To me, one of the crux of this entire thing is the terminology that lays a foundation for the rest of the evidence. As said in this video, the "code words from the FBI" basically dont exist and the codewords were basically created by a /pol/ user during the investigating, except cheese pizza....and for anyone who's not an internet noob and was on 4chan in the early dates know that the term was basically coined by them and other chan sites early on to refer to child porn (users referencing it as cp, other users asking what's cp, then people jokingly saying "cheese pizza" which caught on as a meme of sorts and inside joke)
This would explain why a lot of pizzagate "researchers" are kids in their teens or early twenties, as they werent around 4chan in the early days (when it was actually good).
once you realize cheese pizza is a meme basically created by kids on 4chan, the rest of the evidence starts to fall apart when you realize you have to assume that 50-60 year old politicians who dont understand the internet at all would be using terminology from a niche site that 90% of people on the internet dont even know about or visit.
Especially when, as clearly detailed in the video from that pizzagate researcher who said alephantis threatened his family, it's pretty clear even alephantis doesn't know anything about the internet. (had to ask what a "mod" was)
Am I just way off base here? Are my assumptions correct? I'm not trying to slam pizzagate here, just struggling internally whether there's any legitimacy to it.
view the rest of the comments →
Are_we_sure ago
Yeah, there is no existing food code know to the FBI. That is straight out deception. You can not find any evidence that list of terms existed before the podesta emails were released. In fact, I think it's a straight up deception. It's quite easy to take a dataset and see what words are often used. You often see these word cloud maps of speeches done. I think this happened with the podesta emails.
You know what phrase never appears in the Podesta emails? Cheese pizza. It's not never there, not even once.
It's way higher than 90%. Yeah, this part has always confused me. Hillary is what 70? Podesta is 68. They are active on the Dark Web?
Also why use an existing code? This is a small group of people who know each other. This is not a guy in Florida trying to buy Child Porn from a guy in Iowa over the internet.
If you use known code, it defeats the purpose. Also if code is known outside a group, it becomes slang.
I believe pizzagate started as a complete hoax and used it used existing nonsense conspiracies that people already believed it online. The idea that elite pedophiles control governments predates pizzagate for a very long time. And the people who believe it aren't too strong on facts or rationality or logic. So I believe that the very beginning of pizzagate was started by people who knew that if they put out some clues/starter material. The conspiracy folks would run with it and make all sorts of connections.
Look up at how they faked Hillary Clinton's involvement with Laura Silsby. They make it seem like she knew her. It's completely a hoax. It's quite obvious she had no idea who she was until 10 Baptist Missionaries were arrested in Haiti and the State Department got involved...........like they always do when Americans are arrested overseas.
Conspiracy theories are stories we tell ourselves and we believed them because of cognitive flaws we all have. We take random events and connections and turn them into cause and effect because that's how our brains work.
I can talk more about this later.
chris ago
See, I think there actually IS quite a bit of systematic abuse of children and pedophile rings, but I don't buy into pizzagate. If you watch the documentary on boys town (conspiracy of silence) or look into pedophilia in Hollywood, it's pretty clear it exists AT LEAST in niche and/or local groups. Not sold on the idea that there is a vast network tied into all politicians or that it's part of some underground network of mollock worshippers or whatever, though.
I think it's not rational to dismiss all conspiracy theories, especially now as quite a few have been outed in recent times, but there is definitely a fringe of conspiracy theories that are not based in facts at all.
I try to give pizzagate as much of a chance as I can, though (as evident in this post).
Are_we_sure ago
Name a few that have. Conspiracies certainly exist and are uncovered, but conspiracy theories specifically refer to commonly held beliefs that a conspiracy took place for which there is no evidence. The US mob worked with the Sicilian mafia to sell heroin out certain pizzerias was a conspiracy. And it wasn't predicted before hand. Comet Ping Pong is one of a series of Satanic pizzerias dealing in child-sex-trafficking and cannibalism throughout the US, including Brooklyn, Portland, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Ausian is a conspiracy theory.
That is conspiracy theories are supposed to be predictive. They are supposed to predict something that is not yet known. Conspiracy theories often popup AFTER an event to explain why something big happened. 9/11 conspiracies didn't take off when we invaded Afghanistan. They took off years later after we invaded Iraq when the politics made it seem more plausible. Though if 9/11 was an inside job done to justify the invasion of Iraq, why not make it look like Iraqis did it in the first place?
