Apparently you didn't watch enough of it. Because that video if I recall right, covers things from the beginning where Obama DOES say there's no fraud and has no clue what it is. Then they have a completely different story. Watching the first few minutes doesn't really equate to watching it all.

I'm not sure, but 40,000 thrown out votes is more than 1 in 68 million... You make it sound like there was what, 42 fraud votes? Sorry those numbers don't add up. And there were 73,000 fraudulent votes. Some of the 'voters' included micky mouse... Donald duck... and other cartoon characters.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-10-18-3995453887_x.htm I skimmed it over. But you know what? From now on I'll refer more to the Drudge reports for all citings. They link things much better than my stressed searching for legitimate sources when I don't know where to look. And I will probably get them wrong.

I try. I really do. However history, social studies and politics are my WORST skills. I'm far more likely to cite the wrong articles for the right things, while elsewhere they have the articles on screen and the references for you to see.

I did watch it all. I'm doing due diligence. You'd be wrong to assume that I'm doing my research as poorly as you're doing yours. Your research is very shabby, indeed.

My skillset is shabby, and I'm very very sorry about that. There are some things I will never be good at.

Well, time to really start caring then..... And when I mean "really" it means digging public stuff from past and present, not relying on theories on "hidden" stuff.

From an European perspective, Alex Jones/Infowars is typically American as it's more a marketing trick/gimmick (it's hard not to laugh when seeing the Infowars webstore) than real politics/school of thinking.

There is a good example I like which shows why conspirationists are totally useless in the real world:
they keep shouting against the chemtrails but eat food full of pesticides.....

Alex Jones is the physical embodiment of everything that's wrong with this country.

This is absolute bollocks. Record-keeping in the USA might be atrocious, but not to such a degree that millions of deceased e.a. people would still somehow be registered as eligible voters. (That's how many you'd need to be able to have a good chance to change the outcome of the presidential elections.) Voter fraud is a non-issue. Here's a good explanation why large scale in-person voter fraud is extremely unlikely to be happening, let alone making any difference at all in the results of any election in the USA.

Oh god please, BE TRUE! I want to see a government competent and functional enough to do even half of what conspiracy theorists claim they're doing. They can't even do corruption properly over here. It took them about 15 years to start building a single tunnel. The only kind of infowars happening right now is hospital getting a relatively cheap piece of equipment for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it's not even made out of pure gold.

First, let's address this quote. No one in the world will disagree with it. Why did you feel the need to state it? You felt this way because you have been successfully radicalized.

In trying to become more informed, somewhere along the way you suspended your human reasoning (scientific method). Why would you do this? Something must've compelled you. Part of it was the significance of the things you learned. Some of them were facts.

But, you choose extremism. The media has conditioned you for this your whole life -- nuance is not its strong suit.

It is time to resume your human reasoning. Alex Jones has used "argument via overwhelming number of assertions", "argument via obfuscation", and "argument via (his) authority".

You are lost to us. One in the "40% of Trump voters think that ACORN (which hasn't existed in years) will steal the election for Clinton". http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/08/clinton-leads-in-nc-for-first-time-since-march.html ACORN doesn't exist anymore in part due to articles such as you listed. Voter fraud is so minuscule w/ current policy (aka what politics is about) that most concerns about it in the political sphere are actually repulsive displays to support various policies of un-American/un-democratic voter suppression. This is one specific issue. I mention it to shock your system a bit. "I already knew ACORN was defunct" is not the point. The vulnerability of the US Electoral process via legit concerns such as electronic machine hacking is not the point. Again, part of A.J.'s thing is the mass amount he says, so instead of taking this and bouncing to more issues you need to heal your mind so it is again capable of (critical) thought.

Just to "through some sand into the gears" of your reasoning:
Architects and Engineers: Solving the Mystery of Building 7 - w/ Ed Asner
To make it clear: I'm not saying that everything, this Alex Jones is saying, is right. Neither am I saying that Bush is responsible for 9/11. But there are still some questions about 9/11 that are not answered.

Here is another video from a lecture by Dr. Daniele Ganser, a Swiss Historian. The lecture is in German but there are English subtitles:
Medial vermittelte Feindbilder und die Anschläge vom 11. September 2001 - Vortrag von Daniele Ganser
(English: Enemy Images Imparted by the Media And the Attacks of 9/11 - Lecture by Daniele Ganser)

Edit:
Added letter s to "gear".

