You would imagine, but with users like u/Rose_Thug & u/Ethereul around, it's hard to talk about ideas outside the norm without being called a fucking idiot.

I really can't believe this comment is allowed to be here based on the shit I've had deleted and been warned for. Truly interesting. Especially because of the speculation involved about the person I conflict with a lot.

What's wrong with my comment?

The straight up calling out of individual users? Especially with you calling them shills? I've been warned and had comments removed for calling out users (not even fucking calling them shills, calling out their shitty as arguments or discussion tactics).

First I never called them a shill, but pointed out there tactic of attacking me by making up assertions I never made and their account age.

OP you act like it is SpaceXs fault that you're ignorant/dumb. This launch has been known about for months and months.

In that post I never claimed it was space x's fault or that people weren't aware of the launch. My post was about how it was convenient that the Government releases UFO info, and a couple days later people were freaking out about a UFO sighting above AZ. Then a couple days after that, it's revealed it was just a space x flight. It was just speculation and noting the timeline, but that user who's only a month old attacked me making up assertions I never made and insulting me. I don't appreciate that kind of behavior on this sub and will call those out user out.

Lmao, I actually just saw why you called out those specific users here. I'm glad I reported this shit. Keep calling out the age of people's accounts, that totally supports your arguments.

I will, thanks. Also, keep supporting users who forum slide and attack users on made up points. Cheers

Also, keep supporting users who forum slide and attack users on made up points

This didn't happen. You're just cranky that they called you out for not knowing about something. Did they do it in a very kind way? Nah. But they didn't "make any points up" in that thread like you're claiming.

But they didn't "make any points up" in that thread like you're claiming.

Haha, I never claimed the space x launch was a secret or that it was their fault. Can you show me where I made those assumptions?

attack users on made up points.

What points were made up?

Haha, I never claimed the space x launch was a secret or that it was their fault.

Lol, sure, you said that. But you said that after what I quoted. What points were made up?

I was referring to the orginal comment we were discussing.

OP you act like it is SpaceXs fault that you're ignorant/dumb. This launch has been known about for months and months.

I the original post, I never insinuated it was SpaceX's fault, or that people weren't aware of the launch before.

You called it an unannounced rocket launch....

Ow shit I did. HAHA, I meant that more in the sense of the media, but yeah, it's a valid point and I'm a dumb ass. I was thinking it had to do more with this part initially:

I bet they had to pull air space permits for their trajectory, doesn't seem a little odd. They probably knew when & where the flight pattern was.

Anyways, I just figured out another aspect I confused, there were two different events over AZ and I thought they were one in the same. There was this event on the 19th, and then the space x flight on the 23rd. At the time of that post, I thought it had been several days without it being reported as a space-x rocket, and then all of a sudden they had an answer which made me suspicious. O well, I'm dumb from time to time. Cheers

I just ask them what conspiracies they believe in. In other words why are they here. It usually either shuts them up, or they name a bunch of disinformation crap like "Trump-Russia collusion," Bush's "foreknowledge" of 9/11, UFOs, or something else like that.

Where is the list of correct conspiracies we have to believe in? Who decided the 9/11 conspiracies need to be blindly supported but we can't talk about Trump-Russia collusion? Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

I too would like to know the list of politically-correct conspiracies I'm allowed to believe in.

You could ask your friends at r/TopMindsOfReddit. They have a strictly controlled set of opinions.

Whatever doesn't get you topmind karma I guess

I have a feeling you really don't believe in anything. You talk more about what the "sub believes" than what you believe anyhow.

You can talk about UFO's all you want to, just don't shit on someone for talking about an actual conspiracy.

There are clearly unidentified flying objects. But there is also the problem that the government still has not admitted that it faked going to the moon like ten times. Even Stephen Greer acts like the Apollo missions were legit which destroys all of his credibility from the start.

Also the idea that aliens exist only works if you really believe that we live in a vast expansive universe with billions of galaxies. This idea is taken for granted and reinforced when rumors of ETs are floated.

Just something to think about.

Good idea.

Yes, the shills here are worse than ever. I guess that's what we get for staying on a site run by shills.

Some of us open minders don't comment as much as read/analyse/absorb.

I think this is the case. The people that come here just to lurk/read are the silent majority. Then there are outside groups with bad intentions that come here to manipulate the votes/comments to try to sway or propagandize their thoughts/opinions.

