポイント3ポイント  (15子コメント)

      Citation?

      [–]Lookingfortruths 1ポイント2ポイント  (14子コメント)

      from the NIST report “no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”

      [–]longooglite 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

      http://imgur.com/e1PKOpU

      Literally the next paragraph from yours. There is no way you'd reference that without also including this, who is paying you to cover up the lack of a cover up?

      [–]eirikeiriksson -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

      Yes, it was a shitty investigation. You're not implying that the lack of evidence supports your case, are you?

      [–]longooglite 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

      If it's so shitty I'm surprised you used it up there. And no, I'm saying that there is a lack of evidence to suggest anything except the official story took place.

      [–]eirikeiriksson 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

      I just think it's funny that you guys chant "truthers have no evidence!" and then you point out that the investigation you trust studied "portions" of four out of 329 core column sections in the fire area.

      [–]papipapichulo -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Can you link to that

      [–]rawrock5 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      [–]papipapichulo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      thats great: but not at all relevant since they never claimed that was the result of the collapse

      • the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

      [–]DefectiveDetective -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

      What science are you referring to they explains how the center column beams were cut at perfect diagonal lines?

      The ones that the clean up crew cut after the collapse? I think it explains itself.

      [–]shadowofashadow 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Who are the "you guys" you are referring to? I've literally never heard anyone parrot this or say that jet fuel can melt steel beems and I've been reading this stuff for a decade now.

      And, if you have heard someone say this, why do you ascribe this opinion to the entire subreddit's population?

      [–]greenshrubbery -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

      The post literally above this one says it's ok for them to meme about it because it's correct. Ffs there's like 5 people saying it just on this page.

      [–]shadowofashadow 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Yeah and those posts also explain how it's technically correct but used in a context that makes it sarcastic.

      [–]psychedelicjournal -1ポイント0ポイント  (29子コメント)

      So let's debate.

      Let's not talk about physics, science, or anything that can find information pertaining to both defenses. Let us use pure and sheer logic.

      Before We go into it, let us discuss America's number one money maker. Go on google and look it up. You won't have to look long before you realize that "War" is the number 1 money maker in America. It generates hundreds of billions of dollars and year and employs millions. Now, LOGICALLY how do you sustain that kind of business?

      War. You must always have war. To keep the hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue every year, there HAS TO BE A NEED FOR IT. How do you keep pushing war? You always have to have a enemy. There always has to be a "enemy of the state" that our country fears for its "national security".

      Now, let's think about 9/11. The "official story" is that a bunch of ill-equipped and poorly trained "terrorist" beat out the number one country IN THE WORLD in defense. These people were able to fly off course for over 30 minutes in planes. AND NOT A SINGLE F-22 WAS SCRAMBLED. You do know FCC regulations clearly state that any plane that does not respond every 15 minutes and does not stay on course, has to be intercepted by f-22s. Now, these planes not only did not respond for over a hour but flew hundreds of miles off course. Hmmmmmmmm sounds strange doesn't it.

      Look I am not saying that there was bombs in the building and it was controlled demo. What I am saying is that our government has a track record of completely swaying the truth in it's favor. Look up Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, Gulf of Tonkin, Italian Mafia, and many others. The government, not as a whole, has very evil and rich people in power. Seeing as ALL government is compartmentalized, it is quite easy for few key people in our government to reign havoc on anything they wish. Look at all the bills that GO AGAINST what the people want. Our government does NOT HAVE our interest in heart. If they did, we would have clean water, good food, and a high minimum wage. Yet, our water is shit, our food is poisoned, and more than 50 million americans (35%) live under the poverty line. If our government cares about us, then where is the care? Where is our freedom? Where is our protections of the Constitution?

      The fact is the police are being militarized, more people are becoming homeless or living under the poverty line, and we keep jumping into wars for NO FUCKING REASON.

