The bees owner dislikes asking question. Also weird alliance with dwire
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (68)
sorted by:
Am I biased, or is there far more evidence in favor of "Bush did 9/11" than "we never landed on the moon?" That seems like one of the typical well-poisoning conspiracies to make everything tangential to it look bad.
poisoning the well is a Jewish tradition
Poisoning a well is a war crime.
They always use that kind of overly specific weasel shit like "George W Bush orchestrated 9/11" because nobody watching Dubya freeze up reading to kids thinks he was personally the mastermind.
But either "was an inside job" or "was allowed to happen" is very likely true, and I'd say with former CIA director George H. W. Bush or Cheney involved in some way.
It was Mossad IMO
9/11 being allowed to happen makes the most sense. "Never let a tragedy go to waste" is how they work, so they love it when one gets handed to them.
It gets worse. The original boering quote was also saying if you qnsed dropping the atomic bombs you hated America.
Do you want to retry that? Do you mean "opposed dropping the bomb"?
No. Questioned. Was typing on phone and i used an abbreviation
that's how they make normies side-eye any genuine conspiracy theories, by sending in shills that kvetch about moon landing or say earth is flat
This excuse is boring copium, it's not just one or two moonbats crowing about this stuff it's a fuck load of people and it's all over the right.
This is a prime example of how it's done. They point to a few weirdos, probably just plants too and pretend they represent all of their opposition.
lmao look at literally every response I got in this thread from others. For an 'ultra fringe meaningless hyper-minority' or whatever you're trying to imply, how is it they just "happen" to all be in this thread?
You people are utterly insane. I called out in my first post here that every single time, conspiracy theorists turn into absolute unhinged psychotics when you question them, and sure enough, I have:
Not one single person is even trying to defend conspiracy theory. Because they CAN'T any more than someone in a cult can defend their weird relationship with some kind Jim Jones Dear Leader. It's a visceral emotional attachment, not a logical one, and emotional positions can only be argued with emotional arguments... like "stfu fag".
You're lying, and we both know it.
None of you even are critical enough thinkers to wonder why it is that Reddit still allows conspiracy theory subs and why Google allows conspiracy theory searches and videos on Youtube. Like it seriously never occurred to any of you to ask that.
Yawn. You're too retarded to even to realize that a Kafka trap won't work here. Fuck off, you retarded faggot.
You literally work minimum wage, lmao.
No, it’s really not. Cherry-picking strawmans isn’t gonna make you look less retarded
You won't list the conspiracies you believe, you wait for someone to name them, so you can pull out this jewish pilpul non-argument and you just selectively deny 'oh nobody believes that'.
Funny how if I go through the list you'll just claim nobody believes any conspiracies at all.
Meanwhile you colossally stupid fuckers think Sandy Hook was staged to 'TERK MAH GERNS' yet they waited until after Democrats lost control of congress and somehow didn't think to get Republicans on board to do it, so nothing happened.
LMAO and you didn't even think of that. You just believe that shit without question.
I think the most accurate statement is, "Bush was complicit in 9/11". It was, IMO, almost certainly orchestrated by the alphabet agencies who consider themselves to be above the law.
There's nothing weird about those two media outlets being aligned. It's entirely expected.
Weird alliance? They're both jews.
if your narrative can't survive questioning, it might just be false.
Conspiracy theories never stand up to questions either. In fact the visceral reaction from them is worse than any reaction you get from "questioning" the "official narrative".
Rejecting an existing conclusion is not rejecting critical thinking. it is in fact the opposite.
even if a conclusion is obvious, such as "the sky is blue on a sunny day", taking that assertion without thinking about it is the absence of critical thinking. questioning why the sky is blue, or if the sky is really blue, is an exercise of critical thinking.
Is there a single 'official narrative' that you believe over any "mainstream" conspiracy theory (ie: no, you don't get to bring out Flat Earth)?
How is it that every single event that has a conspiracy theory tied to it, the conspiracy theory is always pretty much identical in belief amongst all conspiracy theorists? How is that different from any "existing conclusion"? Every single mass shooting is literally called a 'false flag' before a single name is released, is it not?
who said anything about conspiracy theories? I'm talking about critical thinking.
in my view, critical thinking is the act of thinking intently about a subject and questioning it.
the Cambridge dictionary defines critical thinking as "the process of thinking carefully about a subject or idea, without allowing feelings or opinions to affect you"
Merriam-Webster defines critical thinking as "the act or practice of thinking critically (as by applying reason and questioning assumptions) in order to solve problems, evaluate information, discern biases, etc"
The exchange posted here is essentially saying that proposing conclusions that differ from the mainstream is a "rejection of critical thinking", which is patently untrue. Blindly accepting or rejecting any conclusion wholesale, true or false, is a rejection of critical thinking.
