i think the reason people post news stories here that aren't exactly applicable is because they want to see the reaction of this community first and foremost. but i agree, crossposting should be something that we as a community do more often.

Its because of the david ickes and alex jones of the world who exist to make us look bad.

Honestly it's not. They may not help but they certainly aren't the main problem. The main problem are posts like planes not hitting the pentagon or thermite bringing down buildings. Those stories aren't factually based and when they get posted on other subreddits that lack of fact gets called out. I'm not trying to be mean, the burden of proof is on you. That's often forgotten. /r/conspiracy are for conspiracies.

This is a great place for conspiracies /r/news /r/politics /r/worldnews isn't.

The main problem are posts like planes not hitting the pentagon or thermite bringing down buildings. Those stories aren't factually based and when they get posted on other subreddits that lack of fact gets called out.

The U.S. government has released two separate videos of the Pentagon attacks. Neither video shows a plane hitting the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg

Following Occam's razor that "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one" a rational person can only conclude that a 757 never stuck the Pentagon.

Since you also mentioned the thermite, here is the University study entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe:

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Here is solid evidence supporting the claims you disputed. May I ask what facts you are using to draw your conclusions? It sounds like you may be relying on the propaganda distributed via the corporate media to form your opinions since you have offered no facts to support your argument.

The U.S. government has released two separate videos of the Pentagon attacks. Neither video shows a plane hitting the Pentagon.

By that logic where is the video of the plane flying over the pentagon?

Since you also mentioned the thermite, here is the University study

It was a pay to publish journal. I could have bought "why farts are funny" into that journal. The editor quit when she found out it was published. It wasn't peer reviewed. Yet that's what you are sticking your faith in. I rest my case. There are 100s of papers published in peer reviewed journals that are respected across the world that have topics related to the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7. Why don't you trust those? Oh, that's right, it doesn't fit your narrative.

May I ask what facts you are using to draw your conclusions?

NIST reports, CIA, FBI evidence, countless investigative reporters, Frontline reports, Der speigal articles, wall street journal articles, the times, bbc, I could go one all night. What do you have?

sounds like you may be relying on the propaganda distributed via the corporate media to form your opinions since you have offered no facts to support your argument.

What facts do you need? Are there any that would change your mindset? I doubt it. No one ever responds to me with an answer, I doubt you'll be the first. As to my media sources you have to be joking if you don't think yours have an agenda. That would be seriously comical if you thought that.

Its not there duty to present you facts,that is YOUR job.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you wrote. Maybe you could fix that and I'll get back to you.

What part of do your own research do you not understand?

This is really lost on you isn't it. Are you drunk? Do you not read what you've written?

You still don't understand? what are you an imbecile? do I have to spell it out like for a 5 year old child?

so you're totally cool with statements like:

What part of do your own research do you not understand?

really? You find no flaw in that statement? How about

Its not there duty to present you facts,that is YOUR job.

That's perfectly clear to you? really? Seriously, it just makes you look silly. Didn't you have an English teacher at some point?

I see what you did there you troll

Someday you will discover punctuation and many people will start to understand what it is you are trying to convey.

If you are trying to prove something (e.g. a conspiracy theory), the burden of proof is on you.

You have to understand that there is a cat and mouse game, and there is allot of Disinformation, Missinformation, Conning and "Debunking" and its very easy for "flawed" articles to be injected into a theory in an effort to undermine it

IT is very important that you don't believe ANY article about a conspiracy theory and do your own research on the theories,Just because in the article the theory appears baseless doesn't mean it is

Ok. Just 2 things. 1st- that doesn't address the fact that if you are making a claim, especially one as fantastic as some of these theories, then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of the claim. It is not on me or others to try to debunk it. I could tell you right now that I have X-Ray vision, but it wouldn't be your job to prove my claim wrong, it would be my job to provide evidence of my claim.