I was very active at commenting when i first found this sub. Mostly out of excitement to finally be able to discuss things of this nature.

These days i usually only add something if its poignant or if i have been drinking. Conspiracy research is something you do alone when you first get into it, so i think it always reverts back to that.

I once saw a comment that said Marx was right. I shat myself

i will not pepetuate myths like controlled demolition. there are enough real conpiracies, what you are asking is a pass given to fake bs that truthers have convinced themseles is real.

WTC were demolished with nukes.

I hope you are trolling....

All the proof you need:

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/02/vt-nuclear-education-undeniable-proof-of-911-as-a-nuclear-event/

can i ask your educational background?

STEM, masters level.

The shockwave would have easily registered on seismic counters all over the world that listen for nuclear testing. there would have been radiation.

The shockwave would have easily registered on seismic counters all over the world that listen for nuclear testing.

It was. Seismologists said the collapse was also consistent with pyroclastic flows, which occurs during volcanoes and nuclear testing.

Seismologists said that flight 93 time of crash was inconsistent with official time. they had a std error of a few seconds, but were forced to lie and say their estimate being out by a few MINUTES was acceptable. anyone whose done STEM knows this is bullshit, it's gotta be within 3 std dev with 99.7% prob.

tldr: did u even read the article I linked?

Pyroclastic flows is BS. Show me where any scientist has ever agreed with this. its a truther talking point easily debunked.

Again, Kim calculated that most of the energy did not reach the ground as seismic waves; it was mainly used up converting steel, concrete—and human beings—to dust. He said the event greatly resembled the energy released by a pyroclastic flow, a lethal explosion of hot gases and debris running down the slopes of an exploding volcano.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/seismology-911

Like I said, there's plenty of indirect evidence of radiation, such as cancers, clean up methods etc. Radioactive isotopes in dust samples in certain ratios proves the use of nuclear weapons.

do you even know what a lyroclastiiic flow is? hint.. its really quite hot, which the wtc dust cloud wasnt.

no I don't know what "lyroclastic flow" is. Pycroclastic flow I understand, on the other hand.

Why do you think you know more than a seismologist?

How do you know the temperature of the WTC dust cloud?

Because hot air rises. The hot parts rose up very high, only the cold parts reached the ground. Seriously, we have the mayor saying the holes beneath the WTC were thousands of degrees for months.

if 911 victims got fried, turned to dust, would you have heard of it?

A crew of demolition workers discovered 74 bone fragments near the World Trade Center site over the weekend

Most of the fragments were found mixed among roof ballast -- gravel -- that had been raked to the perimeters of the roof of the condemned Deutsche Bank building, officials said.

Of the 2,749 people who were killed in the trade center attack, the remains of 1,151 have never been identified, despite advanced DNA testing. To date, the chief medical examiner's office has been unable to identify more than 9,000 fragments taken from the attack site.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/nyregion/pieces-of-bone-are-found-on-building-at-911-site.html

once again you prove you dont know what a pyroclastic flow even iis. Now you are arguing against a pyroclastic flow, explaing away the lack of heat in the dust cloud.

As far as there being smouldering fires found during cleanup, that is consistant with a large building collapsing whilst it is burning. And no, there was never molten steel found in the rubble pile, thats hogwash.

once again you prove you dont know what a pyroclastic flow even iis.

Your English is almost as terrible as your understanding of science. I told you there was heat in the dust cloud that rose up very high, the cooler parts of the cloud went to the ground. Learn the basics of thermodynamics.

As far as there being smouldering fires found during cleanup, that is consistant with a large building collapsing whilst it is burning.

No it isn't. That's why the 14 week fires were the longest burning structural fires in history. They're consistent with the energy left by a nuke, that's why they kept burning despite being flooded with water.

Do yourself a favor and google pyroclastic flow. Please copy paste the definition here.

At some point all debunkers have to move on from discussions with truthers. It's whack-a-mole, one things is addressed, and another pops up. These points about the hot-spots are not even real scientific points, barely raising to the level of bunk. 

Why were there hot spots? Because there were fires. Why were there fires? Because there was lots of stuff that burned and the building was on fire when it fell.  Why was it so hot? Because fire is hot. Why did it last so long? Because there was a lot of stuff to burn, and it was in enclosed volumes with a limited air supply.

That's it. Really.

