world ruled by supreme shadow elite. promotes hatred and violence towards marginalized groups
:what: how is this not real???
Epstein didn't kill himself, JFK Assassination, Iran Contra (leaving reality)
:wut:
world ruled by supreme shadow elite. promotes hatred and violence towards marginalized groups
:what: how is this not real???
Epstein didn't kill himself, JFK Assassination, Iran Contra (leaving reality)
:wut:
My S.O. is a Warren lib and we kinda got into this chart over a long dinner conversation and walk afterward. Part of the problem with the infographic is that there are just not consistent concise or specific theories covering events like JFK, 9/11, or even the deep state. Each of those have a wide gamut themselves that can and should really be broken into its own infographic.
Like 9/11 for example you have on the more grounded end of the spectrum a lot of questions about what intelligence seemed to know and yet not act on. Then you get to the far more speculative or outright bad science stuff like controlled demolition, or "Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams". Eventually you can go completely off the deep end and I've seen actual videos suggesting the entire attacks were all visual fx created fake news footage.
"Deep state" as a concept suffers the same problem. If you really start talking to people and break down the idea of these sort of bureaucratic government branches and institutions as bulwarks against institutional reform people will nod right along and totally be on board for it. The problem is that shit like Qanon has promoted a very specific rendering of the concept of the deep state to the forefront of the public consciousness...and that specific variant IS crazy. Some might speculate that is in part intentional by the deep state. Its certainly beneficial at least.
Right, like with JFK you have a range involving how many shooters and shit, but the House Select Committee on Assassinations came to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. That's just never brought up by these ghouls
Exactly. With the way it is portrayed and discussed in media: you would think that any conspiracy by the deep state, intelligence services, military industrial complex, et al, to kill Kennedy is entirely 100% dependent on the existence of a second shooter.
That's a complete straw man though. Even if you concede that Oswald was the only shooter...that doesn't negate some of the open questions surrounding him and automatically mean he acted alone. Personally I'm of the mindset that he had ties to intelligence and he did act alone and those connections were covered up because it would have been a bad look...but I'm definitely more agnostic these days.
That used to be my view, now I am broken thanks to trueanon and some other stuff. The shit connecting him to Ruby prior to the murder and the timeline with the theater arrest are just aggghhhhh
Yeah...totally I get it. I still accept the official report with regards to the "mechanics" (for lack of a better word) of how the actual shooting went down but man....there's so much in the leadup to and after the actual event that really makes you raise your eyebrows.
Yes, this is an important part of what's wrong with the infographic, and you're right to point it out.
deleted by creator
"Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is literally the official story. Please investigate this stuff, you don't know what you're talking about. I know everyone's super loathe to touch on 9/11 because of the association with wackos, but this shit is deeply documented. https://youtu.be/Rq9nUPs2RAk
No, you don't. Putting aside that there was a lot more shit burning in those buildings that has a ton of heat release then simply jet fuel: steel beams do not have to "melt" to lose structural integrity.
Lmfao this is all addressed. You have not researched this topic.
Yes I have. What you consider "research" is just fringe nonsense: and I say that as someone who 100% believes Epstein didn't kill himself.
Lol no you quite obviously haven't, because you said that "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is a wacky conspiracy theory when it's literally in the official report.
“Jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams” is a direct quote on the conspiracy chart bruh.
So you agree with the chart
Not all of it. In fact I might dispute its placement on the chart a bit, but I'm just saying that's what I was directly quoting.
I do agree that people who argue over whether or not "Jet fuel can melt steel beams" are missing the forest for the trees and tend to be deep in the conspiracy/bad science pipeline because they seem to think that this somehow that proves the planes and fire alone couldn't have made the towers collapse when everything I've seen and researched has made it clear that its by far the simplest and most logical explanation.
Lol
Can you show me this research?
If the strongest steel building to ever exist was destroyed by fire, I'd think we'd have updated architectural codes for steel buildings. Do those exist?
https://www.nist.gov/el/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation
To sum up from the FAQ
So yeah: jet fuel combined with tons of office equipment with a shit ton of heat release which burned at insane temperatures for a hella long time led to the collapse of the buildings structural integrity and down they went.
