Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic [video]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I suppose Chomsky will be talking a load of 'bunk' in this video though.

http://rt.com/op-edge/drone-strikes-campaign-terrorist-679/

Full video at link.

So you are saying that you agree with Chomsky in this video, but you think we won't because we are all government cheer-leaders, hence our agreeing with Chomsky in the first video should be taken as simply and agreement of convenience? We are just happy someone with stature agrees with us, so we wheel him out, but our trick is revealed by us not agreeing with something else he said. Is that it?

Does that also mean that because you DON'T agree with Chomsky in the first video, then we should think you are lying about agreeing with him here?

And I actually DO agree with Chomsky in the second video.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So you are saying that you agree with Chomsky in this video, but you think we won't because we are all government cheer-leaders, hence our agreeing with Chomsky in the first video should be taken as simply and agreement of convenience? We are just happy someone with stature agrees with us, so we wheel him out, but our trick is revealed by us not agreeing with something else he said. Is that it?

Does that also mean that because you DON'T agree with Chomsky in the first video, then we should think you are lying about agreeing with him here?

And I actually DO agree with Chomsky in the second video.

You have always, IMO been one of the most moderate of the debunkers here. It wasn't so much aimed at you but more at the more vociferous debunkers. Some people will not make the slightest concession to their argument. That cannot IMO be said of you.

Sorry but such flat out intransigence by some can get a bit wearing

This sentence doesn't make sense to me. "Does that also mean that because you DON'T agree with Chomsky in the first video, then we should think you are lying about agreeing with him here?"

Can you rephrase
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This sentence doesn't make sense to me. "Does that also mean that because you DON'T agree with Chomsky in the first video, then we should think you are lying about agreeing with him here?"

Can you rephrase

Your suggestion in juxtaposing the two videos seemed to be that you though people were just using a convenient argument from authority.

So my point was that it should equally apply both ways. If you were to say you agreed with Chomsky in the first video, then using your own logic then someone could say you were being hypocritical because you did not agree with him in the first.

Basically I was saying that it does not matter if you agree with someone all the time, or just some of the time. It's what you actually think is true that is important.

Chomsky just made some good points in the first video. He also made some bad ones ("what does it matter?"). But this is not about "Chomsky is a genius, and he says ..... so I agree". It's about "look at the good points this guy made".

Of course argument from authority can't help but creep into such things.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Your suggestion in juxtaposing the two videos seemed to be that you though people were just using a convenient argument from authority.

So my point was that it should equally apply both ways. If you were to say you agreed with Chomsky in the first video, then using your own logic then someone could say you were being hypocritical because you did not agree with him in the first.

Basically I was saying that it does not matter if you agree with someone all the time, or just some of the time. It's what you actually think is true that is important.

Chomsky just made some good points in the first video. He also made some bad ones ("what does it matter?"). But this is not about "Chomsky is a genius, and he says ..... so I agree". It's about "look at the good points this guy made".

Of course argument from authority can't help but creep into such things.

Yes I agree with that, except the 'lying analogy' was inaccurate. No one agrees with someone else about everything and whilst I agree with much of what Chomsky says on a range of subjects I don't agree with everything and in particular that particular train of thought is seriously flawed IMO.

For him to say "Did they plan it in any way or know anything about it? This seems to be extremely unlikely. For one thing, they would have had to be insane to try anything like that." is an extremely weak debunk, especially coming from someone such as him and in view of the massive amount of evidence re foreknowledge.

Since when has that sort of logic affected the elite, either politicians or business. The same argument could have been used to say the banksters would not launder billions of dollars of drug money or 'Iran Contra could not be true because anyone attempting that would have to be insane and it would be bound to come out'.

But it is more than that IMO, it does appear to be an appeal to authority and the title of the thread makes that pretty clear: (even) "Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic"... as if that is the end of the argument.

To be honest, (and yes it is conjecture), I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't say that because he sees it as a distraction to the ongoing atrocities and contemporary major issues, (pretty much in line with your stated thinking).

