ALTERNATIVE THEORIES V: The Build-a-bear Workshop

[drug_mentor]

kk just quickly (again.. don't frequent bluelight as much as i once did.. i'm a busy man now )

I apologise for the way i spoke to you in my past post.. It's true what bit_pattern said.. It does get get tedious to the point of frustrating to the point of FUCK ME.. but i understand this is the first time you have been involved..

All good dude, to be truthful I should have chosen my words more carefully if I didn't want to get taken to task for them. I had a pretty shitty couple of weeks and got needlessly defensive.

What i said still stands true though.. The evidence is out there.. you only have to step away from the conspiracy sites and look up the counter sites to realise the conspiracy sites talk sooo much shit.. To be fair i once believe in the *alternative* story until i realised there is so much more information i'm unaware of i couldn't possibly come to a worthwhile conclusion.. It's clear that you've spend a lot of time researching 9/11 from one side of the fence while completely ignoring what information is present on the other side..


You can run your hand through a flame feeling little more than a slight rise in temperature.. leave that hand in the flame and it will burn.. saying a passport couldn't survive if the steel couldn't, in this case, would be like quickly passing a piece of paper through a flame (easily come out unscathed) while throwing a log on a fire (will burn to ashes).. The passport as well as other things from the plane would have been blown from the building almost instantly.. while the structure would have been exposed to hours of intense raging fires..

The initial crash and fuel fire would not have been enough to bring the twin towers down, you're right.. the fuel would have burnt too quickly to cause enough damage.. but the fuel fire was just the beginning.. just the spark, if you will.. as for it melting steel.. it didn't.. it merely had to weaken it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

Anndd.. I'm sorry but that's about the best quality post you're gonna get from me right now Will probably have more time at the weekend.

It is a couple years since I looked into any of this, I honestly have looked at both sides of it, admittedly the conspiracy side more so, for whatever reason that is what tends to stand out in my mind, probably because I tended to agree with more of it at the time.

The passport thing I am going to have to agree to disagree, I can see where you are coming from in your analogy but to me it still seems very far fetched.

I have heard witness reports of molten steel. Obviously, some of the sources I previously relied on were less than reliable so I would have to go check that out again.

Actually, the theory isn't that steel would melt, but would weaken.

If you don't even know the official theory of the collapse, how can we take your criticism of it seriously?

I thought it had been established that the steel had in fact melted, so regardless of the official theory, which I obviously believe to be false, it followed that to argue the fire caused the collapse was essentially the same as saying it caused it to melt, as I stated a few lines above this one, I am now less convinced of that and would need to verify it.

Whether the steel was weakened or melted is almost inconsequential to me, because I still don't buy that those fires caused the buildings to collapse at near free fall speed. That is not to say that it is fair to claim that the steel melted if it did not, just that whether it did or not is not really a huge factor in why I doubt fire caused those buildings to collapse.

I didn't ask anyone to take me seriously, I just asked not to be mocked or ridiculed, although I now admit that I let a few drinks and a selective memory influence me towards making a couple hyperbolic claims, and it was hardly unfair for people to respond to them in the way they did.

The truth is that I don't necessarily buy the alternative theory much more than the official story, I was more convinced of some elements of the alternative theory a few days ago than I am today, but realistically I have always taken all of the various theories and at most considered them very possible, there is not a whole lot about 9/11 that I am actually 100% convinced of.

I do have a very strong feeling that the US Government was involved with it in some way, the extent of this involvement could be as little as having prior knowledge that it was going to happen and putting things in motion to ensure it was not stopped, like having NORAD play war games that morning. I admit I do tend to think the involvement was deeper than that, because I do have serious doubts about those towers falling. In particular tower 7 I have a pretty hard time with, when you factor in the amount of witnesses who said they heard/felt/saw explosions I do lean towards the belief there were probably bombs in those buildings, but as I said before there is very little about 9/11 that I am 100% convinced of.

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

 

[rickolasnice]

I do have a very strong feeling that the US Government was involved with it in some way, the extent of this involvement could be as little as having prior knowledge that it was going to happen and putting things in motion to ensure it was not stopped, like having NORAD play war games that morning. I admit I do tend to think the involvement was deeper than that, because I do have serious doubts about those towers falling. In particular tower 7 I have a pretty hard time with, when you factor in the amount of witnesses who said they heard/felt/saw explosions I do lean towards the belief there were probably bombs in those buildings, but as I said before there is very little about 9/11 that I am 100% convinced of.

I find it hard to believe that the American government weren't involved in some way (specifically the ways you spoke of) but the truth is there is no evidence of it. Controlled demolition theory just doesn't make sense and there's fuck all evidence for it.