      So let's look at the aftermath of the "war". Let's say that the official story is correct. That rouge extremist terrorist did this. These 13 people had no affiliation with any country. They were part of rouge extremist groups that were NOT the consensus of main population of their countries.

      these 13 people killed roughly 3,000 american lives on 9/11. But in response our government killed more than a MILLION civilians to get to these organizations. Hmmmm....once again something doesn't add up.

      [–]full_of_stars 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

      What did rouge ever do to you?

      This is part of the reason people make fun. You have it all worked out, you know all the ways we are being lied to as a people and how we are being mined like ore or farmed like cattle, but your logic is tenuous at best, you want to connect every possible conspiracy to all the others and you can't spell rogue properly.

      [–]psychedelicjournal -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

      What conspiracy did I try to connect to? These are raw numbers. Data. You can take a little stroll down google and find how much these companies are making from war. Hell I'll do it fucking for you. http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/

      So you tell me...what conspiracy is there to create when these companies are OPENLY making BILLIONS of dollars off of war. You tell me where the conspiracy in that is. Its just pure logic. War companies need ______ (I'll let you fill in the blank) Also your argument is sad. You say my logic is tenuous at best yet you just committed The Fallacy Fallacy. If you don't know what that means here is the definition...

      "You presume that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong".

      My claim was that War is Big bucks. And how do we, as a nation, keep these companies that employ millions of American workers, making these big bucks?

      [–]full_of_stars 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      You ask me "what conspiracy?" while at the same time claiming 9/11 was a conspiracy to start a war for profit. If I'm committing a logical fallacy, it is only because I trying to follow your shit logic.

      [–]psychedelicjournal -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Cause you know. The middle east does not have Billions upon Billions of dollars of oil and poppy production. -_-

      [–]DefectiveDetective 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      You still need to tie this into 9/11 being an inside job...

      [–]psychedelicjournal -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I am not debating if it was a inside job or not. However i am debating the fact that it COULD have been an inside job. We need a real investigation. Not a government funded investigation

      [–]realister 1ポイント2ポイント  (13子コメント)

      google "broken window fallacy" - explains perfectly why wars do not make money for anyone.

      You are misguided sir. war does NOT make money for either side. The biggest money maker for USA is the services sector.

      [–]psychedelicjournal -1ポイント0ポイント  (12子コメント)

      War makes companies billions of dollars.

      [–]realister 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

      some individual companies sure, but its always a net negative.

      Just google "broken window fallacy" it explains it very well, much better than I can.

      [–]psychedelicjournal 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

      Ill check it out

      [–]realister 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

      This is a quick video about a "broken window fallacy" on youtube

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erJEaFpS9ls

      [–]eirikeiriksson -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

      If a window maker hires a kid to throw rocks, we're worse off, but the window maker is better off (if he can get away with it)

      Broken window fallacy is macro, not micro.

      [–]realister 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

      Incorrect, window maker is worse off too because the baker had to spend money on a window instead of perhaps paying taxes that would fix roads that window maker uses.

      While window maker would get an order for a new window it's not the same if he was making a window for a brand new house construction for example.

      [–]eirikeiriksson -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

      The guy who gets the extra money is worse off, because the government doesn't have his money? Wow you are an economic genius

      [–]eirikeiriksson -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Ah, you've edited, no?

      Yes, it's macro, not micro. If the CEO of Raytheon has earned, let's say, $100 mil during the wars, you say he's worse off because the government has less money to build a road he might want to use. I'm sure he'd rather have that road built than his own personal fortune! Seriously though, you're using BWF to claim that nobody gets rich off of war?

      [–]psychedelicjournal 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      It makes sense. I can understand where you are coming from this. I have to think about it. Thanks for that though.

      [–]papipapichulo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Of the top 10 companies last year: how many of them were war companies?

      [–]DefectiveDetective 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Sick conjecture dude. I wish I lived in your fantasy world.