But to many it is just too big to let rest. I think the 'info war' should be fought on all fronts and there are enough people to do it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
For him to say "Did they plan it in any way or know anything about it? This seems to be extremely unlikely. For one thing, they would have had to be insane to try anything like that." is an extremely weak debunk, especially coming from someone such as him. Since when has that sort of logic affected the elite, either politicians or business. The same argument could have been used to say the banksters would not launder billions of dollars of drug money or 'Iran Contra could not be true because anyone attempting that would have to be insane and it would be bound to come out'.

I think there the difference is in the perceived degree of risk. Perhaps the elite might have the desire to pull off a false flag, but Chomsky thinks the degree of risk in this incredibly convoluted scheme is vastly higher than anyone would consider.

I know that does not work as an argument from your perspective, as you think it was not really that risky.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
I now suspect you are not an EOD officer.

I suppose anyone could come on here and claim all sorts of qualifications and experience and how would you know who is telling the truth and who is sitting in their bedroom in the house they live in with their Mum?

Im glad you doubt me as it gives me an opportunity to point you to my charity page:

www.justgiving.com/Robert-Campbell4

I'm raising money for British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association (BLESMA), of whom some of the most recent have lost their limbs and sight doing what I do in Iraq and more recently in Afghanistan.

It has a bit of background about me on there, but I suppose this is directed at conspiracy theorists so you might suppose that the Illuminati/Zionists/Reptilians set up a fake charity page in order to false-flag me into shilling for the NWO on here. Whatever....

As you no doubt believe all the soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are blameless pawns in the bigger conspiracy, you will have some sympathy for the wounded and maimed, so PLEASE GIVE GENEROUSLY.

I'v even left a special message for you on there Hiper...:)
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Funny... an EOD officer saying people have no evidence after the official government institution charged with the investigation ignores investigating the physical evidence.

I now suspect you are not an EOD officer. If you were you would know a genuine investigation into the events of this 'terrorist' event would obviously call for a trace chemical analysis of the WTC dust.

On 9th March 2009 Sappers Patrick Azimkar and Mark Quincy of 38 Engineer Regiment were murdered in a terrorist attack at Massereen Barracks, Northern Ireland. They were shot with AKMs and two other soldiers and two civilians were wounded. But clearly it was a false-flag event Hiper as no-one tested any of the gunshot wound victims for explosives. Please do tell me your experience of such things.


Another pointer that you are not who you say you are. You say you care about facts and evidence yet at the same time you find "not suspecting explosives" a valid scientific reason for not doing a trace chemical analisys of the the WTC dust which is obviously not a valid scientific reason.

Again, what evidence was there to suspect explosives were involved? Why did NIST not test for salt corrosion? I did not say 'not suspecting explosives' was a scientific reason, I am saying not testing for explosive was a logical reason as there was no evidence of explosive being used.

These scientists found in the WTC dust chips that show energetic properties.

I can't see video links here, so cannot comment on your video.

You repeating over and over "NIST didn't test, NIST didn't test..." adds no weight to your assertion that that explosives were used in exactly the same way that saying that NIST didn't test for termites adds weight to a theory that the buildings were eaten to the ground.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
You're a military demolitions expert, and you seriously expect us to believe there's no such thing as remote technology that's resistant to being triggered accidentally? Come on. That's nonsense. Cellphones are surrounded by other cellphones every hour of every day. They don't tend to ring accidentally when someone else is making a call nearby/using the radio. If a bomb can be detonated using a cellphone as the receiver, and cellphones don't tend to suffer from these disruptive clouds of radio frequencies you describe, then what are we even talking about? How can you, with your professional acumen, suggest a remote detonator that wouldn't be triggered by a hand-radio/passing cellphone would be beyond the capabilities of the sort of people who'd be involved in rigging the WTC to blow?

Grieves, honestly mate, I trained illiterate Afghans that can figure this out and I don't really know how to explain it any simpler: Electric detonators have an inherant RF danger to them from rogue frequencies, which is the reason why cellphones, radios and anything else that transmits a signal is not allowed around electric detonators or RC intiation devices. In a demolition of that size you would need hundreds of electronic detonators in a space of uncontrolled RF hazards.