WTC7 suffered major structural damage before it fell.. once a building loses structural integrity there's nothing stopping a complete collapse.

The witnesses who heard explosions probably did hear explosions but these were not explosions coming from a controlled demolition.. Ignoring the fact that anecdotal evidence is piss poor at the best of times and completely useless in times of stressful situations, there would have been loud bangs and even explosions happening. Ever heard a transformer explode?

Again all of the information is there.. if you just type in to google *conspiracy theory xyz debunked* then there will more often than not be a perfectly logical (and factual) explanation.. A lot of the witness accounts and even quotes are taken completely out of context by conspiracy theorists.. A relevant example would be a quote of someone saying "it sounded like bombs going off" when the person themselves didn't mean they thought bombs were actually going off.. Almost every aspect of 9/11 conspiracy theorists has a quote or two (or dozens) taken out of context to support their bullshit claims.

Going back to the no plane theory of the pentagon:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

(A quick skim of that site and i know there's a lot more that that site hasn't included)

about 89 The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones.
at least 45 The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.
at least 23 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases a large jet.
at least 22 The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening.
at least 17 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the highways.
at least 12 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane increase its throttle at the last seconds.
at least 11 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a C-130H flying 30 seconds behind a jetliner.
at least 5 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically stated they saw the plane had its gear up.
at least 2 The amount of eye witnesses who stated that they saw a small corporate jet, without doing any creative interpretating [sic] of the witness accounts.
at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant!
at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.
at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.
at least 3 The amount of witnesses who reported the sound of the plane was quite noiseless. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock)
at least 1 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had it's gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole)
at least 25 The amount of witnesses who have said something that might point to the use of explosives or incendiaries. (White flash, powerful blast waves which blew people through the air, molten glass, burning aluminium, [sic] spreading debris over hundreds of yards back to where the plane came from, including 2 engines, the missing plane itself, etc.)

(I think what the bit in brackets next to bold text is talking about is the "I heard a missile" comment I come across before and has been used by people i have spoken to many times.. When presented with a video of a plane flying towards the camera.. that adequately describes the kind of sound the person described (thanks dopler shift))

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

I thought it had been established that the steel had in fact melted

Not as far as I know - at least, not during the collapse. Part of the fuselage may have melted.

I still don't buy that those fires caused the buildings to collapse at near free fall speed.

Well, the initial collapse wasn't anywhere near free fall speeds. After that, we witnessed potential energy being released as kinetic energy.

Anyways, the controlled demolition theory is unworkable. Even if you ignore the physics behind the collapse, you face another problem - controlled demolitions take a long time to rig up, even in an abandoned building. If you try to shortcut that and say only a few key structural pieces had to be destroyed, then you're stuck with explaining how a Boeing 7-whatever-7 crashing through several floors and the resulting fires wasn't enough to destroy the structural integrity of those same key pieces.

 

[ebola?]

Open your eyes, Escher! You think those scientists want you to know the truth?!

ebola

 

[legalizeall]

Although there is a little bit of an argument for people thinking some cavemen were solely responsible for this, ultimately I think there was some serious foul play going on by people in the u.s. government and possibly from other countries. There is too much evidence for it. First, whatever you believe, I think we can all agree that some important questions need to be answered and that just hasnt happened. I could go on and on about it but ill just state a few things. Your sources bit look like they are just a touch on the biased side. That youtube video that was by the pentagon showed what? Had the wrong date on the top. It said 1-1-93.

The 9/11 report on the incident was not accurate according to the people that first wrote it which is amazing to me with straight up lies being told. The fact that nobody was able to investigate the debris in one of the biggest attacks in u.s. history is a little odd. Was carted off and destroyed and sent to china.

Bush and Chaney not having to take an oath about what they knew along with a private meeting is a little suspicious. Some of the people on the committee to draw up the report were friends of the bush administration. Odd.

Bin laden was never indicted on charges for the attack. But i guess the government and the people are ok with us going to another country and murdering someone. That should make all the citizens here a little worried.

Why did we kill Saddam first when bush admitted he didn't have anything to do with 9/11?

Bin Laden was in a hospital being taken care of by u.s. personal when 9/11 happened. How did the u.s. government figure out within hours that he did it. That is just as much as a conspiracy theory as saying the government had something to do with it. Whats the difference. The relations the u.s. has had with the bin laden family and especially the bush's relations with them is a little odd.