Bro a picture is worth a thousand words:

http://images.slideplayer.com/35/10288063/slides/slide_12.jpg

Still haven't explained the thousands of people who were turned into dust, as a seismologist said, if the pyroclastic flows weren't hot. You're just inventing facts. For example, you say that the fires were normal. Sorry bro, NIST said the jet fuel burned within minutes. 14 week fires (burning thousands of degrees) that continued despite being flooded with water means only one thing: China syndrome.

you have no discernment for truth and fall for the con artists of the truth movement.

This link and the video it contains shows the moment WTC 2 collapsed. https://www.metabunk.org/the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

There is no video or audible proof of CD.

9/11 WTC North Tower collapse by Etienne Sauret. Visible shaking 12 seconds before collapse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM88xJX5FsA&app=desktop

South Tower collapse (9/11) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x91XXip8a5M&app=desktop

Both towers fell in relative silence in the context there is no audible signature from pressure waves with enough force to cut steel.

There is no indication of a pressure wave.

If there was a massive explosion in the basement capable of cutting steel, there would have been a noticeable boom, windows and walls at the base of the towers buckling out. Every floor in the tower would have noticeably dropped down. Not the localized and isolated outer vertical columns bowing inward and buckling relative to the impact and fire damage.

The dust cloud was not pyroclastic, we have went over that. People survived being in the dust cloud. Your claim does not pass a reasonable persons logical powers. If the flow was pyroclastic as you claim, it would have killed anyone it touched and ignited all the papers and such that instead fell to the ground unscathed.

I'm aware the jet fuel burned off in a short period of time, do you think that normal office fires combustibles are some kinda 'cold' fire? Ever seen a wallmart after it's burned? Steel beams all twisted and warped? Roof caved in?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36)

gishgallop. the con artist is you. i already linked to authoritative sources saying it was a pyroclastic flow, 1000 degree hot, and contained vaporised people.

Dude, a pyroclastic flow is hot. It would burn people it touched. This dust cloud did not burn people or light papers on fire, thus it was not a pyroclastic flow. What part of that is not a reasonable statement?

Your explanation is that heat goes upwards. Well, tell ya what, I hope someday you are near a real pyroclastic flow from a volcanic event and you test your theory out. By it's very definition a pyroclastic flow is hot, I just don't get what part of that you don't understand.

BTW, you linked to NO such article that proves the dust cloud was a pyroclastic flows, thats just you being intellectually dishonest again.

You keep repeating this moronic talking point that the dust wasn't hot despite the authoritative source putting it at 1000 degrees and saying there was vaporised people in the dust. Yes some parts weren't hot and yes those parts didn't vaporise people, so?

I did link to two articles on it being a hot pyroclastic flow, did you miss them, or was another guy taking your shift when that happened? Let me guess, you'll fall back to the usual shill tactic saying "greatly resembled isn't the same as was"

Again, Kim calculated that most of the energy did not reach the ground as seismic waves; it was mainly used up converting steel, concrete—and human beings—to dust. He said the event greatly resembled the energy released by a pyroclastic flow, a lethal explosion of hot gases and debris running down the slopes of an exploding volcano.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/seismology-911

The acrid miasma of 91,000 liters of jet fuel and the 10,000,000 tons of building materials and contents burning at temperatures above 1,000 degrees Celsius extended from lower Manhattan across the East River into Brooklyn and beyond to the sea.

Finally, the dust contained the remains of the 2,753 people killed in the attack, along with the hair and skin cells shed by those who worked in the World Trade Center over the decades.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-was-in-the-world-trade-center-plume/

Here's a rather dramatic video of a guy getting engulfed in the "pyroclastic flow". Start at 2:58. At one point the video skips and shows something on the tape he was recording over, then it all goes black. But keep going, he lives. It was just a very large cloud of dust. Nothing pyroclastic about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZbkJ1HE_E8

Amazing video he's a doctor, nearly dies, then goes and runs triage.

A quick look any video of a building collapse will show you. Falling buildings create lots of dust, the displacement of air pushes that dust away. Air is a fluid, so the cloud of dust is the forced out air (carrying dust in suspension) violently mixing with the exterior ambient air. It's really simple fluid mechanics. Nothing similar to a pyroclastic flow at all, unless you wanna call a cloud of dust a pyroclastic flow.

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

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You don't see the videos of people getting vaporised by the pyroclastic flow because the cameras got vaporised too.