If you can invent an RF hazard-free electric detonator, let me know and Ill go into business with you, but until then, leave your cell-phone with the Demolition Safety Officer.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Years ago, I was driving a used Escort wagon. I stopped to get gas and such and when I came out, it wouldn't start. Kept trying to figure out things when I realized that it had an anti theft light blinking. It had never blinked before and the car was supposed to have had one. Find the manual, find which fuse is on that 'system', pull the fuse. Car starts. put fuse back in, and call hubby and warn him. It never did that again. I can only guess that a stray frequency triggered it.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Can you define 'your' crime scene better. Maybe put some lines on a map?
The plan forms of the towers.

You never discussed the fall of the towers: that they fell in the direction most weakened by fire, and that they could have fallen in other directions and destroyed other buildings had the planes struck differently, or the wind had blown in another direction, and whether or not these surrounding buildings were also wired for explosives.

That's unusual.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Grieves, honestly mate, I trained illiterate Afghans that can figure this out and I don't really know how to explain it any simpler: Electric detonators have an inherant RF danger to them from rogue frequencies, which is the reason why cellphones, radios and anything else that transmits a signal is not allowed around electric detonators or RC intiation devices. In a demolition of that size you would need hundreds of electronic detonators in a space of uncontrolled RF hazards.

If you can invent an RF hazard-free electric detonator, let me know and Ill go into business with you, but until then, leave your cell-phone with the Demolition Safety Officer.
I hate to work this in to the argument, seeing as you're doing such an excellent job here - but a code-locking talkback system could do the job, with transceivers and a small amount of logic.

I doubt whether there were such things easily available at that time, and maybe they aren't right now, so we could go into business, perhaps, and make sure that the next batch of buildings descend perfectly.

We could add the supplementary insulated cooling water tank. That would put the icing on the cake. :)
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Grieves, honestly mate, I trained illiterate Afghans that can figure this out and I don't really know how to explain it any simpler:

Illiterate does not mean unintelligent but nonetheless, if that was the implication, so what... an idiot under your instruction does not disagree with you.... mmmm.

Electric detonators have an inherant RF danger to them from rogue frequencies, which is the reason why cellphones, radios and anything else that transmits a signal is not allowed around electric detonators or RC intiation devices. In a demolition of that size you would need hundreds of electronic detonators in a space of uncontrolled RF hazards.

If you can invent an RF hazard-free electric detonator, let me know and Ill go into business with you, but until then, leave your cell-phone with the Demolition Safety Officer.

So the black ops people couldn't have used mobile detonators because they wouldnot meet health and safety standards?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Years ago, I was driving a used Escort wagon. I stopped to get gas and such and when I came out, it wouldn't start. Kept trying to figure out things when I realized that it had an anti theft light blinking. It had never blinked before and the car was supposed to have had one. Find the manual, find which fuse is on that 'system', pull the fuse. Car starts. put fuse back in, and call hubby and warn him. It never did that again. I can only guess that a stray frequency triggered it.

That's so cute. An anti theft device that you have to take the fuse out of to get the car to start. Wish I had thought of that, bet they went like hot cakes.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Illiterate does not mean unintelligent but nonetheless, if that was the implication, so what... an idiot under your instruction does not disagree with you.... mmmm.

Ok, well you find me a RF hazard-free detonator.


So the black ops people couldn't have used mobile detonators because they wouldnot meet health and safety standards?

No, the imaginary black ops people, however super-secret, James Bondy, SEALsy, Ninja like, shadowy, Mossadian Rothschildian, stealth demolishers still have to deal with the incredibly dull and mundane realities of the electromagnetic spectrum.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
They were NOT hit by 707s. The engineering was a low speed crash with a plane on approach.

The damage done is effected by the speed. Hit a lamppost with your car at 10 miles an hour and then compare the damage done to hitting it at 100 miles an hour.

Not only was it designed to withstand a fully loaded 707, (which is virtually the same as the plane that hit it), it could withstand multiple hits.

Perhaps Chomsky doesn't know about these type of contraindications to his theory.