All the money that was moving around right before it happened including the stock options for the airline company which had never been seen before ever and insurance on the twin towers. That fuck went to court so he could get double the money because it was two buildings. Not to mention his famous quote about deciding to "pull" tower 7

One of the most secure buildings in the world with cameras literally everywhere can only produce a grainy video where the item that hit the pentagon just so happened to be in between frames so you cant see what it is. I dont know if it was a missle or not but it seems that with all the cameras around that it would be a good way to show people what it clearly was. They have not released all the footage either. Not to mention the air traffic controllers who were watching the monitor thought the blip on the radar was a jet flying around and not a giant commercial plane. I think that is good evidence because that is what they do everyday so I think they would have a good idea of what they were looking at.

There was hardly any debris on the grass compared with other plane crashes that have happened. Oh and guess what, we couldnt find the black box. When have you ever heard of that. Contrary to your source there bit, there was alot of debris on that field of the plane crash and they were able to recover the black box. They were damaged but they still recovered them. I really have a hard time believing that the engines on that type of plane would just go up into a cloud of smoke. The manufacturer of the engines agrees with that too.

Im not even gonna talk about building 7 cause that is just absurd. And they hardly even reported it in the media that day. You talk to alot of people here in the u.s. and they have no idea what building 7 is. Watching it go down with freefall speed and gaining speed on the way down. Oh and the reporter who was talking about how it went down even though it was standing behind her waving at the camera.

First time in history of high rise buildings that the buildings collapse due to office fires like that. Other buildings that have been engulfed in fire burned for hours and still didn't go down. The twin towers were actually built to withstand the force of planes hitting them as well.

How coincidental that the military just so happened to be doing drills that very day that had the same exact situation as 9/11. Needless to say, people were very confused about what was real and a drill. Plus it took away most of the jets that normally patrol the area around n.y. so that when they did figure out what was going on it took a very long time to get them in the air. Didnt see a jet in the area till almost an hour and half after the first plane hit the tower. With all the u.s. has in military and technology it took this long to scramble fighters to the area when in most cases it takes literally five minutes for them to get jets to a suspicious plane? Bullshit and if that is the case, people should have been fired but that didnt happen.

Then you got bush saying that they had never thought of the scenario of planes hitting buildings as a terrorist attack. Sure seemed like they had thought about it and is actually documented. Also the fact he said he say the first plane. How the fuck would you have seen that unless you knew it was coming.

The pentagon could not account for a insane amount of money on their budget before 9/11 happened. 2.3 trillion dollars actually. The offices where they were trying to figure it out was where the pentagon got hit. Oh and building 7 too had many important documents because that was where the IRS, CIA, secret service, and SEC had their headquarters. Never heard about where that money went after the attacks.

Government officials getting random phone calls telling them not to fly on that day.

Operation Northwood along with all the other lies they have used to get the people in favor of going to war. Vietnam, Pearl Harbor. Mysterious too that Kennedy ended up dead after having denied the go ahead with operation northwood.

Just the idea of this would be such a easy way to gain support from the american people to go to war over in the middle east. Rumsfield did say that we needed another pearl harbor for people to get back on the right track.'All the new laws, in the name of homeland security, that were put in place. The surveillance of people being stepped up dramatically.

You would be stupid to trust anything they say because of all the lies and corruption that have been told and been proven. Not just with one president. Many decades of lies. The u.s. needs to be at war. Its what we do and there is an enormous amount of money to be made when we are at war. In the name of the precious oil. Thats what its all about the only reason that we are involved with the middle east at all.

People that either were going public with some damning evidence on what they saw that day or people that were about too all of the sudden were showing up dead.

There is alot more that im forgetting but im gonna eat me dinner here and call it a day. For me the near smoking gun is tower 7. I mean come on. I dont know how anyone can watch that and be ok in thinking that it went down "naturally" like that and after not even being hit by a plane. The loud booms that happened before it went down like you hear before a demolition of a building too. Some demolitions i have seen dont even go down that smooth. In order for it to go down like it did, there has to be no resistance at all. You cant tell me that it developed that on its own, with no damage from a plane. Debris and some little fires did that? Shouldnt ever other building around the twin towers have fallen then? Just the one with all the confidential documents from the government agencies i guess. Three buildings with 2 planes.

One thing though does trouble me and makes me think, is in order for this to go down the way it did, they would have had to have so many people involved. Alot of people. So you would think after all this time some jackass would have developed a heart and come forward with some kind of evidence showing it was an inside job. Oh and the phone calls too that were made from the planes that were hijacked is troubling. Where did those fuckin people end up?

I have looked at this for years from both sides and i still feel the evidence is too much for an inside job not to have happened. But I would love to be wrong and why i think they need to answer some questions about what happened that day and before that day.

