People who overestimate their political knowledge are more likely to believe conspiracy theories

Without committing either way, I will admit that the collapse of building 7 was very odd, official explanations notwithstanding.

 

King Cheetah mentioned Sandy Hook. I never did.

 

In case it's just that your emotional quotient is very low:

1. KingCheetah mentions Sandy Hook:

2. You demur:

3. B-Bob, noticing you don't condemn conspiracy theories regarding Sandy Hook, asks for clarity, adding a little extra at the end to foreshadow that he's going to have a strong reaction to your answer to this question:

4. You, keeping up this argument that the accepted stories that implicate killers who die on-scene should be proved beyond reasonable doubt, deflect his question effectively implying that there might be some conspiracy with that shooting as well.

5. B-Bob gets pissed off.

6. You pretend you're the injured party.

 

Dr. Vitriol

lulz. D&D could use someone with the Dr. Vitriol moniker.

 

Yeah, belief that most of the .1% and the corporate politicians might not have your best interest in stake is a common Santa Claus type belief.

Almost National Enquirer level fun, but a bit too edgy with the pedophila.
How about he was about to outed as Chelea Clinton or Ivanka's lover.

 

People who believe conspiracy theories?

Like the one about Donald Trump conspiring with the Russians to steal the 2016 presidential election from Hillary Clinton?

 

Can someone PLEASE inquire who blew up tower seven?

Let's get to the bottom of this thing.

 

Who planted the explosives, how, and why? Until a sensible answer to that question is put forward, pouring over all the “analysis” from truthers is really just a giant waste of time.

 

You're late. BTG got it in on page 1:

I think it's a valid point, and something I've been thinking about while I was on my extended detour through 9/11. Why do I lend that theory some credence when I usually scoff at conspiracy theories? The reason I think it is a better conspiracy theory (whether it turns out to be true or not) is that it has a lot of robustness -- that multiple dimensions of evidence all seemed to point at the same thing.

Something like Pizzagate relies on general mistrust of democrats, the known sexual misadventures of Anthony Wiener, and totally fabricated claims of what was shown in John Podesta's leaked emails. I'm given no reason to think John Podesta would be wrapped up in some pedophile ring, much less Hillary Clinton. Nothing explains why law enforcement hadn't and still won't do anything about it. This is a theory didn't have much of any legs to stand on.

Looking at the Russian collusion theory though. You have general mistrust of Trump built on a lifetime of scumbag behavior backed by contemporary comments straight from his mouth that demonstrate an amoral approach to campaigning. You have his past and current deals in Russia. You have his entourage who all seem to also have past or current dealings with Russia. Oh, and they also seem to be ethically-challenged. And, whenever asked about Russia they'd lie about it or 'forget' until they were absolutely cornered and forced to tell the truth. There's the meeting with the Russian lawyer that they eventually admitted to. Then there's Trump's public appeal to Putin to hack Clinton's email. There's Flynn assuring the Russians before Trump even took office that they'd reverse Crimea sanctions. Congress had to pass a law to keep Trump from doing it. There's the odd Russian decision not to kick out emissaries when Obama kicked theirs out. There's Trump's reticence in blaming Russia for trying to interfere with elections even when all the intelligence bureaus say they did, or even to say one word of criticism of Putin or Russia. Even when he admitted Russia interfered, he said it without condemnation. There's Trump's total unwillingness to do anything to punish Russia for doing it or to shore up American defenses to keep them from doing it again. Then there was this weird thing recently about readmitting Russia to the G7. And of course all the Comey witch hunt stuff. So you have things going on regarding (1) Trump's personality and willingness to do bad things, (2) Trump's history, (3) Trump's associations, (4) Trump's refusal to criticize Russia, (5) Trump's pro-Russia agenda, (6) Trump's refusal to protect and defend the US from Russia, and (7) Trump's ongoing obstruction of efforts to investigate the matter -- 7 dimensions that all build a robust and aligned picture of a dude colluding with Russia.

Maybe that's all because I think I know so much about politics. Maybe. But, even with this warning not to be overconfident in one's own political knowledge, I have a really, really hard time laying aside such a rich tapestry of conspiracy and saying "I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation!"

 

King Cheetah mentioned Sandy Hook because he is a troll. B-Bob got all emotional and thought I mentioned it. You got confused too, for some reason. Quote me on Sandy Hook if you can.

And here are those engineers you were asking for: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

 

I agree, and u have not proven anything close to that.

Stating that person X did not do it does not mean Y did it. Your logic is fallacious just like all the standing conspiracy theories. Instead of proving the strength of your claims, you poke holes on the currently accepted claim but don't provide an iota of evidence of yours. That is not how logic and reason works.

 

I never said Y did it.
You are the guy with the conspiracy story: 19 hijackers cooperating wth a guy in a cave defeated the entire US air defense blah blah. . . . You have to show that it's true. I didn't make up that stupid story.

 

Lil sump'n for you Trumpers out there!

 

No, it only needs to be shown to be more plausible than any other hypothesis put forward. Which it is.

 

I dont have to prove the 19 hijackers based on how you arrived with your conclusions.

This is what the facts are... The twin towers has been standing there since 1970. It only went down when planes directly hit it. Conclusion: The plane that hit the building caused it to go down.

You are contending the above conclusion stating there is a different explanation that the plane could not have done the damage, meaning, the plane is INNOCENT and that there is another GUILTY party. Provide proof of the guilt and not innocence just like the american justice system you just so boldly claimed.

If the 19 hijackers are not guilty, how many conspirators do you think would have been involved with your other explanation? HINT: It will be more than 1K people to pull something this YUGGGGGGGGE. Is that more plausible for u?

 

https://911timeline.s3.amazonaws.com/main/AAisraeli.html

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2002/06/...ypt-warned-us-qaeda-plot-mubarak-asserts.html

 

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but when I've heard about the Operation Northwoods on the Joe Rogan's podcast, that indeed made me think...

 

that’s so awesome