I agree with you but I also think there's a lot unsaid in what is just a short tweet and since they brought up moon landing hoaxers I am assuming they are coming from where I am.
Yes, conspiracies exist, but it's obviously a red flag that people who fall for conspiracy theories typically believe pretty much all conspiracy theories.
Moon landing hoax is one of the most intellectually void positions in the conspiracy world (Pentagon Missile Theory is by far #1... Well it was until "SPAES LAZORS AND BLOO ROOFS") and it's fascinating how (as I detailed in another post here) that they do things like cite the Van Allen belts as a reason we can't get to the moon yet literally the only reason they think they know about the belts is because the very agencies tasked with dealing with them are also the only source for their existence.
I know a shit ton about most all conspiracy theories and I reject most of them upon review, and a big part of that is because of "one level deep thinking".
Like if you find a spent 9mm case on the street next to a dark stain... The conspiracy mindset is to say "someone was murdered!" and cling to it. Well okay, did anyone test the stain to see if it's blood or oil? How long was that brass lying there? Was there a camera aimed at that spot and if so did anyone try to get the footage?
That's critical thinking and all I ever see from the CT crowd is they just repeat shit from Bitchute videos, videos that are carefully created to sell a narrative.
In fact conspiracy material is usually so engineered and so poorly sourced, if there's one conspiracy theory I believe, it's that 90% of conspiracy content is inorganic, potentially government produced propaganda.
If you know about MKULTRA, Mockingbird, psyops, etc. there's good reason to believe this shit is seeded intentionally to manipulate a demographic who the government likely feels is a threat (anti-government gun-owning conservatives). None of this conspiracy shit targets the left and nobody ever asks why... Conspiracy Theory™ has successfully made hundreds of thousands of dissidents functionally convinced that the government is essentially a god with borderline supernatural omnipotent power to execute any plan and carry out any evil without ever once slipping up.
And if you're mad at a god, what can you actually do? Nothing, really... So the CT crowd just imprisons themselves online in a way that discredits themselves, they do nothing but complain, yet keep paying taxes and never resist because "muh feds".
Of all the conspiracies they ponder, what I just wrote has never been one. Which is strange to say the least.
bruh, you're reading way too much into a 2-sentence tweet. My point is that he fundamentally misrepresents what critical thinking is. I have nothing to say about the mirror of certain conspiracy theories because they are not relevant here.
If you simply accept conclusions without doing your own investigation into it, then you have never "critically thought about it." You can come to agree with the accepted mainstream narrative while still going through the evidence to confirm it for yourself.
That's why they hate people "asking questions." Because it reveals they never actually did think about these things, they just swallowed what they were told and let it go on from there. Which in a lot of cases is fine. You don't have time to delve into every fucking wild story and event out there. But then, if you don't do so maybe don't fucking involve yourself in discussions surrounding it or try to "debunk" people spouting wild shit against it.
"Conspiracy theorists" as they are rarely have critically thought about what they are espousing, they are just parroting what some talking head told them and it fed into their paranoia, contrarianism, and hatred of the government. That should make it super fucking easy to prove them wrong, but, as they people did the same damn thing, they end up getting rolled by them.
Double so because the so called "conspiracy theorists" usually have a point about something being fucky or an outright lie with a story, even if their details get wild.
This is nonsense. Look at the replies I got in this thread. Conspiracy theorists have absolutely zero tolerance for anyone questioning their shit, and I know exactly why, it's because of what you said here:
The bottom line is that conspiracy theory is for stupid people what porn is for lonely people. Stupid people love conspiracy theory, because it makes them feel really smart. They get to pretend they're a badass like Jason Bourne fighting against a trillion dollar intelligence apparatus. "Look at me, I broke the code, they can't stop me!"
When you question conspiracy theorists on their beliefs, this is a problem... because (like you said) they don't actually know anything, that means they do not know how to respond.
If conspiracy theory was logical then any resistance should have a logical response. But it's not logical, it's emotional. So you get emotional responses.