Btw you ignore the seismic evidence, all the evidence of bone fragments from vaporised people. Not to mention all the burnt cars, from the heat of the pyroclastic flows or EMP.

https://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/toastedlot_93a1f7e6e7.jpg

You are being intellectually dishonest. Again, the dust cloud was not hot, the burnt cars had nothing to do with any pyroclastic flow. Again, if you can not watch a simple video of people surviving your bs pyroclastic flow without being burned to death, what hope is there for you to discover any truth?

I really think the best you can say is "looks a bit like pyroclastic flow from a distance".

Again, the dust cloud was not hot, the burnt cars had nothing to do with any pyroclastic flow.

So what burned them?

if you can not watch a simple video of people surviving your bs pyroclastic flow

Bro i never said all parts of the dust were extremely hot. Reread my comments.

Burning debris ignited car fires, it's not that hard to figure out.

I love your pyroclastic flow definition, hot enough to ignite cars, vaporize people, melt cameras, but cool enough to engulf the dude in the video with no harm, cool enough not to light the huge amount of falling paper on fire.

When someone pees in the pool the whole pool doesn't have it's temperature raised immediately. How fucking dumb are you? Just because parts of the dust weren't hot enough to burn doesn't mean all of it wasn't hot enough to burn.

cool enough not to light the huge amount of falling paper on fire.

Or maybe the paper landed afterwards? Logic, try it some time.

Why don't you just stop using "pyroclastic", and instead describe what it actually was?

Why not? That's the crux of the matter here. Why keep trying to shoehorn it into an inaccurate and obscure word? What's the reason?

The only conceivable reason is to mislead. To make it seem like something it is not.

Because they are pyroclastic flows as seen after partially underground nuclear demolitions. Look at the picture, they're exactly alike, the seismologist says they seismic readings "greatly resemble each other".

Why do you hate the term pyroclastic flow? Because you know the only sources of these are volcanoes and nuclear explosions.

Nope. Because every building that get's demo'd has a dust cloud, just like the towers did. That dust cloud from the towers wasn't hot, proven by the fact that people easily survived being engulfed in it. Simple as that.

That dust cloud from the towers wasn't hot, proven by the fact that people easily survived being engulfed in it.

Do you feel like if you keep repeating a lie it'll stick?

Here's the corrected version:

That dust cloud from the towers wasn't hot IN IT'S ENTIRETY, proven by the fact that people easily survived being engulfed in it, BUT SINCE THERE WERE SO MANY PEOPLE VAPORISED AND CARS BURNT THERE WERE PARTS THAT WERE VERY HOT INDEED.

Nope, not buying into your false logic. The dust cloud was not a pyroclastic flow. The dust cloud ignited no fires on the ground. The dust cloud burned no people when it engulfed them. If you search pictures you will see trees with their leaves unburned, will you use the same false logic as you did with the unburned paper littering the ground, and say the tree must have fallen to the ground after your mythical pyroclastic flow arrived?

I hope you know even A and E for 911 truth backed off their claims that it was a pyroclastic cloud and now say it resembled one? What does that even mean? Either it is or it isn't. Any demo'd building will produce a dust cloud that from a distance looks similiar. Difference being lack of heat, kinda fundamental to a pyroclastic flow. Without that, it's just a dust cloud.

ETA. There was no one vaporized by the dust cloud when it hit the bystanders on the ground. Not one. That is intellectually dishonest.

The dust cloud ignited no fires on the ground.

Except all the burnt cars.

The dust cloud burned no people when it engulfed them.

How do you know? The source I linked said the dust cloud contained vaporised people. They were finding their bone fragments allover the site for years to come. Thousands of victims were not identified because they had been turned to dust.

If you search pictures you will see trees with their leaves unburned,

Right but if you look at the surroudings of a volcano you'd see trees unburned as well as burned, people alive as well as dead. you get it?

Seriously ask your boss for some new talking points you're getting boring.

As noted before, it's common knowledge that vehicle fires were ignited by falling burning debris from the towers.

Offer one single shred of evidence that anyone on the ground was burned by your fake pyroclastic cloud. I have shown you video evidence of said cloud overtaking a Doctor, who was uninjured and went on to help with triage.... Oh, I forgot, you'll just say, well that part of the pyroclastic cloud must have been a cool spot. That is an intellectually dishonest means of debating your point. Really you have no point to make, even the paid for truthers like AE 911 truth have backed off the claim, get with the times man!