2nd-

IT is very important that you don't believe ANY article about a conspiracy theory and do your own research on the theories,Just because in the article the theory appears baseless doesn't mean it is

If one is not supposed to believe anything they read about any conspiracy, why should they believe the articles with evidence supporting them? Is your determining factor for the articles to believe and the ones to ignore whether they support or oppose your theory? If it is important for me to not believe anything I read about a theory, then there is no point in doing my own research, because none of it can be believed.

If they aren't factual why are they reopening the investigation of 9/11? And NO the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and there was no evidence, PROVE to me that a Boeing passenger jet hit the Pentagon. Since even a master pilot that TRAINS pilots on THAT specific aircraft claims "I could not even pull it off, I tried a dozen times, and several experienced students tried without success. So the idea of some amateur that only trained in a prop plane is ridiculous!" Then the interviewer tried (who has logged several hundred hours in a prop plane) admitted he couldnt do it after several tries. Closest he got was 2 1/2 miles past the pentagon at the reported speed angle and trajectory. So go ahead and PROVE to me this hypothesis can be replicated to make it SCIENTIFIC PROOF!

Besides how do you fit a passenger plane with 2 MASSIVE turbines 2 long wings into ONE 16 foot hole?

Last, Conspiracy means: 1. a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act, esp with political motivation; plot 2. the act of making such plans in secret

So thinking that this is a /r/theories category is wrong.

PROVE to me a Boeing passenger aircraft struck the Pentagon!

Since even a master pilot that TRAINS pilots on THAT specific aircraft claims "I could not even pull it off, I tried a dozen times, and several experienced students tried without success. So the idea of some amateur that only trained in a prop plane is ridiculous!"

This is exactly what Fountainhead was referring to about facts. You did not list one fact in that last post. A skilled pilot saying he didn't think he could replicate what the hijackers 'did' is not proof or fact of anything other than the hijacker may have been a better pilot than the instructor after only a couple of lessons.

I agree that that sounds ridiculous but, you have to provide more than what you just did as it is most definitely not scientific or proof anything.

and 2 lessons in a prop driven airplane is NOT a single lesson in a turbine driven passenger jet. <-- just to add to your "ridiculous" argument. So far my statements and evidence WELL outweighs your... opinions, come on now. What you claim must be easy to prove, since you claim it to be FACT by your definition (and science) you must have some undeniable proof.

I agree that that sounds ridiculous but, you have to provide more than what you just did as it is most definitely not scientific or proof anything.

Is NOT a way to prove ANYTHING to me, unless being ridiculous IS your proof to me that a Boeing passenger jet struck the Pentagon. I am asking for what really struck it and a Boeing jet is one of the FARTHEST and most REMOTE possibility, so I ask YOU to PROVE your hypothesis to ME. However I completely agree with that nothing is true until proven I challenge you to PROVE what you claim which is a Boeing 747 with an amateur prop plane experience made an IMPOSSIBLE flying maneuver with an aircraft he NEVER flew before into a 16 foot hole in the Pentagon!! ... THAT is the correct story? right?

What, it's impossible for a plane to hit the Pentagon? Jews, this one goes deeper than we could ever have imagined.

... still not convinced it was a Boeing passenger jet at 500 mph

Darn tootin' brother, it was 750mph and the plane was full of jews, placed there by the superZionists.

but it cant be 750 mph... passenger aircrafts cant withstand the sound barrier. Besides no report of a sonic boom.

Think of it this way, same reason why no experienced pilot has been able to perform this flying maneuver in a simulator on that aircraft. Imagine passing your exit on the expressway traveling at 70mph, it requires you to get over (usually) to the right lane a mile before hand, now imagine that same situation at 600 mph, you'd have to be in the perfect lane 30 -40 miles before you even saw the building. Bear in mind this is NOT a stunt plane, turning these planes is no easy task ESPECIALLY at full throttle descending. Out of hundreds of simulations the closest any EXPERIENCED pilot could achieve was 1/2 mile BEFORE the Pentagon, because of the hill located on that trajectory, the second closest was 2 miles PAST. But here you claim a non experienced barely trained never practiced on this aircraft was able to pull it off flawlessly with only 1 try is just preposterous. So again I ask for your PROOF, that a Boeing passenger aircraft flew by a novice pilot traveling at 600(compromise with you) mph crashed into the most defended building on the planet and put 2 wings 2 engines a fuselage and a tail into a 16 foot hole PERFECTLY