If a conspiracy theorist were to be backed in a corner, they'd basically have to admit they're stupid/gullible/wrong. Three things people would rather literally die than ever admit about themselves. So they do exactly what you see in this thread... they get furiously angry, they lash out in hatred, they scream until you leave and then they declare victory.
They will never respond to an argument. Ever. And they never have to me. Ever. Not in any thread, anywhere on this entire board, in 4+ years. I've seen this pattern of shitty behavior everywhere conspiracy theorist scumbags infest, for literally twenty fucking years.
The other defense mechanism they use basically is just outright denialism. If you point out a flaw in a conspiracy theory, they say "nobody believes that" even though they all fucking believe it. If you show them something they ignored/overlooked, they will tell you it isn't real.
These are not smart people. They aren't honest people, either. If conspiracy theory was about 'asking questions' they should welcome arguments, since in theory, it should help refine the theory down to the real facts. Instead they just believe whatever is put in front of them.
Dude, you sound like one of those midwit atheists. I guess your username gives it away.
Well duh, you aren't going to convince a paranoid or mentally ill nutcase. An argument is the literal worst way to convince someone out of their deeply held conviction, because, as you said, most people would rather die than admit wrong.
You are proving him wrong for everyone else watching. You are making his ideas not make sense in front of everybody to dismantle their ability to spread and grow.
You can't make dumb/bad/evil people just stop existing, they will always crop up naturally on their own. And the inherent nonsense of the universe means they will always have a conspiracy to organically grow with them too. Trying to kill the source when it comes from human nature makes you look like a retard more obsessed with feeling "right" and "winning" than actually accomplishing anything.
Your points are mostly valid, if filled with fart huffing self masturbation, but that's why you don't engage with the dumb notion of somehow "bringing them to the light."
Smug assholes getting angry when other people question a generally accepted narrative that the assholes have taken for granted.
As someone who regularly questions gay conspiracy theories, you people are infinitely more shitty and angry. No question.
I can't even get Sandy Hook Truthers to own up as to why Dear Wolfgang has a certain incredibly obvious, wildly blatant lie about how much ammo Adam Lanza had on him. And it's not a "misspeaking" error, it's what can only be described as pure fabrication.
Conspiracy theorists will find 1% of 1% of something that seems weird and build a conspiracy around it, but their theories will be like 40% fabrications and they just fucking ignore it. I can't even tell you how many times I've seen that meme posted about the Vegas shooting that says Paddock "removed" the "hurricane proof glass" (which isn't even a thing) and they leverage that into making people go "woah hold up, how did he do that???" They ignore that the glass was clearly smashed apart from multiple photos inside and out, and inside the hotel room was clearly visible a mallet or splitting maul he used to do the deed.
They just lie like that. And nobody can tell me why.
Like goddamn tell me what a BB-18 fuse holder is. Can you? Because it's central to many 9/11 troofer arguments.
TL;dr
Thus, you completely prove my point. You're universally shitty people. You only read it enough to realize it's not going to suck your dick so you only muster up a faggoty pithy dismissal response.
Uh huh, sure, but you totally are a critical thinker when you couldn't handle a couple hundred words.
You're just a low-IQ asshole who can't handle anyone questioning your general accepted narrative.
I'm sure what shit response you have next is definitely not a second predictably pithy dismissal. Get back in your truck and deliver my Amazon packages you minimum wage fag.
Holy fuck, you really need attention. Which is it? Mommy issues or daddy issues? Maybe both.
Sorry I’m still not reading it
Or maybe "conspiracy theory" is just a lazy thought-terminating cliche meant to lump lots of wildly different ideas together while pretending to be a critical thinker.
If you can't address the best version of a given "conspiracy theory" without demanding that your interlocutor address the dumbest versions of said theory, despite the fact that they've never supported those aforementioned dumb versions, then you're arguing in bad faith.
For example, someone pointing out telltale indications of thermite usage in the WTC doesn't need to address some retarded argument about Richard Nixon having TNT installed during the construction because that's not the argument they're making.
Because it doesn't exist. The second you point out any flaw they will >literally< lie to your face and tell you 'nobody believes that'.
What they believe is completely amorphous and undefinable. It's one thing that's convenient, until pushback occurs, then it's something else, and then something else. Trying to cling to the 'best version' is like grasping a jelly-like slime.
Well first, should I ask about the "cut column" before you deny anyone ever believed it? Because AE911 was obsessed with that column until it was revealed they basically hid exculpatory evidence it was cut by ground crews.