There were 47 documented fires in wtc's 1,2 and 7 prior to 9/11

And do not forget that WTC 1 had an intense fire burning for 3 hours in 1975 which did not damage the steel and yet on 9/11 it collapsed in a bit over an hour from less intense fires.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?t=9197&p=90141

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Not only was it designed to withstand a fully loaded 707, (which is virtually the same as the plane that hit it), it could withstand multiple hits.

Perhaps Chomsky doesn't know about these type of contraindications to his theory.



There were 47 documented fires in wtc's 1,2 and 7 prior to 9/11

And do not forget that WTC 1 had an intense fire burning for 3 hours in 1975 which did not damage the steel and yet on 9/11 it collapsed in a bit over an hour from less intense fires.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?t=9197&p=90141


The tower withstood a plane impact. The towers withstood a fire. They did not withstand a plane impact and fire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The tower withstood a plane impact. The towers withstood a fire. They did not withstand a plane impact and fire.

Or perhaps they didn't withstand the thermite demolition. More likely.

And 7 couldn't even stand a few office fires without 'collapsing' in what was officially described as a symmetrical implosion. Sorry Landru but you are grasping at straws here.

The planes couldn't do it. That is testified to.

The fires which were fiercer and longer before had no structural impact on the steel and even the lightweight trusses did not need replacing afterwards.

NIST originally claimed the steel melted... proven lie.

What is left?

Even illiterate Iraqi's would not disagree with me, as the polls show.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Are you forgetting that WTC 7 was hit my parts of a falling building? You can't ignore that damage, or are we back to 'that didn't happen'? again?
 

hiper

Active Member
Again, what evidence was there to suspect explosives were involved? Why did NIST not test for salt corrosion? I did not say 'not suspecting explosives' was a scientific reason, I am saying not testing for explosive was a logical reason as there was no evidence of explosive being used.

The defenders of the official explanation just won't get it.

---->>> There is no need to have evidence of suspected involvement of explosives.<<<---

When there is high order building damage there are guidelines to follow (NFPA 921) which calls for testing of accelerant & explosive residue.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
The defenders of the official explanation just won't get it.

---->>> There is no need to have evidence of suspected involvement of explosives.<<<---

When there is high order building damage there are guidelines to follow (NFPA 921) which calls for testing of accelerant & explosive residue.

Explained by NIST.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

Remember they couldn't identify the steel from WTC-7.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
The defenders of the official explanation just won't get it.

---->>> There is no need to have evidence of suspected involvement of explosives.<<<---

When there is high order building damage there are guidelines to follow (NFPA 921) which calls for testing of accelerant & explosive residue.

Hello Hiper, did you get my message I left for you on my page? www.justgiving.com/Robert-Campbell4
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Not only was it designed to withstand a fully loaded 707, (which is virtually the same as the plane that hit it), it could withstand multiple hits.

NIST answers the the built to withstand a 707 question.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
We forget how much easier it is today to model something such as a plane hitting a building than it was in the 60s. Back then a lot more was pencil and paper and sliderule. Today it would be a lot easier to model multiple scenarios, instead of the most likely one, a plane lost in the fog on approach.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
This is a good cause you are raising funds for... no doubts there.
It's sad those making the decisions to go to war almost never loose life or limb.
Also sad Mr Blair didn't have the strength to say no to the Texan.

I'd say we may have something that we agree on.

Still doubt I am an EOD Officer?

You might notice that I disgree with nearly everything you say, but have not actually questioned your integrity. I'm interested why you felt the need to doubt mine?
 

hiper

Active Member
I'm interested why you felt the need to doubt mine?

As an EOD officer you should be familiar with the scientific method.. yet you defend a government institution's conclusion that clearly disregards this method.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
yet you defend a government institution's conclusion that clearly disregards this method.

You keep saying this.

People disagree with you and have explained why.

Why do you keep doing the same thing, and expecting different results?
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
As an EOD officer you should be familiar with the scientific method.. yet you defend a government institution's conclusion that clearly disregards this method.


I do not defend the 'government version', I just see no value of any sort for testing for something that is clearly not present. The explosive avenue is a dead end, pursued only by people that have no understanding or experience of explosives.

Your unnecessary slur against me was not on any technical grounds, simply my disagreeing with your misplaced assertion that NIST was supposed to test for explosives, voodoo, acids, rats, volcanic activity, space lasers and aliens, in order to satisify conspiracy theorists. No amount of testing would be enough for you.