      [–]psychedelicjournal 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Some people just refuse to actually debate and think. Its cool buddy. You live in your perfect little box. Enjoy your ignorance

      [–]DefectiveDetective 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      I'll 'debate and think' about the real issues in the world, not a fringe conspiracy theory that gets laughed at by most intelligent people.

      [–]psychedelicjournal -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Actually most of the country believes it to a inside job. And there sreq hundreds of experts that say it doesn't add up.

      [–]papipapichulo 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Here was my original statement: let's see if you stick to the point at hand

      • you present the laughable argument that 9/11 was a controlled demolition Bcz jet fuel can't melt steel beams. It doesn't need to.

      So let's debate. Let's not talk about physics, science, or anything that can find information pertaining to both defenses. Let us use pure and sheer logic.

      Or we can use science and physics and irrefutable scientific evidence

      Before We go into it, let us discuss America's number one money maker. Go on google and look it up. You won't have to look long before you realize that "War" is the number 1 money maker in America. It generates hundreds of billions of dollars and year and employs millions. Now, LOGICALLY how do you sustain that kind of business?

      Actually nah: the oil industry is, followed my retail if you include electronic retail In the group

      So right off the bat you are already not using facts but rather using facts you made up in your own bubble

      War. You must always have war. To keep the hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue every year, there HAS TO BE A NEED FOR IT. How do you keep pushing war? You always have to have a enemy. There always has to be a "enemy of the state" that our country fears for its "national security".

      You are making this argument based on a false narrative that war is the biggest money maker

      Now, let's think about 9/11. The "official story" is that a bunch of ill-equipped and poorly trained "terrorist" beat out the number one country IN THE WORLD in defense.

      Nope that's not the official story. The terrorist didn't attack our nations defense. They didn't go after an aircraft carrier or sometjinh like that. They simply hijacked a plane, which at the time due to the security or lack of it. Was possible

      So again: making false statements

      These people were able to fly off course for over 30 minutes in planes. AND NOT A SINGLE F-22 WAS SCRAMBLED. You do know FCC regulations clearly state that any plane that does not respond every 15 minutes and does not stay on course, has to be intercepted by f-22s. Now, these planes not only did not respond for over a hour but flew hundreds of miles off course. Hmmmmmmmm sounds strange doesn't it.

      It actually doesn't

      Look I am not saying that there was bombs in the building and it was controlled demo.

      Good because the evidence wouldn't support that theory

      What I am saying is that our government has a track record of completely swaying the truth in it's favor. Look up Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, Gulf of Tonkin, Italian Mafia, and many others. The government, not as a whole, has very evil and rich people in power. Seeing as ALL government is compartmentalized, it is quite easy for few key people in our government to reign havoc on anything they wish.

      Cool, correlation doesn't equal causation. You must prove causation, you have so far failed

      Look at all the bills that GO AGAINST what the people want. Our government does NOT HAVE our interest in heart.

      There is no such thing as a bill against the interest of the people. There is no interest if the people. Your interests are different from mine. Different constituents want diff things

      Again, you are making arguments on false narratives

      If they did, we would have clean water, good food, and a high minimum wage.

      We do have clean water, clean food: tell me what food item you want that isn't available? And what's your def of high minimum wage

      Yet, our water is shit,

      Based on what empirical evidence are you making this Assertion

      our food is poisoned,

      Lol what?

      and more than 50 million americans (35%) live under the poverty line. If our government cares about us, then where is the care?

      Are you arguing we don't provide social safety mega

      Where is our freedom? Where is our protections of the Constitution?

      You have em

      The fact is the police are being militarized, more people are becoming homeless or living under the poverty line, and we keep jumping into wars for NO FUCKING REASON.

      Homelessness is increasing?

      And what war other than Iraq was for no reason?

      So let's look at the aftermath of the "war". Let's say that the official story is correct. That rouge extremist terrorist did this. These 13 people had no affiliation with any country. They were part of rouge extremist groups that were NOT the consensus of main population of their countries.