There is no truth in the lies of a pyroclastic cloud. There will be a few that believe in it, but heck, some people are convinced the world is flat contrary to facts, logic, reason, evidence.

As noted before, it's common knowledge that vehicle fires were ignited by falling burning debris from the towers.

lol "common knowledge". Doesn't Fox say that when they have no evidence?

Offer one single shred of evidence that anyone on the ground was burned by your fake pyroclastic cloud

You mean besides all the people turned to dust inside the dust cloud, as acknowledged by MSM?

Oh, I forgot, you'll just say, well that part of the pyroclastic cloud must have been a cool spot. That is an intellectually dishonest means of debating your point.

Or just how thermodynamics works.

There is no truth in the lies of a pyroclastic cloud. There will be a few that believe in it, but heck, some people are convinced the world is flat contrary to facts, logic, reason, evidence.

And some people are paid to spew lies on the internet.

Former PR worker here, 99% of our job is to convince people that something that is fucking them over is actually good for them.

The final talking point, if someone called you out on all your counterpoints, was to simply try to paint them as a wackjob. Suggest they are crazy for thinking agencies who are suppose to protect them have been bought and paid for. Bring up lizard people to muddy the waters. A lot of people will quickly distance themselves from something if it is accused of being a conspiracy theory, and a lot of them are stupid enough that you can convince them that believing businesses conspiring to break the law to gain profit is literally the same as believing in aliens and bigfoot.

r/worldnews/comments/31wo57/the_chevron_tapes_video_shows_oil_giant_allegedly/cq5uhse/?context=3

nobody on the ground burned, because there was no pyroclastic oud.

you're not even trying anymore. ask ur boss for some new talking points.

True or false, no one on the ground was burned by what you claim to be a pyroclastic cloud. Instead, many people were enveloped in a dust cloud, with no burns.

True or false, no one on the ground was burned by what you claim to be a pyroclastic cloud.

You're not even making sense. Ask your boss for more english lessons.

Comprehension problems?

True or false, the so called pyroclastic cloud you speak of was not hot enough to burn anyone that it came into contact with on the ground?

It's a simple enough question....

Putting a question mark on your question helps bro. Basics of English, learn it.

Answer the question.

I've repeatedly done so. Parts of it were hot enough to turn people to dust, as acknowledge by the MSM, parts of it were not hot enough to do so. We have no footage of people being vaporized because the cameras would also be vaporized.

No. Anyways we can agree to disagree.

The acrid miasma of 91,000 liters of jet fuel and the 10,000,000 tons of building materials and contents burning at temperatures above 1,000 degrees Celsius extended from lower Manhattan across the East River into Brooklyn and beyond to the sea.

Finally, the dust contained the remains of the 2,753 people killed in the attack, along with the hair and skin cells shed by those who worked in the World Trade Center over the decades.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-was-in-the-world-trade-center-plume/

Oh look 1000 degrees dust cloud containing vaporised people. Looks like you're full of shit.

You have tried to push nukes were used at the WTC. A false narrative totally void of evidence and sciences facts. A narrative totally out of pseudoscience.

What does your rant have to do with actual eyewitness accounts, collapse video, and physical evidence.

Do you have proof to supersede:

The towers were brought down by impact/fire/thermal stress leading to inward bowing and buckling of columns.

The damage at the pentagon was caused by a large commercial jet impact.

The scattering of human remains, jet wreckage, the burying of jet wreckage, and the scorching of trees at the shanksville crash site was caused by the impact of a large commercial jet.

There is a reason millions are spent on the research, development, and care of structural steel fire proofing? Fire proofing knocked off by the jet impacts?

That Silverstein actually lost money from 9/11, and that he did not make money?

ThAt hours before the collapse of WTC7, its documented that WTC 7 was showing signs it would fail?

Can you actually refute and rebuttal this piece that explains “looks like CD” is a false narrative?

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

If it was not impact damage and fires leading to mechanical failure, what theory should supersede?

Nukes? Mythical fizzle no flash explosives? Fraudulent thermite? Dustification?

Don’t get mad at me because the truth movement only offers out of context arguments, hiding of facts, lies, and pseudoscience.

Woukd you like to actually discuss physical evidence, or civilian accounts at the pentagon by the scores attesting to a large commercial jet.

Again, you only have innuendo and false arguments. The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact First Published January, 2011. Version 3, April 2016. By John D. Wyndham (PhD, Physics) http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Theories_Alternative_April_2016.pdf

What is a shill?