Yeah nothin' to it bro, I used to be a pilot on the old MIG-22s, could fly one of those babies sideways through half a barn door. If I can do that, some son of a kraut can take out the Pentagon. I mean give them some credit.

give who some credit??? this "Al-CIA-da" amateur?? You better give me some credit before you give it to him, at least we talked. And I do not doubt you could fly a MIG-22 into the Pentagon. But do you really think you could hop into a Boeing passenger jet TODAY with no practice and maybe a video game to learn the controls but no simulation training, and pull off a maneuver that experts who fly those birds every day say they couldnt do? Are you really that pompous?

Another thing your not taking into account on this is the landscape. The trajectory that aircraft/missile took it had to avoid 2 buildings and a considerable hill and tall freeway overpass. Its not a simple "look building hit it" to start with it wasnt visible when the the course had to be set (auto pilot will NOT target the pentagon, so NO computer assistance) then you must avoid 2 buildings, then remain above the trees while accelerating then a fast drop over the hill maneuvering around the freeway with 2 overpasses and then keep it off the ground long enough to strike the building a few feet off the ground without scraping the dirt AFTER tucking the wings and tail and motors into the fuselage so they dont cause any damage other then the 16 foot hole.

R U serious you think you can do that??? facepalm

STILL waiting for your proof!!

Stop spreading disinformation you govt. agent liar lizard scumbag THE TRUTH WILL OUT

ummmm I am saying 9/11 was an inside job... guess your confused about the truth movement

I pretended to be a pilot at Manchester airport and got in the cockpit of a 747 and flew a transatlantic flight to the U.S. The company just asked me never to attempt it again as they weren't going to press charges as it would scare the public if they found out how easy it was to get in the cockpit. I did a few barrel rolls out in the ocean, I think thats when air traffic control found out I wasn't licensed as the stewardess got on the portable radio to them.

If they aren't factual why are they reopening the investigation of 9/11?

who is reopening the investigation?

there was no evidence

Statements like this are exactly the kind of crap that ruins any kind of credibility. People are just going to laugh and call you a kook.

PROVE to me that a Boeing passenger jet hit the Pentagon.

What proof do you want? Bodies? Check. Witnesses? Check. Physical evidence? Check. What exactly is going to convince you?

Last, Conspiracy means: 1. a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act, esp with political motivation; plot 2. the act of making such plans in secret

Ok, but I think we can all agree we are talking about conspiracy theories.

So thinking that this is a /r/theories category is wrong.

what?

PROVE to me a Boeing passenger aircraft struck the Pentagon!

Again, is there any proof that will convince you? Do you have that same evidence for your own beliefs?

sure explain to me this 16 foot hole and the engine HALF the size of a motor on a Boeing and the manufacturer of Boeing does not recognize this motor found in the Pentagon!

Or 1 of the COUNTLESS cameras that were pointed at the Pentagon. Because if ANY of those videos showed a Boeing Passenger aircraft it would NOT be a national security issue. It would be proof of THEIR claim, but here they are Secret Service CONFISCATING ALL video surveillance from surrounding buildings UNDER the National Security claim. And the 5 HD Cameras on THAT side of the Pentagon facing OUTWARD, also National Security... DOES IT NOT seem ODD to YOU that they have the EXACT evidence they need to PROVE their claims, but they cant show them .. because WHY???

.. the witness' have ALL been proven to be an employee of the Pentagon or a paid actor, so good luck with that (btw the guy in the Blue cap from the parking lot cannot be found by that name) the first one on the TV screaming "Bin Laden" was an actor from California with no excuse why he was there that day in that area (other then to look good on camera and start the propaganda train) What about ALL the witness' that said there were explosions, or do you only listen to the ACCEPTED witness'?