As for the "nanothermite" study, there's a wealth of evidence that it wasn't nanothermite, but a type of primer on the steel (which likely explains why they so easily found it, while not finding the reacted thermite which should've been in far greater quantities).
https://www.rajce.idnes.cz/bobule100/album/li1epoxid#LI1_16epi_04.jpg
This guy functionally replicated the results by mimicking the formulation of the steel primer, even resolving iron microspheres, and finding a duplicable spectrographic analysis. The issue of the MEK is also explained because bonded epoxies are functionally immune to MEK.
The problem is many conspiracies open up more questions that have a very obvious lack of any attempt to answer. If you want to build a fully-fledged theory, fine. But no matter what, things like 'official narratives' offer complete pictures, while conspiracy theories rarely ever do.
Thermite usage has a lot of questions involving how it actually was used, how it was placed, how much of it would've been used, when it was installed, etc. "Just" thermite isn't used in demolition projects for a reason, it just burns straight down, and it's very inefficient requiring a huge amount of thermite to burn remarkably little material, and it burns very fast.
Are you ruling out the possibility that maybe the "nanothermite" wasn't what they thought it was? Even in light of a lack of collaborating evidence that should exist if thermite were used?
It's only amorphous because the very label of "conspiracy theory" is amorphous. Much like the istaphobe labels, it lumps together so many wildly divergent ideas and then provides opportunities for gotchas based on conflating different groups of people.
Sure, you can poke holes in any "conspiracy theory," but you're assuming from the get-go that holes in the official account necessarily have mundane explanation. This accusation of unfalsifiability goes both ways.
As for the thermite point, what makes me raise an eyebrow is that there was never a proper forensic investigation of the rubble made in the first place, the vast majority of it was immediately shipped off to China to be melted down. So that's already very suspicious, you'd think that our government would be very interested in thoroughly investigating what happens when an airplane crash allegedly causes structural failure in a skyscraper. That kind of knowledge would be very useful for national security purposes, after all.
Moreover, there's glowing yellow-orange liquefied metal pouring out the side of the towers. And aluminum melts prior to glowing orange, and immediately turns back to its silver-grey color once it's removed from the source of heat. Yet the molten metal pouring out of the towers retained its orange glow all the way down, and in contrast to aluminum, iron and steel glow orange prior to melting.
That, btw, is what the "kerosene doesn't melt steel memes" point was about. Everyone knows that kerosene can burn hot enough to soften steel, but deboonkers always ackshually this meme to evade the point being made.
To be sure, maybe there was something else that melted from the kerosene, I'm open to being proven wrong, but I'm not sure if you can say the same.
Also, do you have anything to say about the team of engineering professors and researchers who spent years extensively modeling the Building 7 collapse and found the official narrative to be bunk?
They're in a similar position as the guys you're talking about who did those experiments purportedly refuting the thermite claims, in that they're left to try to simulate what happened in lieu of being able to conduct a proper forensic investigation.
If you have no questions about 9/11 you're quite literally retarded. Here's a 5 minute primer: https://odysee.com/@deehinja:5/Corbett911:5
Here's a question - what if someone got in and declassified everything, and yes, it turns out the government did it all. Pentagon missile, C4 in bldg 7, all to take part in Larry Shekelstein's insurance fraud.
What's the next step? Like literally what do you think will happen?
I mean, congress itself broke the Gulf of Tonkin false flag, and it didn't matter whatsoever.
"The truth doesn't matter if it can't be directly acted upon."
Nice. What was your mom's religion again?
How is it that you "critical thinkers" never once wondered why /r/conspiracy is still on Reddit, and Google/Youtube still has conspiracy theory content all over it?
Funny how everything is a fiendish plot, except anything you believe. Then it's definitely organic, even though you can't even tell us who created most of the conspiracy videos you've watched.
One of the most tiresome strawmen of "conspiracy theories" is that it requires everyone involved to be a perfect Machiavellian mastermind with absolute control over everything.
As if powerful institutions never lie, cover up atrocities from the public, assassinate inconvenient people, etc. Nevermind that only a rank amateur thinks that consent manufacturing is done by meticulously controlling every single interaction at the most granular level, which even North Korea can't do.
The fact that you poison the well against your notion of a "conspiracy theory" by reasoning a priori that conspiracies only work when they're perfectly airtight, even as you yourself admit that if indisputable proof of 9/11 being an inside job ever came to light there isn't jack shit that ordinary people could do about it, shows that you're every bit as close-minded and driven by an ax to grind as the people you hate.