This forum has become a place I'm embarrassed to say I visit.

Thanks for making a major contribution to that with this ignorant and paranoid thread.

It doesn't throw sand into the works to link a truther movement's video as support for the conspiracy. It does add a data point, and one that I'm unlikely to try to counter, since I'm out of steam at the moment. Sort of like how people with no education or background in ecology claim the jury's still out on anthropogenic global warming, knowing full well that the only remaining debate among the experts in the field is not "if" but "how much", the architect approach to the buildings is based on us not knowing how engineering and physics work.

I'm not a structural engineer, but I did get into a heated (sorry, had to) argument with one from Carnegie-Mellon when the whole "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" thing came out. The takeaway, laid out in truly daunting detail, was that if you fly a few thousand tons at a few hundred miles an hour into a building, you're going to break the building. And when buildings start falling down in crowded quarters, things get worse.

Nah, rt, the whole reason I bothered after the first post was because you've demonstrated in your post history here on GOG that you know how to look at a problem and propose solutions. I've tried to point that out a few times to let you know I'm not coming down on you personally, just the quality and type of argument you're producing here. You're not incapable of critical thought or problem solving, your arguments here (and briefly in that other thread) just don't indicate you using those skills very well. You've often posted helpful stuff in various threads, as I recall (pardon me for doing the poor research here, now), mostly IT related.

Well, the problem in your reasoning is that the two aircrafts crashed in WTC 1 and 2 while no aircraft hit WTC 7.

Edit:
Re-added part of the quote

Edit2:
Rephrasing.

No, still not a problem. The 7 building was the only other tall, narrow one, and the building collapsed after the others had fallen down and heavily damaged the foundation area [url= which is relevant because the damage from the collapsed buildings is what damaged the water supply to the emergency sprinkler system, allowing the fire to go unchecked. ][/url] and much of building 7, most importantly setting it on fire. Burning is very bad for most things, buildings included. [url= And, quite saliently, you don't need to melt metals to make them too weak to do their jobs.][/url] You're just offering more truther non-arguments.

This reminds me a little of a couple years ago when JCD-Bionicman went on an anti-fluoridation rant and unravelled. He genuinely believed that as long as he refused to listen, his points would remain valid, despite an actual research chemist showing up to explain All The Things. I don't have the chops to be an authority, but you're not producing anything remotely interesting or novel yet.

LIFO, again.

Of course metals lose strength gradually as they're heated. But what's important isn't the rate of decay, but the critical point at which a support mechanism is so weakened that it not only cannot support itself, but also overburdens neighboring supports. That's why collapses happen so quickly, controlled or otherwise.

The phrase you're looking for is lateral shear, and it's well-covered in the NIST analysis. But you could also look it up separately if you'd rather hear from someone else how shear forces work.

Nothing about that collapse is free fall. First, you see weakening on one side of the building; then, the penthouse begins to visibly collapse. As it collapses, it pushes on the structures below it, and pulls in and down on the structures beside it. Internal collapse is in full swing when the outer walls begin to fall, and since the whole point of a building is that it's all connected, once collapse starts, it propagates rapidly. Would you call a stack collapse free fall? You'd be wrong if you did. [url= Well, I suppose with a truly perfect implosion where it went straight down, that might be free fall. I don't know. But the reason stacks break into pieces when they collapse is because their fall is exactly NOT free.][/url]

Again, nothing new or interesting. Slow day, so did go ahead and watch both your videos. The second one isn't terrible. Of course, it's got no substance. There's really no topic where you can't find someone with appropriate credentials to disagree. But, relevantly, there's been a lot of peer review supporting the official findings. Got any for the conspiracy side?

There's plenty to compare between this and the antifluoridation nonsense. Both are conspiracy theories based on rejecting overwhelming evidence to the contrary, propagating baseless conjecture which relies upon the credulity of the audience, and making claims which are inherently not falsifiable. (EDIT: Oh, and forgot the most important one - distrust of authority. Silly me.) Just because you're sympathetic to one and not the other doesn't mean you've nothing in common.