This thread is so obviously funded by George Soros.

It is on The Truth Channel.

You know, when there's a video of CNN that show Hillary 'wobbly' and cut the video before she falls, and then Alex Jones shows THE WHOLE VIDEO, i am forced to believe Alex Jones over CNN and the media (with a 6% trust rate), especially when all the main media have the same exact message/points/cut of the video. Alex Jones shows the 'cut' news where they remove/edit portions, and then the live/full versions for comparison.

I'd even go further and say Alex Jones is cut, that's how much I like him.

Really, this one thing is the reason? I'm going to assume Alex Jones never edits anything ever either.

And what about all the evil vaccines that cause autism despite the countless and countless studies saying the opposite? What about NASA's lies about going to the moon, even though they placed instrumentation there that you can check from the Earth? Hell, what about "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams"?

Breja described an accident and a conspiracy theory saying it was an assassination and you immediately sided with the assassination story despite knowing nothing about it. His avatar is very appropriate here, because you want to believe.

You can't can't act like you have the impartial eye for truth, not after Kleetus has trolled you for over a week to keep you spamming the forum by bumping that thread and you still haven't noticed it. He even practically came out and said that's what he was doing once.

If you're talking about the Infowars thread, that's my kind of place.

Who is paying for said studies? Curious in the 50's and on there was studies that showed sugar had no value, and others said sugar had lots of value. The ones that said sugar was beneficial was with no surprise funded by the sugar industry. I recall reading about this in Sugar Blues.

Impartial studies tend to be far more useful and accurate.

You know a while back I watched some videos I think it was GreenEarth on Youtube, where they had this HUGE something like 5x3 Fresnel lens which could focus energy something like 3000° in a single spot. He showed he could melt metal easily and quickly. However the moment he went to the huge 1-2 inch slab he was using as a back board, (3x3?) and it never EVER hinted at melting even though it was the same metal. The heat was dissipating and spreading through the rest of the metal too fast to heat up enough. That was a fairly small sheet of metal, compare that to 250,000 tons of industrial steel for the twin towers, not to mention those fires were smoking (choking) and out within 20 minutes.

Besides talking of steel beams melting, if the tower was to fall due to those issues and the heat, the towers would have fallen sideways... not straight down at a freefall. A freefall only happens when there's no resistance at all.

edit:I'm sure this is the video I watched a while back.

Which accident was this exactly?

Kleetus neither trolled, coaxed, messaged or anything to me to start the thread. At worst he got me to put an additional link up. I planned on doing the thread daily on my own anyways. After listening for a week I was convinced it's important enough to stop playing as many games, and concentrate on the immediate future. It certainly helps that the main media is being so biased and crappy with their jobs that it's blatantly obvious where they stand.

You have to ask that about the studies or sources you reference as well. If you're not questioning your own side, you're making the same mistake you're accusing everybody else of doing.
I'm an avid documentary watcher and reader of random information, and I know of the whole sugar industry fiasco. There have been studies showing that sugar is MISERABLE for you funded by sugar substitute companies.
There is no such thing as an impartial study. Every researcher has a bias, and if he doesn't, the person funding him almost always does (nobody just spends money without a reason). The question is whether that bias alters the investigation or not, and if so, how.

I've seen some videos too. Like this one. What makes the videos you've seen more credible or more plausible than mine?
I believe DaCosta was interpreting your saying history was white-washed as you siding with the conspiracy theorists he mentioned in his statement, which I doubt is what you meant, but, given your current string of siding with conspiracy theorists, he thought it most likely.

Thanks, friend.

If we're ever locked up in prison together I'd definitely protect you in the shower.

The videos I'm referring to have the sources, usually video feeds and newpaper sources. I've said before, I'm really bad with history.

2½ inch industrial steel that's 8 feet long is hardly the same as half inch steel in a forge that's been heating probably for the better part of 30 minutes at high temperature. Although the point might be proved in the video, only maybe 10% of the beams were actually under the jet fuel heating (and less than 20 minutes). As mentioned if they would have failed, the tower would have fallen sideways like a tree, the sheer weight would have done that probably right away if it was going to at all.

Let's not forget architects and expert engineers before 9/11 had NEVER EVER seen a building or tower go down due to a fire.

It's also said that they couldn't dig up the remainder of the twin towers because they were coming across molten metal, and this was for 6 months AFTER the tower fell.
Ignoring something and 'getting tired of it' is how complacency happens.

If someone is poisoning your water supply, say with heavy metals, lead or something, people will get stirred. But if that isn't kept up, then people will forget and move on. This also happens in the gaming industry, which is why Jim Sterling keeps bringing up Microtransactions when they appear in full games that shouldn't have them.

We need reminders of injustices, even if we don't want to hear it. My rep is unimportant compared to how important I think this is. If I thought or think they are taking me for a spin, I wouldn't have started. Ignore me if they want, but important things are happening. As I said in the thread title, 'it's time to pay attention'.

I didn't question whether the sources were THERE. I said YOU should question whether the sources are REPUTABLE.

I could come across an article saying that butter can kill you, and in it is cited a scientific study about the long-term effects of butter. The study shows it can cause heart disease, high blood pressure, osteoarthritis, sleep apnea, and various cardiovascular diseases
But if I actually looked at that study more, I'd realize that the study was funded by a big margarine company and that it was conducted by feeding participants a stick of butter per day, which would most certainly make you fat enough to kill you. In fact, if you're paying close enough attention, you'd realize that all of those effects are actually a result of the participants becoming overweight, it has nothing to do with the butter itself.

i'm not saying that whatever you're looking at is necessarily lying to you or poorly-researched, I'm just saying you should make sure what it is before you just accept it as fact. Unfortunately, this rarely ever happens, which is why we've had so many successful scientific and medical hoaxes through the years.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there, bud. There's no way in heck I'm about to dispute the 9/11 incident and derail the thread. My point was that there are many sources for both sides. Have you properly checked and looked into arguments against the points which you make, or do you only read one side of the coin?

I like her.

Are there? The investigation was prevented/skipped, all the evidence was shipped away. We have video footage, interviews, images and articles talking of the events in detail. Sorry but when there's only the conspiracy theorists talking, and what they say makes sense backed up by more than a thousand engineers, there's only one side of the coin to consider.

Had the investigation went through it's likely we'd find that the result we saw was impossible according to the official statement. But everyone wants to live in denial rather than look at what is as comprehensively the truth as can be done using scientific analysis.

EITHER things "don't add up" OR are "becoming more clear". But as the conspiracy theorist finds his truth in mere moments of doubt, for him one is actually the same as the other.


Well, you've lost when you start to yell. :|

Your friend is layering it on incredibly thick though. The government, the rich people, the press, the feminists and all the truth in Christian prophecies. That's... such a huge load of manure to wade through, I am so sorry.

I'm still amazed at how the 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy faith has survived recent surges of islamist terrorism and anti-islam sentiments. There it was, by a huuuge margin the largest islamist terror attack on American soil, and still the paranoid would rather blame the government. I'm even still hearing the "these unprepared Arabs couldn't have done it" fallacy when it has clearly been shown these last years what infinitely terrible things a single dedicated person can achieve.

Eventually, you may have to tell your friend that it's not just that you don't share his specific reality piercing needle pins or his individually chosen artifacts of doubt, but his whole method of acquiring evidence and his whole quasi-religious conspiracy faith, and that you don't wish to talk about the topic with him at all. For him, that's you closing your eyes to the truth and all the readily available evidence out there, of course, but at one point self preservation should set in. That's way more crazy than I could bear.


Oh WOW. I had no idea. I'm so sorry. :(