Its like a piece of shit, but human.

I thought I was putting forth a rhetorical question but nm lol

Its like a piece of shit, but human.

Holy hell, never heard that before but I'll run with it

What is a shill?

For the purpose of this sub, it is someone whose attempts to subvert the discussion of a specific conspiracy theory (lying, denying, deflecting, distracting etc) because they are paid to do so, or because they have some other hidden agenda.

It is very difficult to prove that somebody is doing this, which is why we don't allow shill accusations - they are meaningless without proof.

Maybe this wouldn't happen if people weren't so quick to jump to conclusions or misstate things. If your problem is that the comment characterized the professor as crazy I can sympathize but you're not pointing out how the comment is not factual. The headline it's from does make it sound different than the post you're quoting.
Skepticism is the other half of being open-minded. To get the truth you have to be willing to consider new ideas or even ideas you have previously rejected in the light of new evidence but then you also have to test these new ideas skeptically. Only then should you begin to form an opinion, and even then you have to always be aware that on topics like 9/11 a very small number of people really have access to information to ever really know what happened.

Worrying amount of fanatical anti-conspiracy readers of r/conspiracy

I would call it "annoying" rather than "worrying" - this sub has always attracted large numbers of useful idiots who think they are providing us a service by coming here to tell us certain conspiracies have been "debunked" (Snopes says so!) or don't exist, and they know this because the government and the mainstream media always tell the truth...

When a post like the WTC7 one becomes popular and reaches many redditors' front pages, it will attract a lot of anti-conspiracy rhetoric. Downvote them for not contributing anything of value, but otherwise ignore them.

Obviously, we do have to deal with a peculiar type of individual who lurks here constantly and then pounces on specific threads which they want to disrupt. Pizzagate is good example of this - the amount of effort some shills put in to denying/disrupting pizzagate posts goes way beyond what a normal redditor would do. If someone makes twenty comments in one thread arguing that Pizzagate (or whatever) is "fake", they have an agenda.

Finally a piece of advice for /r/conspiracy users. If a subject interests you, contribute. If you've previously looked into it and it bores you, or you think it's plain crazy, just ignore it and move on! Less stress all round, less chance of a heated argument that will end up with one or more users getting sanctioned by the mods for rule breaking.

If you've previously looked into it and it bores you, or you think it's plain crazy, just ignore it and move on!

How is this constructive?

As far as /r/conspiracy goes, no conspiracies are out of bounds, and my belief is this sub will cease to have any real value if the mods ever meddle with that policy. The userbase decides with their votes which posts make it to the front page. But that means we get many posts that most of our userbase will not ascribe to, and therefore go nowhere, but that is how it has to be.

Every user of this sub has a unique conspiracy belief pattern, and nobody believes every conspiracy, if only because some conspiracy theories about specific events/issues are mutually exclusive.

I think the best policy is NOT to post or comment about conspiracy theories that you don't believe in, unless you have genuinely pertinent factual information that will take the debate forward.

unless you have genuinely pertinent factual information that will take the debate forward.

Gotcha. I'm down with this as well.

What about someone making twenty comments in a thread saying Pizzagate is true? Do they have an agenda?

Yes, it would be preferable that people only contribute here in good faith, and not push hidden agendas.

However, the default ethos of this sub is that conspiracies exist, and theorising about them is what we do.

People who come on an apparent mission to deny conspiracies are not our target audience. There are other more suitable subs for them like the mis-named /r/skeptic (where the official story or public consensus is axiomatically trut, and skepticism is only required for alternative explanations which contradict it.)

I come onhere to look at funny/interesting theories, not taking it 100% serious admittedly. I doubt I am alone in this.

But half the posts onhere are 9/11 theories debunked literally 15 years ago, and somehow because a professor makes the claims it would be different? He is just a man, biased in his ways, making a claim disproven many times over by thousand, tens of thousands equally capable and smart people.

"Is Israel influencing media to keep the US from stopping slow annexation of Palestine?" Interesting food for tought.

"Building 7 was blown up by the government because this guy says so; Iteration 4.541.258" Not so interesting.

NIST didn't prove that WTC7 came down by fire. They themselves call their theory the "probable collapse sequence" right there in point #5 of the WTC7 FAQ. Other groups came up with decidedly different collapse sequences, so anyone claiming there is some kind of broad scientific consensus on exactly how WTC7 collapsed doen't know what their talking about.

a claim disproven many times over by thousand, tens of thousands equally capable and smart people.