... or the dozen that said the first plane was BLACK and not a passenger plane at all? Again ONLY the accepted witness'? what about the guy who called his wife to let her know he got out from a payphone and she wasnt home so the answering machine recorded multiple explosions... AGAIN you like them ignore the evidence that doesn't conform with your theory that the government TOLD you to believe... way to think for yourself sheeple!

Or the special agent who's desk was TWENTY FOUR FEET from the explosion site, she was knocked to the floor as was her 2 year old baby, she picked up the baby and walked out THROUGH the (SIXTEEN FOOT DIAMETER) hole and saw NO (plane) WRECKAGE, she is sueing Chenney Rumsfeld and a few others. But with all that "jet fuel" she SHOULD be dead, right?

But you go ahead and believe the "We'll show you what it looks like... once it looks worse and after we plant evidence (plane wreckage) all around to try to solidify our story and completely fool the simple minded. (looks at Fountainhead)

What about the 5 witness' that said there was a chase plane that pulled up before the explosion, but it wasnt a plane that it was chasing. Nevermind them you have your PROFESSIONALLY paid witness' to believe, there is a few of them, and 10 TIMES as many of the others that tell different accounts. So you go ahead and believe your masters! As for me I have taken all available information and came to my own intelligent conclusion and that is that no matter what happened the "official story" is ABSOLUTELY impossible!

Honestly I'm not sure how to respond to you.

Let me start by asking you to pick one item, in your list, as your most fundamental argument, and I'll be happy to discuss that one item. Whatever you want. I'll be happy to discuss that with you. I'll be disappointed if you don't.

Secondly please read what you wrote.

I hope to see a reply.

I re edited it so its easier to follow and respond. YOU pick I would prefer you not focus too much on 1 topic and ignore the rest. Like in anything if you stand too close you cant see the picture. So no I would prefer to discuss them all since they all revolve around the same event, I will not take the easiest lie to believe to make the impossible lies more feasible. Check all the events of that day and you will at least wonder why so much doesnt make sense. THEN try to form the most probable conclusion .. and a few terrorists pulling this off will be the most unlikely of them all. Yet we have killed 1.4 MILLION Afghanistan people. And not 1 terrorist. In fact most people in Guantanamo are people who the taliban got paid cash for capturing people most were just farmers. But if your getting paid who cares, right?

OK, big picture? Why are there no credible news agencies or reporters or journalists or investigators or engineers that have found anything that 911 truth is claiming as true?

or is that too big picture? Are they all in on it? And please don't respond with AE911truth, it just makes you look ill informed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTIFmcE8ZjY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0&amp;feature=player_embedded

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/index.html#/v/4636976/freedom-watch/?playlist_id=157991

Is there supposed to be something here beside commercials?

depends how long your attention span is... since you havent watched anything I posted long enough to form an intelligent opinion probably not

Since you can't list anything I'll assume it's nothing.

what?? you asked if there was anything but comercials.. and if this is the other thread I will just say you cant prove a plane crashed into the pentagon so therefore you dont know what your talking about

And if this is so true about the Pentagon why did your friend Bush have his other friend be the judge for Gallop's lawsuit... maybe its not so easy to hide a lie in a court of law if your friend isnt the judge http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/bush-cousin-is-judge-in-explosive-911-case/#more-15487

is it getting that hard to hide the truth you have to make sure the courts are rigged even?? Well guess you'll be happy, btw how did this woman survive a few THOUSAND gallons of jet fuel only 24 feet away to even start this kangaroo court lawsuit that they cant win unless his cousin is in charge???