No Conspiracy theory has ever been proven correct.
chris ago
You're just changing the meaning of conspiracy theory to suit your needs by removing theories with evidence, that makes no sense and that's not what the definition is. Of course conspiracy theories with no evidence usually don't turn out to be correct lol
Are_we_sure ago
No. The key element is timing.
For a conspiracy theories to turn out to be true, the theory has to exist and be widely shared before the event/relevation happens. It someone came forward tomorrow with proof that John Podesta was a cannibal pedophile than pizzagate would be a conspiracy theory that was proven true. Pizzagate would have had predictive value.
Iran-Contra was not a conspiracy theory because no one was saying the NSC/CIA was selling missiles to Iran and using the money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua before it was discovered. It was a genuine conspiracy that was discovered.
I still would like to hear what conspiracy theories you think have been proven true.
chris ago
You're literally saying the same thing, that evidence has to exist for it to be a conspiracy vs no evidence for a conspiracy theory and that's simply not true, nor is that even close to how a conspiracy is defined.
Here's a definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory
whether or not there is EVIDENCE for said theory can obvious discredit or give credit to the theory itself, but that doesn't stop it from being a conspiracy theory.
You're conflating evidence with proof. There can be evidence of a conspiracy, but the conspiracy theory could still be false. A theory is a theory, in the scientific world it's a framework created using various observations. A fact is a theory proven to be true, so to call something a "conspiracy" would be inherently inferring that we know for a fact that this event happened, which would take it from theory to fact.
As far as theories that have been proven to be true, off the top of my head I would immediately think of: operation northwoods, operation mockingbird, COINTELPRO, MKUltra, mass government surveillance.
Just recently wikileaks released some data confirming that the CIA can remotely control planes, cars, etc...something that there was zero evidence for (aside from it being possible in theory)
conspiracy theories run a gamut from off-the-wall with no evidence, to no evidence but grounded in reality and/or likely, to much evidence and very likely, etc. I feel like you're just arbitrarily setting boundaries so it's mentally easier for you to lump all the bad ones into "conspiracy theory" and then writing them all off in the process.
DarkMath ago
"and most have little to no evidence supporting those theories."
ROFLMAO. AreWeSure stop talking shit. There's a fuck ton of evidence 9/11 was an inside job.You refuse to acknowledge any of it.
@chris AreWeSure is a paid shill. He's what they call a "concern troll". Google it.
You can easily prove this yourself. All you have to do is ask AreWeSure the right type of question. For example regarding 9/11 ask him these types of questions:
Is there ANY evidence that 9/11 was an inside job?
Is there ANY evidence that building 7 was a controlled demolition? (It was.)
Another way is ask him about Clinton Cash.
Is there ANY evidence Hillary broke the law with respect to the Clinton Foundation?
Is there ANY evidence that the Foundation's CEO, Eric Braverman, quit because he detected charity fraud? (He did.
Etc etc.......ad infinitum
An objective person with no shill bias would acknowledge at least something. Just in that WTC demolition post where I list the top 10 pieces of evidence surely you could acknowledge at least ONE is legitimate. The Larry Silverstein evidence is unassailable.
What you'll find though is AreWeSure won't acknowledge ANY evidence as legitimate. It's pure insanity. No one is ever 100% sure of 100% of everything.........except the AreWeSure brothers. They are 100% sure no one working for Clinton & Co committed any crime ever in the history of the universe. Ditto for 9/11.
Doubt me? Go ahead try asking him yourself.
:-D
@AreWeSure @are_we__sure @RweSure
Are_we_sure ago
There's absolutely zero evidence that any building that collapsed on 9/11 was a controlled demolition. And more than three buildings were destroyed. WTC 4 mostly collapsed. WTC 5 and 6 had localized collapses. Why did this buildings collapse? Because towers 1 and 2 did not "collapse" into their own foot print, they peeled out and fell on other buildings. Most of the collapses were due the impact of the falling towers, but they also had fire induced collapses, particularly in WTC 5. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-20.jpg http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-17.jpg
Why did 5 not fully collapse like the others? It was built differently.