Care to make some citations? You must have a lot.

Care to make some citations? You must have a lot.

The NIST report on WTC7.

NIST didn't prove that WTC7 came down by fire. They themselves call their theory the "probable collapse sequence" right there in point #5 of the WTC7 FAQ. Other groups came up with decidedly different collapse sequences, so anyone claiming there is some kind of broad scientific consensus on exactly how WTC7 collapsed doen't know what their talking about.

I've given their site a good read. They are very clear that they think the fires caused the collapse.

"Probable collapse sequence", in context, means the sequence they calculated in which the building most likely would have collapsed internally. Those words do not in any way counter the fire hypothesis or the reliability of the report. The reason collapse sequences differ is probably down to complexity, but again, that doesn't detract to the consensus of the cause of collapse, the fire.

As you could probably guess I don't have much respect for the conclusions of NIST regarding WTC7.

Just FYI here are the main issues I have:

• The only support for their theory are these computer simulations which do not resemble what happened in real life

• They failed to make public the entire duration of the collapse simulations, cutting them off (I presume) before they departed too obviously from what's visible in the actual collapse videos.

• Lead NIST investigator, Shyam Sunder, at the press conference following the release of the WTC7 draft report, dismissed the notion of free fall during the collapse by stating, "Free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it...", but the final draft released weeks later detailed 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration during the collapse and stated that it was "consistent with their models."

• NIST ran an expensive computer simulation audio analysis that indicated that if the collapse were triggered by explosives a loud boom would have been heard by witnesses or recorded on tape just prior to the collapse. They used this as their excuse to ignore National Fire Protection Association standards which required the testing for explosives or incendiaries in any structure fire where a "high order of damage is observed."

• NIST also ignored recorded audio evidence of explosions coming from WTC7 like this, and testimony from witnesses like Barry Jennings and Micheal Hess who experienced explosions firsthand while trying to evacuate WTC7.

• NIST's stated reason for not testing for incendiaries like thermite was that they couldn't imagine that the required amount (they estimated 100lbs) to fail the column 79 connection and trigger the collapse could have been transported and placed without detection even though the building stood empty for hours prior to its collapse.

• NIST investigator John Gross participated in the FEMA investigation which documented melting and high temperature corrosion attacks of steel beams and columns at WTC7, then later dismissed the notion that steel melted anywhere at the WTC by saying that you can't achieve temperature high enough in a fire.

• NIST investigator John Gross also expressed the belief that no one witnessed any molten steel at the WTC complex even though he had to have been aware of testimony like this

• NIST's computer simulation of the column 79 connection lacked critical structural elements that would have prevented the failure had they included them. Most notably the partial height web stiffeners clearly present in the Frankel drawings were absent in their simulation. Here's an excellent video on the topic.

• NIST calculated that thermal expansion displaced girder A2001 5.5 inches to the west which, absent web stiffeners, was just enough to push it off its 11 inch seat on column 79 and trigger the collapse. When it was later conclusively established that the bearing seat was actually 12 inches wide and that 5.5 inches of displacement was therefore insufficient to cause a walk off, NIST, without explanation, simply came out with a new, higher figure for the displacement (6.25 inches) which was again just enough to have caused a walk off.

• NIST has refused to make their computer models of the collapse publicly available paradoxically stating that doing so would "jeopardize public safety."

and my first uneducated thought is that a building probably would collapse in stages and not suddenly in a 10 second free fall like if it is a controlled demolition

And that is the crux of the issue. You think it shouldn't, while in reality it should. And not a founded argument in the world will sway your "uneducated opinion", because you think "it looks suspicious".

It's the problem with this sub in a nutshell; Most don't wonder if something is a conspiracy, they want it to be a conspiracy.

Asking questions is fine. Not believing experts because "it does not feel right" ids not.

Maybe, just MAYBE some people who are interested in conspiracies are also interested in facts.

I, for one, am not here to agree with everything posted. I am not alone. I find conspiracy theories to be intriguing and entertaining. Some of them really flesh out and have legs. Others are just silly. The post you are referencing is just someone saying "hey, one guy who may have been paid by "truthers" is obligated to the full truth of the matter". It's hardly worth a post.

I see in the comments, as usual, people talking about shills. But honestly, the kind of people who bite onto conspiracy theories as absolutely truth are shills way moreso than people who want the facts. If facts debunk a conspiracy theory, that's what the community should rally around. If facts PROVE a conspiracy theory, that's what the community should be about.