      Your whole rant was full of countless and non factual assertions

      these 13 people killed roughly 3,000 american lives on 9/11. But in response our government killed more than a MILLION civilians to get to these organizations.

      Please elaborate on what accounts did the gov kill 1 million civilians

      Hmmmm....once again something doesn't add up.

      Everything you said, because it's not supported by facts

      [–]DefectiveDetective 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I absolutely despise that 1 million dead Iraqi civilians statistic, but it's not surprising how often it gets parroted here, considering how conspiracy theorists cherry pick whatever evidence suits their interests. The 1 million dead Iraqi civilians claim was published in Lancet, a medical journal, and heavily criticized. It is not based on actual verified deaths, but is an estimate made by polling people and then extrapolating the death count.

      [–]psychedelicjournal -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

      I never once stated that there was a control demolition or that the towers were not in fact knocked down by the planes. I stand in a neutral stand point with that. It very well could have been the planes and it could have very well been a control demolition. I don't know enough about the science, nor do I know enough about physics to make that claim.

      Actually nah: the oil industry is, followed my retail if you include electronic retail In the group So right off the bat you are already not using facts but rather using facts you made up in your own bubble

      You are correct. I was wrong and unlike most people I can admit I am wrong. However, let us use your statement for something else.

      You stated that Oil is the number one generator of money in america. Do you wanna know where the top five largest oil deposits in the world is? http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Here-Are-The-Worlds-Five-Most-Important-Oil-Fields.html

      Hmmmm....seems like the top five oil deposits in the world are in the middle east. So perhaps, with logic. Could it be possible that we allowed the attack to happen to get a reason to go into the area where the largest oil deposits are?

      You are making this argument based on a false narrative that war is the biggest money maker

      You are correct on that. However, it is BIG BUSINESS for this country.

      There is no such thing as a bill against the interest of the people. There is no interest if the people. Your interests are different from mine. Different constituents want diff things

      There are tons of bills that go against the interest of the majority. If you think the government has your or any civilians interest at heart. You might want to start researching some outlandish bills.

      We do have clean water, clean food: tell me what food item you want that isn't available? And what's your def of high minimum wage

      I am sorry. Have you ever really looked into what goes into your water? We def do not have clean food ether. Most food is filled with sugars, preserves, and many other chemicals that do harm to your body.

      WE def do not have freedoms. Our freedoms are being trampled on everyday by police. Take a stroll down youtube and see the thousands of videos of people following the law and still getting arrested.

      Homelessness is increasing?

      Yes, it is. Look it up. More and more americans are losing their homes and are barely surviving.

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

      Tons of reports show that hundreds of thousands have died. Some reports even show that upwards of a million CIVILIANS have died as well.

      [–]papipapichulo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I never once stated that there was a control demolition or that the towers were not in fact knocked down by the planes. I stand in a neutral stand point with that. It very well could have been the planes and it could have very well been a control demolition. I don't know enough about the science, nor do I know enough about physics to make that claim.

      Well we have evidence of one, but not the other

      Actually nah: the oil industry is, followed my retail if you include electronic retail In the group So right off the bat you are already not using facts but rather using facts you made up in your own bubble You are correct. I was wrong and unlike most people I can admit I am wrong. However, let us use your statement for something else.

      You stated that Oil is the number one generator of money in america. Do you wanna know where the top five largest oil deposits in the world is? http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Here-Are-The-Worlds-Five-Most-Important-Oil-Fields.html Hmmmm....seems like the top five oil deposits in the world are in the middle east. So perhaps, with logic. Could it be possible that we allowed the attack to happen to get a reason to go into the area where the largest oil deposits are?

      We started two wars in the middle east. We get barely or no oil from afghanistan. We barely get any oil from iraq. So we started two wars over oil and barely end getting up getting any oil. So seems like logic doesnt support that assertion

      There is no such thing as a bill against the interest of the people. There is no interest if the people. Your interests are different from mine. Different constituents want diff things

      There are tons of bills that go against the interest of the majority. If you think the government has your or any civilians interest at heart. You might want to start researching some outlandish bills.

      who is this majority and what are their interest?