Had an actually controlled demolition occurred, there would be plenty of evidence in the debris which was examined by structurally engineers and removed by demolition companies very familiar with controlled demolitions. Explosives would leave distinctive damage and other items like the detonators and wiring required for all the columns to go off at once would have been left over. It would have thousands of yards of this wiring. Thermite would also leave quite clear evidence as it spits out molten iron that would have been all over the columns was the reaction was done.
They would have left quite clear evidence at the time of collapse as well. The type of linear shape charges needed to cut through the thick steel of the trade center would be enormously loud. It's the speed of this pressure wave that helps cut the steel. The pressure wave would create a boom heard for miles. You can reduce this pressure wave to where it would not be heard on any of the dozens of videos of the collapse AND cut steel. You can't have the collapse without the giant Sharp boom. Thermite was once used to cut a tower at the Chicago worlds fair. They needed 1000 pounds to cut two columns and it was visible for two miles. The UV rays creaed when thermite burns cannot be viewed up close without a welders mask. It would have lit up like the sun if thermite was involved.
The conspiracists came up with a the idea of a demolition before understanding any of the science of it. They didn't talk about thermite for years. They said it was convention explosives, it was only when this was completely shut down for the reasons I just gave did they turn elsewhere. First to thermate, then to thermite and these got shot down as well, then to nanothermite a substance they imbue with mythical powers. They claim it's both an explosive that can throw steel columns hundreds of feet and a completely silent way to melt the columns. Thermite releases no gases in its reaction, so it creates no pressure wave and it not an explosive, by the way. Thermite also releases all of its energy super quickly. Nanothermite even more quickly due to the small size of the particles, yet they claim that thermite was still heating fires in the pile for weeks afterwards. It's the Tinkerbell of chemical substances. Close your eyes and believe real hard and it doesn't anything.
Thermite actually is not very energy dense. (It's a heavy mix of metals by the way). Things like paper, wood, wax, gasoline, all have way more energy per gram. Thermite goes off and then stops. It doesn't heat things for a very long time.
DarkMath ago
"There's absolutely zero evidence"
I stopped after the word "evidence" because you didn't mention Larry Silverstein's "pull" comment and also a speech where he referred to the plans for a new WTC 7 building a full year before 9/11.
O_O
@chris this is exactly what AreWeSure does. He'll just flat out ignore evidence doesn't suit his version of events. I then provide a short refresher on the scientific method:
Bad: Conclusion -> Observation
Good: Observation -> Conclusion
To no avail I might add. That has lead me to the conclusion AreWeSure is either a shill or the most naive person on planet Earth.
:-D
Are_we_sure ago
No. You stopped because you know you always get the science of 9/11 wrong and you simply don't care. You never engage honestly on this subject. . You misunderstand some really basic things. And continually reuse points that have been refuted. So you try to shift the battlefield from science to politics Because you are completely unarmed on scientific battlefield, You try to rely on politic arguments and tendentious interpretations of what someone said to.
Larry Silverstein said yada yada yada does not disprove the fact that slow reaction time of thermite makes it a terrible choice for a simultaneous collapse and the quicker high explosives that are perfectly suited for a simultaneous collapse cannot be made silent if they are also going to through up to 5 inches of steel. It doesn't disprove that high explosives or thermite or thermate would have to all wired together with some form of detonating cord/wireless receivers that never would have withstood the fires. It doesn't disprove that fact that bringing in box of thermite or high explosives on the 70th Floor would not have brought the towers down. That for either scenario to work you had to get to the bare steel of the columns which meant you had to rip apart occupied offices, break through drywall, get past plumbing an other pipes to get to the steel. Demolition via explosives would have you required to pre weaken the steel using torches that release noxious fumes. You would have to go in at night smash everything up, do your work and then put everything back the way it was with no dust/fumes left over by 7am the next day. One of the scientists the truth movement relies on for its thermite claims (the same one who won't let other scientists recreate his tests.) said 100 tons of thermite would be needed in each building. Well after the reaction, that means 70 tons of iron would be left over it weird looking blobs like this http://www.theodoregray.com/periodictable/Samples/026.14/s14s.JPG
Were any of the buildings on 9/11 brought down by a controlled demolition, there would be massive physical evdience all over the debris site. A debris site worked by many, many workers experienced in controlled demolition.