 

[legalizeall]

Its just goes both ways from both sides of view but you really cant say someone is wrong or not informed simply because they have people debunking a theory. They have people that debunk the debunkers so it just comes down to what your opinion is at the end of the day. We arent professionals in those fields they are talking about so who the fuck really knows. Maybe one day.

That seems to be how it works. The gulf of tonkin that got us into vietnam has been shown to be a false flag but when its said quietly and at a time when the Vietnam war isnt front page news then it's just not gonna have the same effect then if it came out during the war. It will be missed partly because its a different generation. My dad was in vietnam so its closer to me then for some but i bet you if I went around my work and asked people what they thought about the gulf of tonkin being a lie, most would look at me with confusion.

Another one is the martin luther king murder which the u.s. governent was convicted of being involved with. Hardly anyone now knows that happened but imagine if they had done that at the time. The media filters work very well.

People here just forget over time. Out of sight, out of mind. Like i said earlier, it doesnt matter what you think happened. We can all agree on the fact that their are many questions that need to be answered that havent been. If you really sit there and think about everything that went down, we as americans should be at the door of the white house demanding answers. This is a huge deal. How is this type of event with so many vague answers and silence from the government ok at all. So many people have just gone with the terroist explanation even when they havent heard evidence for it. Its the perfect answer though. Those crazy people in that far away land across the world. Ya, they did it. There is a video out there with someone on the street filming as the plane hits the second tower. You can hear someone idiot shouting, "thats terrorist bro. Thats terrorist bro." He sounds like a total douche bag but you can tell how its been programed in him to think that. He doesnt fuckin know but he knows he has seen those crazy people halfway around the world blowing shit up on the news so it must be them. Those foreign people. Its not just by chance and his own thinking that he screams terrorist bro. Its meant to be that way having been planted in his head well before the attack.

We just let them continue doing whatever which, i think, is part of the evidence with 9/11. They know that over time, even with how big this was, that the ameirican people arent gonna do anything. Its like a kid throwing a tantrum. Just ignore it and the kid will stop, get tired, and fall asleep. Or you can just beat him when they get out of line which seems to be how they like to do it. Let them protest all they want. Time will stop that. We should still be furious that this has played out the way it has. It might be different on the east coast but here on the west coast you can already see and feel how this event is just fading into background. It just blows me away how that can happen with so many unanswered questions still.

They are so good at distracting though. Think about how many tragedies you hear about and then not another word is spoken about them in a few days even with no resolution. Like dont think about that, look at this bright light. Ya follow the pretty light to this story. Like a goldfish, every turn is a new and different world.

I really hope it comes to light one day and not for me really, but for the families and loved ones of the people gone on that day. I hope they can find some peace one day with all this.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

The conspiracy of controlled demolition requires, on one hand, the competency of massively coordinating a massive amount of people and labor in secret, and on the other hand, the utter incompetency of deciding to destroy a building that wasn't directly hit by a plane.

 

[legalizeall]

The conspiracy of controlled demolition requires, on one hand, the competency of massively coordinating a massive amount of people and labor in secret, and on the other hand, the utter incompetency of deciding to destroy a building that wasn't directly hit by a plane.

I agree, it would be a tremendous feat that would take alot of people and time. One thing though is the issue of multiple people talking about all the explosions by the lobby level when this was all stating. Explosions so big that people were seriously injured and even killed in the lobby. It just makes me wonder what would cause that from something that happened way above that. Windows blown out and people hearing large, successive booms. One account i heard was this lady said it was like someone was at a control of some sort hitting a button for each explosion. Transformers dont blow out windows either.

 

[legalizeall]

Not as far as I know - at least, not during the collapse. Part of the fuselage may have melted.



Well, the initial collapse wasn't anywhere near free fall speeds. After that, we witnessed potential energy being released as kinetic energy.

Anyways, the controlled demolition theory is unworkable. Even if you ignore the physics behind the collapse, you face another problem - controlled demolitions take a long time to rig up, even in an abandoned building. If you try to shortcut that and say only a few key structural pieces had to be destroyed, then you're stuck with explaining how a Boeing 7-whatever-7 crashing through several floors and the resulting fires wasn't enough to destroy the structural integrity of those same key pieces.

Building 7 went down at free fall speed and actually has been shown that it was gaining speed as it went down which means there is a total lack of any resistance. Anyone can understand the resistance concept. Just seems mind blowing that office fire did this. Fires from material inside the building that could never even come close to a hot enough temp to compromise steel.

I will say that there is more of an argument for the other towers being compromised by the planes, even though i dont agree, but not this one having never been touch by a plane. Debris and small office fires from furniture and computers and electrical is gonna bring a 52 story building down in that fashion? Looked like a slinky going down. Didnt even need the jet fuel. That is a massive steel building that would have gone down by very weak means.