You don't need to perfectly micromanage the flow of information when most people (at least until recently) don't bother to look up easily verifiable information that contradictions MSM narratives. How many retards believe that it's a totally normal everyday occurrence for cops to shoot unarmed, nonviolent black people, because they never bothered to read some fucking stats?
It's easy enough to fool people by poisoning the well against dissenters, since people such as yourself have already decided a priori that conspiracies are impossible according to a ridiculous standard of evidence. And if you had grown up in a country like Russia, you'd be calling anyone who raises an eyebrow against Russian dissidents mysteriously falling out of windows a conspiracy theorist, because the term is just a way to make anyone wanting to feel like a respectable, educated person so terrified of being associated with tinfoil crazies that they shut up and operate within the Overton Window.
You are making my point for me here to the extent that I'm losing sight of what your point is. Because, how do we know everything you just said actually happened? Because they fucked it up. Someone spilled the beans. Someone left the wrong document somewhere. Something went wrong. A cursory investigation opened up a can of worms. Actual evidence was left behind.
What do conspiracy theories (not conspiracy facts) all have in common? Nothing has ever gone wrong. Nobody has ever leaked. Not a single stray piece of material was left out of place. Even conspiracies involving THOUSANDS of people who 100% would've known they were involved with something after the plot (like lmao how many people would've been told to strap Loony Toons dynamite bundles to the WTC on 9/10 but then went 'oh that had nothing to do with me' on 9/11?) all magically just stay completely mum for decades and decades.
The number of conspiracy theories that have become conspiracy fact is almost zero, despite what they like to claim. Many "conspiracy theories" they take credit for were never actual theories at the time (Iraq WMDs), and a bunch of them (like Gulf of Tonkin) was broken by CONGRESS.
I literally just judge conspiracy theories by the exact same standard of proof any conspiracy theorist uses to "doubt" the official narrative. How the hell is that in any way wrong?
If conspiracy theorists don't need any actual reason to think any given mass shooting was a 'false flag' (need I remind you, go to ANY thread on a breaking news mass shooting on this entire website and the first comments are literally all claiming 'fed'), or even something like that crazy nutjob who drove his truck into DC and threw money everywhere (was also declared a fed plot with literally no reason to think so), why should I need a "reason" to doubt a conspiracy?
But I don't even sink to the disgusting depths of sewage CTs love to sink to on that point. I at least ascribe the same rational 'doubts' they do.
But when it comes to the official story versus conspiracy theory, guess what, there's only one group that isn't willing to engage at all. And no, it's not "believers". We know it's not "believers" because probably thousands of websites exist where people who believe the official narrative spend enormous amounts of time debunking CT claims.
What do CTs do?
They literally just shout 'faggot kill yourself'.
You're once again attacking a strawman, Idk any "conspiracy theorist" who believes that any conspiracy is perfectly airtight. All you're doing is, again, poisoning the well against alternatives to mainstream accounts, by setting an impossible damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't question-begging standard of evidence.
If evidence leaks, it wasn't a "real conspiracy," and if it doesn't leak, you have no proof.
Keeping thousands of people from talking isn't the monumental task you think it is. Organized crime syndicates wouldn't exist if it was impossible to keep thousands of people from talking, and these syndicates are experts at leaving behind no concrete proof of their guilt even as circumstantial evidence makes it obvious what happened. There's that whole thing about how sometimes you know something you can't prove, like what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.
And it's even worse when you're talking about a government with control over the media. Any 9/11 whistleblower would be dismissed as crazy or a liar by people like you, any documents they produced would be dismissed as fabricated, everything they said would be nitpicked, and if they mysteriously wound up suicided it would be yet another "conspiracy theory" to say that probably wasn't a suicide.
There was a time when the Italian mafia's very existence was dismissed as an urban legend rooted in anti-Italian prejudice, mob-connected union leaders even managed to get the FBI to stop using the word "mafia" for a moment because it was allegedly derogatory towards Italians. Back then "urban legend" had a very similar connotation to "conspiracy theory."
People in Western countries didn't by and large believe the reports of Nazi and Soviet atrocities until way, way later, or at least thought that such reports were wildly exaggerated. The existence of Unit 731 was officially denied in Japan for decades because the US classified the evidence proving it happened, as part of a deal to get Japanese scientists to help us research bioweapons. Only when some Japanese journalists managed to get that info declassified did it come to light, and most of the people involved in Unit 731 were dead by then.