DarkMath ago
"you always get the science of 9/11 wrong"
Wrong? Holy hand grenades. AreWeSure it's YOUR "scientific" explanation of how a minor office fire could cause WTC 7 to collapse EXACTLY like it would if brought down by a controlled demolition that's not "scientific". Remember?
"the fact that slow reaction time of thermite makes it a terrible choice for a simultaneous collapse"
Quite to the contrary the slow reaction time is essential to the entire demolition. You must remember too many explosions would give the whole thing away. Explosions had to be kept to a minimum. The very property of thermite you're talking about helps spread the "steel cutting" out over a couple of hours.
"Larry Silverstein said yada yada yada"
Sorry AreWeSure but "yada yada yada" doesn't cut it(pun intended). You actually need to explain Larry Silverstein's comments. Those two infamous gaffs are, DING DING DING, evidence of a controlled demolition. There's no way around it. You MUST address them.
:-D
RweSure ago
This is exactly the sort of dishonesty that's a Hallmark of your arguing
The fire at WTC was one of the largest office fires in the World has ever seen. I've read it was a bigger fire then the tower because fire was on at least a dozen floors. Each floor of WTC 7 was about 1.7 million square feet.
This is a Hallmark of your scientific illiteracy. You pack so much wrong in just a few sentences.
A. When I talk about thermite having a slow reaction time thats in comparison to high explosives like C4 and RDX. RDX has a detonation velocity of 8750 m/s. When RDX goes BOOM, that BOOM is a pressure wave travelling at over 5 miles per second.
B. Thermite creates no pressure waves at all. Because it releases no gas. It's not an explosive.
C. So the thermite took a couple hours to react? Holy hell how much thermite are we talking about? Were the buildings made of thermite? Was each floor stacked carpet to ceiling with thermite?
D. Are you claiming the explosions were thermite? It's not an explosive. If you are claiming the type of explosive used in demolition you can keep them quiet AND cut steel.
Also you just caught yourself here in a web of your own contradictions. If explosions were to be kept to a minimum and thermite takes hours, then then the massive destruction during the collapse was mainly due to gravity and the massive kinetic energy release by the top floors of the building falling down.
You once told me that only bombs could cause that much destruction.
DarkMath ago
AreWeSure: "The fire at WTC was one of the largest office fires in the World."
Someone who isn't the most naive human being on planet Earth: Really? The fire at WTC 7 wasn't even strong enough to reach more than one side of the building. And to be honest it's hard to even see any flames. Not to mention based on all the smoke whatever fire is going on isn't very high temperature. Anyone who's built a campfire can tell you the hotter the fire the cleaner the smoke.
But wait, there's more. Yes there was a fire but even that fact is evidence against a fire causing the collapse. A fire limited to just on side of WTC 7 would lead to a highly unsymmetrical collapse not the perfect symmetry of the collapse that occurred. Remember?
Even NIST themselves couldn't reproduce the type of collapse we saw at WTC 7 on 9/11.
:-D
RweSure ago
Why do you insist on lying? You know that image only shows the very end of the collapse and that collapse begins like 10 seconds before what you show. And that viewing the full sequence we can see that there was a highly asymmetrical internal collapse that preceded the collapse of the outer shell.
https://www.metabunk.org/files/WTC-7-Explosion.gif
WTC7 was a tube within a tube construction with lateral supports connecting the two.
We can see that roof collapses on the left side first while outer shell looks fine.
We can then see this collapse of the roof starts to move right before the whole building comes down.
Just as the full collapse begins the roof develops a kink.
Then the outer shell comes down.
This is a highly unsymmetrical progressive collapse. Starts on lower left floors on interior goes straight up to the right before the whole roof bends in a kink and the outer structure falls.
This collapse is well under way already in that deceptive gif you show.
Why do you think lying will help your argument? Is it because the truth would destroy your argument?
DarkMath ago
"Why do you insist on lying?"
The Hillary Clinton School of Bull Shit Strikes again.
"Then the outer shell comes down."
All controlled demolitions implode the interior first and then the "outer shell". That's so the building collapses in on its own footprint. Once again you prove my point. Thank you.