Doesnt it sound strange that its such an easy case (according to you (that CAN NOT prove to me a plane)) why would they NEED to stack the deck?? doent this sound strange to you??? if not your paid too well to spread lies!

and a correct assumption is you are too stupid to take facts and form an intelligent thought without asking your government what to think, and that will be the limit to your life, you will forever remain a fool and when the truth comes out mainstream we will look out you sock puppets and see what your involvement is and be prosecuted for such traitorous behavior! Several REAL Presidents have asked us to do what I am doing, but only the liars pay you for your deeds.

yes when the truth smacks you it can hurt... your boys cant win a fair legal fight... the COWARDS you are believing are BACKSTABBERS they will shoot you in the face if they had the chance. This is a special agent in the army they are SHITTING on, they care even less about you!! You are an end to a means. them controlling you and your mind are, for now, their utopia. Their holy land is when they can chemically lobotomize you and screw you in the ass while using you as an ashtray is their goal... Me they will kill me quick so I dont try to save (you) their sheeple, that are all prepared to be lead to slaughter.

Think about it... JFK ... last week Oswald exonerated

Detriot news reports... Underwear bomber -CIA job then CIA admits

not sure who caught them, but Christmas tree bomber, CIA admits

Twin towers 95 (I think, I'm sick :-P) CIA admits to being involved (taped)

Wikileaks... FBI had forewarning of bombing, ZERO Agents inside building, daycare full

Gulf of Tonkin, USS Maine, ... can you NOT SEE? Now Bush's first cousin is judging a woman who is accusing him of a CRIME!

PLEASE TELL ME THIS MAKES YOU WONDER!! if it doesnt you should sign up for that lobotomy will help you in so many areas of life.

You are COINTELPRO sent to discredit honest conspiracy theory believers.

Go back to your COINTELPRO handlers. The code word is Pave Low.

points at fountainhead

Secondly I dont post theories, only conspiracies. I want the sock puppets washed and hung out on the line also!

V

You are an inside job.

Now nanothermite, and faster than free-fall scalar weapons United States Postal Service C4. David-Wynn:Miller mathematical interface plastic steel and pipeline from China to Crawford Ranch.

Never mind the furthermore, the plea is self-defense.

no reason for defense, 9/11 was an inside job, period! It was to get the partiot act so they could continue to destroy the constitution and stealing freedom from the globe. The Bilderberg group are the true terrorists.

So wth are you ranting about? Other then proving you cant read well enough to tell who is on which side. Unless your feeling bad for spreading lies, if so HUGS cross over to the truth!

ZILCH!

I love flowers I'd love to have this whole place swimming in roses

This is the very first photo taken of the "impact" site of the Pentagon .. yes it has been verified and enter into evidence during the 9/11 commission and was explained away by "wings folded forward (or backward BOTH are preposterous) INTO the hole causing there to be no further visible damage to the building" facepalm I am not even going to attack this, I'll just sigh and imagine you going, "well sure why not?"

Read Top Secret Military Specialist April Gallop's Complaint it explains a LOT. If there was a witness to believe would you TRY one that was there and is so confident in what happened that she is going to court for it April 5th!

A section from the court records (credible enough for you??):

III. The Attack on the Pentagon.

       33.  At the Pentagon, the plaintiff was at her desk, with her baby, in her office on the first floor, 

when large explosions occurred, walls crumbled and the ceiling fell in. Although her desk is just some forty feet from the supposed impact point, and she went out through the blown-open front of the building afterwards, she never saw any sign that an airliner crashed through. If Flight 77, or a substitute, did swoop low over the building, to create the false impression of a suicide attack, it was then flown away by its pilot, or remote control, and apparently crashed someplace else. At the building, inside or outside of the wall the plane supposedly hit, there was no wreckage, no airplane fragments, no engines, no seats, no luggage, no fuselage sections with rows of windows, and especially, no blazing quantities of burning jet fuel. The interior walls and ceilings and contents in that area were destroyed, but there was no sign of a crashed airplane. A number of those present inside the building and out have attested to this fact in published reports.