None of this will make any difference to you though, as you will continue to repeat 'NIST didn't test', like it means something.
 

hiper

Active Member
Here we have Mick who keeps repeating it's all about 'science'...
Here we have an EOD officer who hasn't found better than to ridicule someone who points to NIST's unscientific behavior...

You guys begin to sound like the NIST spokesperson...

NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report…

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
And we have others that attack them, even while the attacker can't come up with the simplest parts of an explanation of how the buildings could have been destroyed with explosives.

Again, you are wanting the ME to look for poison in someone that has a gunshot wound to their head.

Let's go back to coming home and finding a broken window. You LOOK at it first, if it was broken from outside and the rock in the living room looks like the rocks in your neighborhood, you don't haul it down to the university and ask them to see if it is a meteorite.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Here we have Mick who keeps repeating it's all about 'science'...
Here we have an EOD officer who hasn't found better than to ridicule someone who points to NIST's unscientific behavior...

You guys begin to sound like the NIST spokesperson...

NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report…

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….

Hiper, apologies if you feel ridiculed.

I don't know Mr Neuman, but I would have to agree with him. I can't really think of any other way to say it, but there is no point to this discussion Hiper, like there is no point in asking NIST why they did not test for flood damage.

Again, I dont mean this unkindly, but do you have any other evidence apart from NIST not testing, and Bush's bad taste in humour?
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Here we have Mick who keeps repeating it's all about 'science'...
Here we have an EOD officer who hasn't found better than to ridicule someone who points to NIST's unscientific behavior...

You guys begin to sound like the NIST spokesperson...

NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report…

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….

Hiper, apologies if you feel ridiculed.

I don't know Mr Neuman, but I would have to agree with him. I can't really think of any other way to say it, but there is no point to this discussion Hiper, like there is no point in asking NIST why they did not test for flood damage.

Again, I dont mean this unkindly, but do you have any other evidence apart from NIST not testing, and Bush's bad taste in humour?
 

hiper

Active Member
You agree with Mr Neuman... what he is saying is arguably the most unscientific thing that can come out of a human's mouth.

A steel high rise totally collapses and you find testing for accelerant & explosive residue and testing for flood damage equally absurd.

Sir your reasoning is out of whack.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
A steel high rise totally collapses and you find testing for accelerant & explosive residue and testing for flood damage equally absurd
Jet fuel is an accelerant, did they need to due a test to figure out the fires spread because of the fuel? Or just watch the videos?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Would the investigation make money?
It's difficult to find accurate figures on book sales, but by 2005 the 9/11 commission had produced at least 800,000 copies, and that was while it was a best-seller. Selling those copies at $10 dollars a piece, that's 8 million dollars. Presuming that sales didn't end there, which is quite apparent considering Amazon is frequently restocking the book, it's reasonable to assume the commission has likely paid for itself by now, if not turned a profit.
Did the government fund the movie?..... To compare the to is like comparing an apple to a computer or a recording studio, they are not even related except that money was used.

Time to retire that piece of nonsense.
You're missing the point by leaps and bounds. The Government funded the Wars following the investigation happily, which according to estimates have cost taxpayers 90,000 TIMES as much as the 9/11 investigation. This was the most crucial investigation in the modern history of the world, and less resources were invested into it than a cheap movie about it. For the United States Government and its policing bodies to cry poverty as an excuse for the intentionally underfunded investigation is laughable, if not disturbing. To claim 'well, we didn't need more money, because we had everything all figured out' is flat-out false.