"We can see that roof collapses on the left side first"
Yes because the left side of the roof of WTC 7 contained an additional penthouse structure the right side didn't have. The fact the left side penthouse collapsed first is actually as much evidence of a controlled demolition as not. It certainly is easily explained with a controlled demolition. It was first because, duh, there was more there to blow up.
"Why do you think lying will help your argument?"
You're priceless AreWeSure. Let's review more of the Scientific Method. I'd like to introduce you to an American Physicist named Richard Feynman. He famously wrote:
That means you don't get to call a competing view "lying". The entire concept of attacking the person instead of the argument is anathema to Science.
:-D
RweSure ago
I call you a liar because you insist on lying. You use a deceptive clip and claim that the "perfect symmetry" proves it must be a controlled demolition. Then when I point out you are being deceptive and not showing the full collapse and it was actually highly asymmetrical, you act like you never claimed the opposite.
Then you make a new claim that an asymmetrical collapse also proves a controlled demolition.
And I call you a liar because I had previously pointed how how deceptive your clip was and you went ahead a d used it with full knowledge it was deceptive.
Your new claim is also high order nonsense.
This is incredibly silly and ignores the fact of how WTC was built and how it differs from other buildings. There is no one size fits all. And there's dozens of examples of demolitions that show you wrong on YouTube. Here this highly asymmetrical collapse starts on the left outer than middle than right outer. https://media2.giphy.com/media/9zA9uLCuGqScM/giphy.gif
Also you had that nonsense explanation about the additional structure at the ready, didn't you? It just shows you knew your clip was deceptive and did not show the entire collapse sequence.
Holy Lord in Heaven, this is dumb. I'm going to give you a chance to rephrase this to make it less dumb, because there's no possible way you meant this.
In terms of how WTC 7 fell, the direction was inluenced by the structural damage caused by the collapsing Towers. Something nobody could have planned for.
DarkMath ago
"I call you a liar"
In science you don't get to call people "liars". Actually the whole idea behind science is to have differing opinions. Right now as I write this brilliant physicists are researching things like Super Symmetry, String Theory, High Temperature Super Conductivity etc etc. There are a panoply of opinions about all of them. Just those 3 examples may total to 20+ differing theories. All but 3 of those you would call "lying". Is that even a useful accusation? Can you imagine Professor Jim Gates opening a lecture at CERN accusing Professor Mikhail Shifman of "lying"?
The worst I ever heard was Newton accusing Leibniz of plagiarism but that's not in the same ball-park. Scientists don't dismiss competing theories with the accusation their opponent is "lying". Even the thought is comical. You would get laughed out of a conference. By your definition AreWeSure
ABOUT 99% OF SCIENCE IS LYING.
Full Stop.
Grow the fuck up. Rewrite your response to me and please remove your accusation that I'm "lying".
:-D
RweSure ago
You know you were being intentionally deceptive. You know because I had already pointed it out.
You know that you argued perfect symmetry equaled a controlled demoliton and when I pointed out it was actually a highly asymmertrical collapse, you pretended you never made that argument.
How does that happen without you intentionally lying? Did you forget you using a deceptive video YET AGAIN?
DarkMath ago
"How does that happen without you intentionally lying? "
Easy. In my theory of the collapse I'm not lying. For example asymmetry vs symmetry. While you are certainly correct not all building implosions are symmetric or are engineered to collapse within their on own footprint that outcome is VERY common. Yes I shouldn't have said virtually every implosion is like that but you get my point.
Also in my theory of the collapse of WTC 7 the penthouse on the roof situated "on the left" is a demolished first while the building is still rigid to nullify its effect on an otherwise highly symmetrical building. It collapsing first isn't enough to make any rational observer think the entire collapse was asymmetrical at least from my perspective that the collapse was a controlled demolition. Yes that penthouse indicated the core was collapsed "left side" first if you will. But the core is not the exterior. By the time the outer shell is brought down both left and right of the core have been compromised. The outer shell goes down symmetrically with just a slight inward tilt to make it collapse in its own footprint.