Nevermind Epstein and his island being dismissed as a conspiracy theory until recently.
Your gay shit might work on reddit, but it clearly isn't working here, fag. Strawman and shill all you want because no one is buying your kvetching anymore.
Yeah you're such a little rebel, yet you believe the same garbage every other one of your peers does, without question.
Then you mock believing the 'official narrative', even though every single one of your gay conspiracies is literally an official narrative in its own right, and you're too fucking dumb to realize you all believe the same shit.
>bush did 9/11
Wow nice well poisoning, kike. How about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
And this is just the shit that has so much proof they can't even remove it from wikipedia without losing credibility.
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1782206327621652937?t=bXX3xgQmHNTU1zvHz-3JDQ&s=19
I could write pages on this.
In short I have an incredibly low opinion of conspiracy theorists on that kind of shit. They're really stupid, they genuinely know next to nothing of facts (and I think that's by design, I genuinely think they outright reject any material that could cart doubt on their bullshit and pretend the evidence doesn't exist), they will outright lie to you, and worst of all, if you simply treat their theory to the same inquiries they claim they used against the official story, they get really REALLY fucking mad.
Every "debate" with a CT ends with them screaming insane insults and pulling out Ol' Reliable: "I bet you believe CNN/I bet you got boosted/STFU fed shill."
Here's a great example o
Conspiracy theory makes sense when you realize not one of these people analyzed a story and came to a unique conclusion. They literally come up with a conspiracy first, then try to find "evidence " that proves it. Which is why they will scour 900 photos of something, pick out one that maybe kind of sorta looks weird, and delete the rest and pretend they never saw it.
If you show a Pentagon Missile Theorist the main landing gear assembly wedged in the rubble they just declare it a fake. If you show them the light poles they say it is photoshopped. If you show them the debris and ask how it got there they invent really stupid explanations like "everybody ran out of the Pentagon and threw it in the grass".
The worst is the moon landing hoaxers. They say the Van Allen belts prevent humans from leaving low orbit.
Except:
They don't know what the belts actually are.
They have never measured them.
They only "know" they exist because space agencies say so, and so they believe the belts are real because they say so.
When those same agencies say the energy levels aren't dangerously high if you go through them fast enough, or go around them, suddenly they don't believe them.
You can't explain that except "cognitive dissonance" on a level that may be untreatable. That is insane. NASA says a belt of radiation exists, and the CTs believe NASA. NASA says the radiation levels are low enough to traverse, they then don't believe them, even though not one single CT has ever measured the belts themselves.
LOL you could write pages because you're an autistic faggot with an inflated ego.
Nobody is gonna take the time to read your retarded shit, we're just gonna laugh at your sperging.
That's a true statement. The people who say these things say them because they are Marxist subversives who want to undermine the West. It's the same reason they blackwash white historical figures and claim we have no culture.
Oh no, we found a fucking retard who believes what the Federal Government tells him. Everyone point a finger and laugh as the retard fumbles his way through life, ignorantly confident that he knows what's up because he saw the CNN report on the matter.
Like clockwork with you psyop'd clowns.
It's funny how you know about MKULTRA but you think it only works on other people.
Here's the fun news: what you think will literally never matter to anybody, because you're never going to do shit.
There's actually not one single productive reason you have to 'believing' conspiracy theory. Because who cares? All you'll >>EVER<< do is weep on the internet like a little fag.
If you think the government machine-gunned 500 people in Vegas for nothing more than a laugh and you did absolutely nothing in retribution, then you'll never do anything, ever. Nobody important will ever take you seriously. You'll never hold a single meaningful position of power. Your beliefs are so inconsequential it's hard to put words to.
You've been crying about moon landing hoaxes for decades and, what, do you expect everybody to suddenly "wake up" and go dig up Neil Armstrong and desecrate his corpse or something? Like literally what do you think the 'end game' here is?
Have you ever tried not being a faggot?
same here. building 7 is what convinced me that 9/11 stinks.
Yep, exactly. I dismissed the dancing Israeli story for a long time because it seemed too ridiculous to be true. When I finally looked into it, the Israelis in question were documented even as far as their names on a police report. I was pretty shocked. There was something going on between them, the US govt, the Saudis, and the Clean Break memo.