       34.  Instead, just when plaintiff turned on her computer — for an urgent document-clearing job she 

was directed by her supervisor to rush and begin, as soon as she arrived at work, without dropping her baby off at child care until she was finished — a huge explosion occurred, and at least one more that she heard and felt, and flames shot out of the computer. Walls crumbled, the ceiling fell in, and she was knocked unconscious. When she came to, terrified and in pain, she found the baby close by, picked him up, and, with other survivors caught in the area, made her way through rubble, smoke and dust towards daylight, which was showing through an open space that now gaped in the outside wall. When she reached the outside she collapsed on the grass; only to wake up in a hospital some time later.

This is the very first photo taken of the "impact" site of the Pentagon

Seriously? You are really trying to say that's the first photo? I'm not sure how to respond. You really think that?

uhhhh dumbass its not ME that believes that picture... its CERTIFIED EVIDENCE the 9/11 commission enter into record. Look for yourself, are you seriously that stupid to NOT believe the ONLY source you believe about events on that day THEY entered that photo INTO evidence just to fuck with me to fuck with you??!?!! Want the link again?? since if you looked at it for HALF a second you would have seen ALL the information that certifies that UNBELIEVABLE photo is FACT and was used as such by the "people" your stupid ass believes over science!

And I am sure there were other photos taken earlier by the special ops watching the whole operation unfold according to plan. But those photo's would only confirm the INSIDE JOB fact. So this would be the EARLIEST photo taken that has been entered into evidence as the "earliest on" photo available to the All Knowing 9/11 bureaucrats that you bow to.

But arguing with you any farther on this thread will be a waste of my time, because no one is going to "continue thread" this far so continuing this debate with you will just not wake any others up to the truth. So catch you maybe on some other one where I can continue to make people listen to your arguments and decide you say nothing where I offer possible feasible explanations for events.. who is more convincing "you stupid your dumb makes no sense proves nothing. Or actual links and information... Sorry you are losing the info war, but its the ancient problem the truth fears no lie. But every lie falls to the truth. But keep up the good work, we cant spread the truth without you. ;-)

its CERTIFIED EVIDENCE the 9/11 commission enter into record.

Yes, I know that, but it's not the very first photo taken of the impact site. For example here are a few:

http://www.apfn.org/images/debris-77.jpg

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/pentagon_still_impact.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/p1010015.jpg

If you can't even back up your statement that

This is the very first photo taken of the "impact" site of the Pentagon

Where is that even claimed?

and she went out through the blown-open front of the building afterwards, she never saw any sign that an airliner crashed through

therefore the pic I showed was before they added plane fragments that should not have left the interior of the building ... thats called inertia for morons. Twin towers the flames went out through the other side of the buildings yet your second pic shows a clear OUTWARD explosion (way to go with parking security camera footage that shows NO PLANE!! Try again to demonstrate this plane

Here, I just found this as far as the Thermite issue: and ..pretty much everything else about the towers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTIFmcE8ZjY&amp;feature=related

Another lame 9/11 video that will make all unbelievers look like quacks.

"Random fires and random damage from plane impacts can only cause random failure not symmetrical failures"

That's some pretty flawed logic there. Random is random and you cannot predict something that is truly random. Therefore, random fires will damage randomly which can include symmetrical fires.

So there are some really good videos out there where no one looks like a quack?

Random is random and you cannot predict something that is truly random. Therefore, random fires will damage randomly which can include symmetrical fires.

I had to stop and re-read this. This sounds like the "tide goes in, tide goes out" theory of "you can't explain that".

"Random" is a loaded word that is often used without sufficient knowledge of its implications. "Truly random" is even worse in the context of what you wrote because you are unwittingly admitting that you don't understand physical abstractions like entropy. Which is fine. I'm not trying to hate, it's not exactly 'common knowledge'. I'm just sayin, when you start talking about 'symmetrical fires', you are entering the realm of physics. Speculation here will get shat on if not properly defended.