But it wasn't a "crime-scene", was it? The crimes were committed on WTC1&2, were they not?
Ridiculous. If a man's body is found burning in his shed, and his house is on fire as well, do the police treat the shed as a crime-scene, but ignore the house because the body wasn't there? The WTC complex was the crime-scene. WTC 7 is obviously part of that crime-scene. Oxy makes a fantastic point... would you care to draw us a map from an above-view of the wreckage as to where, in your mind, the crime scene would begin, and where it would end, and explain the exclusions you'd inevitably be making?
If you can invent an RF hazard-free electric detonator, let me know and Ill go into business with you, but until then, leave your cell-phone with the Demolition Safety Officer.
I hate to work this in to the argument, seeing as you're doing such an excellent job here - but a code-locking talkback system could do the job, with transceivers and a small amount of logic.
Yeah, see, no matter how much of an expert you are, you're not going to convince me for a second that the technology to send a signal between two devices, devices which aren't likely to be set off by other surrounding devices/signals, doesn't exist now/didn't exist in 2001.

Again, you are wanting the ME to look for poison in someone that has a gunshot wound to their head.
In a forensic autopsy, biological samples are typically taken / toxicological data from those samples examined, often regardless of cause of death. It's helpful in determining influencing factors. Was the victim on drugs? Were they drunk? Were they sick? Any significant genetic traits/conditions? Even if a person was shot in the head, an autopsy will more often than not check into these things.


Let's go back to coming home and finding a broken window. You LOOK at it first, if it was broken from outside and the rock in the living room looks like the rocks in your neighborhood, you don't haul it down to the university and ask them to see if it is a meteorite.
You also don't assume this rock going through your window was the expected result of all these rocks in your neighborhood being around all these windows in your neighborhood. Given it looks to you like someone threw that rock through your window, you'd obviously suspect someone of having thrown it, and would like to find out who, if anyone, did. Maybe it really was just an accident, maybe a car driving by got the rock caught in its wheel and hurled it from the road. Or maybe some asshole threw a rock through your window. Worth a bit of effort to try and find out which, I'd think.

Ahh, the language of ludicrous analogies...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
jackprune Interesting Chomsky 9/11 video Escaping The Rabbit Hole 18
P Friend has fallen into COVID-conspiracies Coronavirus COVID-19 38
Mick West TFTRH #44 - Steven Hassan: Cults and Conspiracies Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Coronavis and the Food Supply: News, Rumors, Spin, and Conspiracies Coronavirus COVID-19 5
Mick West TFTRH #11: Jim Lee – Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Conspiracies, and Semantics Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mick West 2018 Hurricane Season and Weather Control Conspiracies Current Events 16
Mick West Eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii – Conspiracies and Science Current Events 34
MikeG Claim: DC officials are "flocking" to "Doomsday Camps" Conspiracy Theories 4
MikeG Resilient Cities Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Cults, Conspiracies, and Addiction - Similarities and Differences in Interaction Approaches Practical Debunking 12
MikeG Everything wrong with Hillary Clinton/Medical Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 8
MikeG Florida Zika Response a "Martial Law Exercise" Conspiracy Theories 0
MikeG VA Taking Veterans' Guns Conspiracy Theories 0
MikeG Explained: UN Vehicles Spotted (Again) in the US [Delivery from US Manufacturer to Overseas] Conspiracy Theories 13
MikeG Unreported Abuse of US Troops Conspiracy Theories 0
MikeG FBI Spying on School Children Conspiracy Theories 0
MikeG College Course on Conspiracies Practical Debunking 89
Mick West Explained: Why Clouds Appear Behind the Sun and Moon Flat Earth 59
CeruleanBlu Project scientist Eric Korpela talks about SETI, aliens, and government conspiracies. UFOs and Aliens 0
derrick06 Debunked: HAARP ELF waves causing a earthquake Contrails and Chemtrails 12
vooke Need debunking:Ebola conspiracies video Conspiracy Theories 10
MikeC Lorde conspiracies General Discussion 21
BlueCollarCritic Debunked Conspiracies Update - The Government Is Not Confiscating Guns General Discussion 18
Cairenn Washington Post Blog on weather conspiracies Contrails and Chemtrails 11
AluminumTheory Zimmerman Trial Conspiracies..... Conspiracy Theories 12
Cairenn Pres Kennedy on conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 0
B Backpack conspiracies Boston Marathon Bombings 1
Cairenn Debunked: Gulf of Mexico oil spill conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 22
Dan Wilson Why do people believe conspiracies? General Discussion 86
Mick West Election Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 52
Giuliano Taverna satanic cults/conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 7
Related Articles
































Related Articles

Top