But a lot of shit posted here is baseless accusations, and I, as well as others, get called "shills" and are downvoted to shit for pointing that out. It's like a large part of community is less interested in the actual truth, and more interested in buying stock into shit that isn't, in any way, real.

It very well could be. I was just commenting on the overall attitude that a lot of people in this sub have. If you don't agree with a conspiracy theory, you're a "shill". That said, the comment in the OP has specific content that seems easily verifiable. I agree that someone making a claim should back it up, but sometimes a finger pointing in the right direction can be just as helpful.

No, but the idea that perhaps it was lobbied financially by an outside, biased group should be a google search away.

As for verifying it myself, I have no horse in the race. I think it would be major if someone proved that the building didn't collapse due to fire, but I've never seen evidence to suggest the contrary. For every engineer you find on camera talking about how it couldn't have fallen that way, there are 100 more saying otherwise.

So you're worried about conspiracy theorists being too skeptical. Interesting position.

Seems like you don't want any claims challenged. What's the point if everyone just nods and goes along with everything posted here?

Do you want a safe space or do you want earnest discussion?

Like, I don't know if this is an american thing, but what I see here is that people have too much faith that their government is honest, and that there's a threshold to what evil it can do. Plus, since Reddit got really politicized, there are people who still defend their favourite politicians, and that's also really unfitting for a conspiracy sub. I've seen people who legit think that ISIS are the real bad guys, I've even seen people defending Israel here like wtf, and even Pizzagate while a little bit absurd for the average person, shouldn't be seen with the bad eyes that it is seen here, considering how many child prostitution rings are out there that are discovered everyday.

At the end, I wouldn't call it "worrying", but "irritant" (don't know if this word really fits here), it's just that people accept what the government says as "facts" and just because of that think the theory is bullshit or something.

I dont buy in to the symbolism of pizzagate and neither do i get morally upset by the satanism some claim are connected, but the idea that the rich and powerful somehow are the only ones not having child porn rings are just as absurd. So we find then in all socioeconomic layers and all geographic areas except around politicians?

exactly, you can get as skeptical as you want, but the idea shouldn't be absurd like some try to paint here.

For a user named freethinker78 I'd except you would appreciate alternate viewpoints and counter arguments. Otherwise you wouldn't be free thinking, instead your info would solely be confirmation bias.

Welcome to reddit where it's 99% spooks. Have a nice stay.

I have not looked too much on the report, but is there any truth to these statements? It did seem like they went in to prove their assumptions rather than to figure out what happened.

It's possible to believe that conspiracies happen all of the time, without believing in all conspiracies. It's also possible, and probably a good thing, to look into claims to find out truth behind them. People here will say that others are just spoon fed by the Mainstream media, without any critical thinking. This is a bad thing of course, but it's also bad to be spoon fed by alternative media without any critical thinking.

In addition, there are active disinformation campaigns on the internet, particularly related to conspiracies that touch on truth. You will find that there are a number of people talking about those conspiracies, but with an altered detail here or there. Not all of those altered details can be true.

Right, that claim seems clearly false/misleading. I'm wondering about the others.

Also, keep supporting users who forum slide and attack users on made up points

This didn't happen. You're just cranky that they called you out for not knowing about something. Did they do it in a very kind way? Nah. But they didn't "make any points up" in that thread like you're claiming.

It very well could be. I was just commenting on the overall attitude that a lot of people in this sub have. If you don't agree with a conspiracy theory, you're a "shill". That said, the comment in the OP has specific content that seems easily verifiable. I agree that someone making a claim should back it up, but sometimes a finger pointing in the right direction can be just as helpful.

and my first uneducated thought is that a building probably would collapse in stages and not suddenly in a 10 second free fall like if it is a controlled demolition

And that is the crux of the issue. You think it shouldn't, while in reality it should. And not a founded argument in the world will sway your "uneducated opinion", because you think "it looks suspicious".

It's the problem with this sub in a nutshell; Most don't wonder if something is a conspiracy, they want it to be a conspiracy.

Why don't you just stop using "pyroclastic", and instead describe what it actually was?

Why not? That's the crux of the matter here. Why keep trying to shoehorn it into an inaccurate and obscure word? What's the reason?

The only conceivable reason is to mislead. To make it seem like something it is not.