Two different theories of the collapse will have wildly different explanations for things. That's just how science and engineering work. For some reason as an example I think of when U.S. weapon designers reverse engineered German technology after WWII. There are several examples of pieces of weapons copied lock stock and barrel but had no purpose because they were missing a crucial piece. The US engineers had mistaken its function and added completely useless non-existent "feature" and unnecessary weight for no reason. You would probably say either the US or German engineers were "lying".
:-D
RweSure ago
You're getting there. How does this explain you using the same deceptive gif AFTER it's been pointed out how deceptive this is?
You now admit the sequence begins much earlier. Any honest account needs to address this much earlier. (10 seconds being an eternity where gravity is concerned.)
What? This is incoherent. Is your defense you weren't personally dishonest just intellectually dishonest? IT's the beginning of the freaking collapse. The left side going first means it's asymmetrical by definition.
Let's put aside how it started for now, but this absolutely was a progressive collapse---some parts collapsing before others-- and it absolutely was asymmetric. How can you honestly say otherwise?
If you get high res video of the collapse, you can see windows breaking on the left as the penthouse goes down where the interior collapse travells out to the perimeter, then as just as the roof goes down, windows break all through the right.
The shell falls symmetrically because all of its interior lateral support is gone and it just falls straight down.
Are you claiming the collapse starts at the Roof? Because it starts lower. As the Penthouse starts to go, you can see windows breaking at least 12 stories below the roof. As the roof kinks, you can see lots of windows breaking up and down on the right side.
Something failed in the lower interior of the building on the left. The collapse travelled up to the roof while the right side was intact. The Penthouse collapsing through the building ripping and pulling as it went down. These collisions rip up the interior structure of the building.
The kink in the roof is probably caused by one corner wanting to fall one way and one wanting to fall the opposite direction. Remember firefighters saw the corner bulging hours earlier.
DarkMath ago
Moving on. Of the 10 items on my list of evidence 2 involved Larry Silverstein. Maybe I'm wrong but you haven't addressed those.
They're important because they don't deal with physical evidence of a demolition but with verbal evidence. Silverstein infamous verbal gaffs need an explanation. Here they are again:
1) Used the demolition term "Pull it" in reference to bringing WTC 7 down.
2) Started planning the WTC 7 replacement one year BEFORE 9/11.
I could maybe have dismissed 1 but 2 apparent slips of the tongue is beyond the pale. I think the most likely explanation is they refer to advanced knowledge of 9/11.
Why am I wrong?
@AreWeSure @are_we_sure @are_we__sure
:-D
DarkMath ago
"How does this explain you using the same deceptive gif AFTER it's been pointed out how deceptive this is?"
Because I don't think it's deceptive.
"The shell falls symmetrically because all of its interior lateral support is gone and it just falls straight down."
I think I know what the misunderstanding is. You concede the exterior collapse was symmetric and I concede the interior collapse was asymmetric. The misunderstanding I think the exterior shell should have collapsed asymmetrically given your argument fire weekended the structure. After all one entire side of WTC7 is drenched in smoke while the remaining 3 sides aren't. That steel within the back side away from the camera should have failed at a different rate than that of the side facing the camera. If fire played a significant role in the collapse then the outer shell collapse would have been asymmetric.
"Are you claiming the collapse starts at the Roof? Because it starts lower. "
No not at all. I'm claiming the demolition started within the core deep within the building. And within the core the demolition started "on the left" side because that would neutralize the left core's asymmetric load. That's the very reason I believe the outer shell failed symmetrically. The additional core load carried by the steel on the left was neutralized.
The big picture here is there are various theories about the collapsed. You have the "official" theory and I the unofficial. There is no "True" and "False" theory. That's just how science operates. Scientific is rarely 100% correct. Even something as simple as a straight line gets disproven later when Einstein discovers all space is warped to some degree. There doesn't exist a single straight line in all the Universe.
Get it? You don't get to declare victory here. In fact you're trying to quash dissent by labeling it as "lying". Do you work in the S.T.E.M. field? Something tells me you don't because you're adding in all these subjective terms like "lying" when describing something there's obviously a difference opinion on.
It's almost comical. That's why I gave you the example of Professor Jim Gates giving a lecture on Super Symmetry and constantly referring to critics as liars. Gates or anyone else would be laughed off stage. Calling a competing theory "lying" is so unscientific it hertz. :-)