      Please elaborate

      We do have clean water, clean food: tell me what food item you want that isn't available? And what's your def of high minimum wage

      I am sorry. Have you ever really looked into what goes into your water?

      Please cite irrefutable peer reviewed evidence that supports your assertions that we dont have clean water

      We def do not have clean food ether. Most food is filled with sugars, preserves, and many other chemicals that do harm to your body.

      Please cite irrefutable peer reviewed evidence that supports your assertions that we dont have clean food?

      Does organic food not exist? has anyone forced you to eat non-organic food

      WE def do not have freedoms. Our freedoms are being trampled on everyday by police. Take a stroll down youtube and see the thousands of videos of people following the law and still getting arrested.

      What freedom is gone?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War Tons of reports show that hundreds of thousands have died. Some reports even show that upwards of a million CIVILIANS have died as well.

      but you said they were killed by americans

      so were all of them killed by americans

      [–]Akareyon -1ポイント0ポイント  (12子コメント)

      Bcz you present the laughable argument that 9/11 was a controlled demolition Bcz jet fuel can't melt steel beams. It doesn't need to. The science says it doesn't need to.

      Wrong. Science says it must.

      [–]papipapichulo 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

      Source

      [–]Akareyon -1ポイント0ポイント  (10子コメント)

      Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

      • Richard Feynman, "What is science", 1966

      The scientific method is a belief system. That when you make shit up, you've got to prove it in experiment.

      So when someone says jet fuel can't melt steel beams, you mix it adiabatically with oxygen and melt some steel beams.

      And when someone says the jet fuel doesn't have to melt the steel beams, you have to build a tower, pick its top, let it drop on the rest, make it collapse totally from top to bottom and defend your theory that that is how the towers were built and designed.

      If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.

      • Richard Feynman, "The Character of Physical Law", 1965

      [–]papipapichulo 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

      You stated

      you present the laughable argument that 9/11 was a controlled demolition Bcz jet fuel can't melt steel beams. It doesn't need to. The science says it doesn't need to.

      Wrong. Science says it must.

      I asked you for a source or citation backing up this assertion

      Then you respond with something totally unrelated to the science of the issue

      Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

      Richard Feynman, "What is science", 1966

      Good for him, do you have any evidence for your assertions?

      The scientific method is a belief system. That when you make shit up, you've got to prove it in experiment. So when someone says jet fuel can't melt steel beams, you mix it adiabatically with oxygen and melt some steel beams.

      No it's not a belief system. Do you understand the difference between beliefs and facts. Beliefs don't need evidence

      But again: do you have any evidence for your assertions that

      • Wrong. Science says it must.

      And when someone says the jet fuel doesn't have to melt the steel beams, you have to build a tower, pick its top, let it drop on the rest, make it collapse totally from top to bottom and defend your theory that that is how the towers were built and designed.

      Actually you don't. Just like engineers don't have to build whole towers to know whether or not their loads and calculations are correct.

      It's called modeling.

      But again, do you have any evidence for your assertion that

      • Wrong. Science says it must.

      If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.

      Richard Feynman, "The Character of Physical Law", 1965

      Good for him do you have any evidence for your assertions that's

      • Wrong. Science says it must.

      [–]Akareyon 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

      Hey yo, I thought we are all nerds and intellectuals here, you don't just dismiss Richard Feynman like that. Have some respect for his bongo-playing at least.

      Just like engineers don't have to build whole towers to know whether or not their loads and calculations are correct.

      It's called modeling.

      Yup, that's what I'm saying. Let them build a model to show that their assertions are true. You don't make up shit as you go in science. You must provide evidence. You make a theory. You must prove it. In experiment.

      And just as truthers have proven that jet fuel can melt steel only in stoichiometric mixtures with air or oxygen, they are now proving that there is no evidence for the assertion that the jet fuel did not melt the steel beams. Because somehow, the tower must come down, if there weren't any explosives.