You ended your post with the claim that "random fires will damage randomly which can include symmetrical fires.". Okay then, here's your chance to prove it (I'll even explain how): Take a piece of paper. Take a match or lighter. Light one end of the paper. - If the fire burns in a straight line through the paper all the way to the opposite side from where you lit it, effectively cutting the paper in half (so that you are left with two pieces of paper of roughly equal size/weight), then you have just shown that "random fires can include symmetrical fires" once. Let's call that a 'symmetrical fire'. - If the fire burns the paper in anything but a straight line, then the results of the experiment have refuted your claim, once. Let's call that a (real) 'random fire'. - For extra science points, you can keep score of how many times you get results that defend or refute your claim. Try as many times as you'd like; if you got 1 symmetrical fire for 1000 random fires, I would still be fucking astonished.

I understand and see your point but, I don't have the time to do it 100,000 times (or more) to see if I can.

Also, a building is not like a piece of paper. There are items that are very combustible and items not so easily so.

flawed??? its the LAW of PROBABILITY, Perhaps you've heard of it?? IF not you have no business PRETENDING to understand any part of this and stick to cartoons of the event. /r/conspiracy is for adults with at least an 8th grade level.

Hundreds of Random variables to bring down those buildings. But your logic required them ALL to land heads up on THREE different buildings ALL with varying damage all fell .. NON-random .. hmmm and your calling something flawed?

p.s. "quack!"

/r/conspiracy is for adults with at least an 8th grade level.

Could you at least construct sentences and use grammar/punctuation at that level?

Yes, I agree.

On a side note, how does one crosspost?

Just post it again in a different sub-Reddit.

From someone who's been doing a little lurking in r/conspiracy for a while, the problem I have with it is that a good chunk of what's posted is batshit insane.

A lot of it comes across like the people who are posting seem to think they're the fucking messiah; that they have a monopoly on critical thinking, and that all of us sheeple are unworthy morons for thinking that the world is maybe just plain old fucked up. So, for the most part I come here for entertainment.

Ditto, I share your sentiments. This subreddit is very entertaining and really, it's the zany ideas I come here for.

One thing I've noticed is that some poor people ascribe to the philosophy that any and every event must have happened for a human reason. So anything bad that has happened is a deliberate act.

• Earthquake in Japan? HAARP.
• WTC towers fell down? Controlled demolition.
• Stubbed my toe? Government agent.

No, nothing could be an accident, ever. It's really sad to see some of these people abandon any semblance of logic in order to fit everything into a neat nice tidy worldview. I like what Terence McKenna said about conspiracies:

I believe that the truth of the matter is far more terrifying, that the real truth that dare not speak itself is that no one is in control, absolutely no one. This stuff is ruled by the equations of dynamics and chaos. There may be entities seeking control, but to seek control is to take enormous aggravation upon yourself. It's like trying to control a dream.

Yes, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. About a week ago 7 (seven!) swans turned up dead near where I live. So on some conspiracy website (or possibly some murmur here, I'm not sure) it's more evidence of the coming HAARPtilian-NWO-chem trail-Apocalypse.

I can't say I know who Terrence McKenna is but I love the quote!

Most of what isposted here isn't "informed", it is wild speculation that has no hard evidence to support it... not that I don't enjoy it.

this community has 31000 members, its not that small :)

I was going to cross post this in/ r/apathy, but... Meh.

The balance of up votes is 345 points up currently for the post "THE NEW Remember Building 7 Television Ad.(If anything deserves to go virile, this dose!)" I would say that is productive.

yes, you should go to /r/politics and share some actual facts with them.. wouldn't that be interesting.

You are witnessing the strategic dumbing down of the populace, where fact is relegated to conspiracy. It's working very well, but in the end it's just a part of the diversion.

What we really need to do is to meet in person IRL. There would be some crazies, no doubt, but there might be 1 or 2 sane people too. We need to move beyond the internet and organize.

r/circlejerk

IT IS A CONSPIRACY!!! REDDITS IS THE NEW WORLD ORDER!!! ALL REAL NEWS ARE HIDDEN HERE!!! TELL EVERYONE!!!