I'd just like to add that I started the video with an open mind and actually enjoyed the parts which were about the academic theory of conspiracies. I didn't contest any of those arguments because I actually agreed with her; I only posted about the stuff that triggered me. As I said in one post, after I ragequit the video, I picked it up again ten minutes later because I found it thought provoking, and I was curious to see what she had to say in full about the gas attacks that would falsify my beliefs. She's correct that there is not absolute proof one way or the other, but I found it to be a little bit pedantic because IMO there are only two explanations that are likely to be true in this case: either Assad did it, or the other side (the US) did it/faked it. If the former possibility has been falsified, which I believe it has, then it's not irrational to jump to the latter possibility. Is it proof? No, because bigfoot could have dropped them too, or maybe the residents of Duma thought it would be funny to gas themselves, or maybe the canisters could have been holograms all along, etc. We still haven't falsified those possibilities or any thousand of other possibilities, but like I said that seems rather pedantic to me. It seemed to me that she was using these academic theories to support her own emotional distrust of anti-imperialists. That's why I got mad. 100% proof of anything is pretty rare. As long as one maintains an open mind with regards to the possibility of new evidence arising, I don't think it's wrong to move forward with the most likely possibility.