      That is the key to science.

      Step by step by step.

      [–]papipapichulo 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

      Hey yo, I thought we are all nerds and intellectuals here, you don't just dismiss Richard Feynman like that. Have some respect for his bongo-playing at least.

      I care about the content of the message, not the messenger

      Just like engineers don't have to build whole towers to know whether or not their loads and calculations are correct.

      It's called modeling.

      Yup, that's what I'm saying. Let them build a model to show that their assertions are true. You don't make up shit as you go in science. You must provide evidence. You make a theory. You must prove it. In experiment.

      And evidence, scientific evidence shows that jet fuel doesn't need to melt steel beans

      And just as truthers have proven that jet fuel can melt steel only in stoichiometric mixtures with air or oxygen, they are now proving that there is no evidence for the assertion that the jet fuel did not melt the steel beams. Because somehow, the tower must come down, if there weren't any explosives.

      It didn't need to melt it

      [–]Akareyon -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

      And evidence, scientific evidence shows that jet fuel doesn't need to melt steel beans

      Source?

      [–]papipapichulo 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

      Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

      SHARE TWEET PIN MOST READ

      The World Built a Record 97 New Skyscrapers in 201…

      Watch as the New One World Trade Center Rises "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

      But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

      NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

      Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

      http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

      [–]Akareyon -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

      experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel [...] just had to lose some of their structural strength

      Who are these experts? You trust them? You trust them with your life? "Experts" who say a tower "just has to lose some of its structural strength" to suddenly turn thousands of occupants into tiny pieces within seconds? That that is just the nature of a skyscraper? And they never told you before September 13th, 2001, after almost a century of building high-rises? Is that the world you live in? Do you have unicorns too?

      And they still haven't provided an experimental model for the allegedly "inevitable" collapse mode.

      Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace.

      Molten metal won't mix with organic materials. Organic materials thrown into a liquid, hot metal will buoy on the surface, ignite if hot enough, combust and form black dots, not give the metal a glowing appearance.

      [–]shadowofashadow 1ポイント2ポイント  (64子コメント)

      The jet fuel meme is pretty recent and has worked incredibly well.

      It's the type of thing that non-thinking people and followers can latch on to to feel like they are part of a bigger cause or group. It also stands to make truthers look stupid because it's true, jet fuel can't melt steel beams. It frames the entire discussion in the wrong way in order to make truthers look worse.

      There was a post recently explaining this that I wish I could find but I can't.

      [–]bennybenners 2ポイント3ポイント  (62子コメント)

      There is no other subject where so many people are so certain of something that they know nothing about.

      [–]DefectiveDetective 3ポイント4ポイント  (57子コメント)

      Indeed. And this goes for the truthers especially. For example, vehemently arguing about "physics" when they have no knowledge of the subject whatsoever.

      [–]bennybenners -3ポイント-2ポイント  (56子コメント)

      How many books have you read about 9/11? I bet you haven't read a single one.

      [–]DefectiveDetective 6ポイント7ポイント  (55子コメント)

      I don't read books about 9/11 for the same reason I don't read David Icke books or watch environmentalist documentaries. They are extraordinarily biased. I would read a NEUTRAL book that examines all of the 9/11 theories but I guaran-fucking-tee that such a book does not exist. 9/11 books are usually written by rabid conspiracy theorists, and they are never, ever impartial.

      [–]LIBERTY_SO_HARD 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Oh the irony of a truther making this comment

      [–]PhrygianMode -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Prime example of a strawman logical fallacy.

      [–]WTCMolybdenum4753 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      At the end of the day memes about the WTC attacks are better than WTC attacks forgotten. Forget the trolls as they are but a byproduct of the truth movement and will be left in the wake of the boat.

      [–]beatlejuicex 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      You are making sure we do not forget. Thank you WTCMolybdenum4753. You are a brave person.