I don't know, I'm not an architect. I just listen to them.
Removed by mod
It being the "official story" doesn't mean it isn't true, and the fact that that's your go to position is very revealing. Again: Jet fuel burning for hours in contained spaces over multiple floors mixed with tons of other computer and office equipment weakened the structural integrity of the buildings and they collapsed.
Removed by mod
No it isn't. Maybe try being a little skeptical.
Guy who believes the US government:
"Maybe try being a little skeptical"
You haven't watched the video. Irredeemable American.
Guy who believes everything he sees in a dumb youtube video:
"Shut the fuck up you incurious savage."
Lol, I'd bet money you're exactly the sort of person who built an identity around that godawful "Zeitgeist" film back in the early 00s.
You literally cited the US government report and then asserted that it's not relevant that the US government commissioned it. World's smartest American lmao.
Oh god I'm right aren't I?!? You were that guy weren't you? And you're still that guy now!!!!
No I believed the stupid incurious bullshit that you do before I investigated the subject.
Be kind, comrade. I'm with you, but you won't win much support with this tone. :meow-hug:
Here's what I don't understand about the NIST: why won't they release the raw data for their computer models so that independent researchers can verify their simulation? Science is literally about being as open as possible. It would be in their interest to better communicate their knowledge to the public and put these theories to rest. They claim that releasing the data would be a threat to "national security". Is that really true? How does knowing how to demolish a building which no longer exists pose a threat? In order to prevent a 9/11, all you have to do is secure the airplanes, which they've already done.
:data-laughing:
Americans and their brainworms, best shit ever
I get to do my favourite thing, say "goddamn yankees" and be 100% correct
In the context of the chart, "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is obviously a stand-in for "WTC was a controlled demolition" or all 9/11 theories more broadly.
Pls fuck off thx, 9/11 nutjobbery and YouTube research is always going to be silly. There are plenty of concerns and questions to be had over what happened but obvious and unscientific bullshit is not one of them, things do not have to fully melt to lose their structure when under pressure.
Removed by mod
Well it's obviously not a perfect analogy because of the structural and chemical difference, think of something like a marshmallow or a piece of ice. A frozen marshmallow is hard, a room temperature is more soft and squishy but both are not melted. Kind of similar to ice where it gets harder and more brittle as the temperature lowers. Temperature changes an objects structural integrity, and keep in mind this is after a lot of the building got hit by a plane and a lot of the load-bearing supports were destroyed.
Removed by mod
:fedposting:
Removed by mod
Call me all the names you want, if you don't think a plane could destroy shitty 1970s New York Mob construction filled with paper then that is on you. I will say stop posting that garbage here.
Removed by mod
Strongest steel building where they cheaped out on rebar. Sure.
Removed by mod
:so-true: Can I get a link? :meow-popcorn:
Oh man, I haven't seen them since the very earliest days of youtube. Did a quick search and I couldn't find any, but it was some serious wild analysis of parallax and shit.
A lot of 9/11 videos like that have been shadow banned or scrubbed. I'm of the same mind as Will Menaker when he complained about twitter banning Naomi Wolf for her weird theories about covid-contaminated sewage: I hate it when social media companies try to protect us from kookery because they're depriving us of delicious slop. If the theories are truly insane then they should be innocuous anyway. It's not like anybody's theories about JFK or 9/11 are keeping people from getting vaccinated.
You would think so....but honestly if that was the case then IDW types and MLM grifters should be out of a career and that clearly isn't the case sadly. I go back and forth on this one a lot tbh. Generally I lean towards the free speech side of things, but less because of any sense of idealism and more a matter of pragmatism since I at least partially agree with Kyle kulinski that once you normalize banning or canceling people it can more easily be weaponized against the left.
...then again I also have been cynically disillusioned into thinking that power will do whatever the fuck it wants whenever the fuck it wants so honestly it's almost a masturbatory intellectual exercise.