Shit, after this who needs to hire an expensive demo team. Just take an old plane or anything big and crash it next to the building that needs to be demolished. It should just fall down in just hours in its own dust like this one did right?

Wait, my bad. Scratch the big object crashing near it. Just place some old couches and computers in it and just light them on fire. That should definitely give it the no resistance, free fall in its own footprint effect your looking for. How could it not. Seems logical to me. Buildings up to 50 stories too can be down within the day. I need to get a patent on this before everyone catches on. Created a whole new industry.

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

Too bad this isn't real.

 

[rickolasnice]

Building 7 went down at free fall speed and actually has been shown that it was gaining speed as it went down which means there is a total lack of any resistance. Anyone can understand the resistance concept. Just seems mind blowing that office fire did this. Fires from material inside the building that could never even come close to a hot enough temp to compromise steel.

I will say that there is more of an argument for the other towers being compromised by the planes, even though i dont agree, but not this one having never been touch by a plane. Debris and small office fires from furniture and computers and electrical is gonna bring a 52 story building down in that fashion? Looked like a slinky going down. Didnt even need the jet fuel. That is a massive steel building that would have gone down by very weak means.

Shit, after this who needs to hire an expensive demo team. Just take an old plane or anything big and crash it next to the building that needs to be demolished. It should just fall down in just hours in its own dust like this one did right?

Wait, my bad. Scratch the big object crashing near it. Just place some old couches and computers in it and just light them on fire. That should definitely give it the no resistance, free fall in its own footprint effect your looking for. How could it not. Seems logical to me. Buildings up to 50 stories too can be down within the day. I need to get a patent on this before everyone catches on. Created a whole new industry.

Building 7 had 3 main support columns, one severely weakened by the plane wreckage (which also gouged a huge hole out of one side of the building) and another (or more, i forget) had a fire burning at it's base.. a back-up generator on fire.

Once one support column completely failed, the weakened one would have instantly failed.. once two failed there was really no chance in hell for the third (i think all three had fires burning at their base.. clever place to put generators, eh?)

The Larry Silverstein quote has been taken out of context and misinterpreted more than any other quote from that day.

Short video on that quote:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=992_1252469648

 

[legalizeall]

Building 7 had 3 main support columns, one severely weakened by the plane wreckage (which also gouged a huge hole out of one side of the building) and another (or more, i forget) had a fire burning at it's base.. a back-up generator on fire.

Once one support column completely failed, the weakened one would have instantly failed.. once two failed there was really no chance in hell for the third (i think all three had fires burning at their base.. clever place to put generators, eh?)


The Larry Silverstein quote has been taken out of context and misinterpreted more than any other quote from that day.

Short video on that quote:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=992_1252469648

Ok, lets throw away the comment of Silverstein, certain things still remain. Building 7 came down with free fall speed which NIST admits and is easily proven through video. Dont need to be an expert in anything to see that. Among other visible evidence like the way the roof top came down at the same level, free fall and natural collapse just dont mix. Too many other factors prevent free fall from taking place. Even with the 3 support column collapse there would still be resistance from all the structure underneath it that would have slowed it down. Its still a huge building with alot of structure to it. Other forces seem to be at work to let free fall take place.

With no mention of building 7 in the first 9/11 commission or any initial investigation of the collapse, that seems very troubling considering it fell within its own footprint and only the third steel framed building in history to do so. Took them a long time to come up with the 3 support column theory too.

Like i said before, many questions just need to be answered, no matter what side of the coin your on, that haven't been. I dont see how anyone can put all of this logically to bed or not question an explanation, given by a government or a group connected with the government, that has been proven to have lied and deceived in the past.

 

[rickolasnice]

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

http://911debunkers.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/does-new-footage-of-wtc-7s-collapse.html

 

[legalizeall]

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

http://911debunkers.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/does-new-footage-of-wtc-7s-collapse.html

..

What i said still stands true though.. The evidence is out there.. you only have to step away from the conspiracy sites and look up the counter sites to realise the conspiracy sites talk sooo much shit.. To be fair i once believe in the *alternative* story until i realised there is so much more information i'm unaware of i couldn't possibly come to a worthwhile conclusion.. It's clear that you've spend a lot of time researching 9/11 from one side of the fence while completely ignoring what information is present on the other side..

maybe listen to a little bit of your own advice. Think those sites are one sided much?

 

[rickolasnice]

You may have missed the many comments in which I openly state I used to believe in the conspiracy shite..

It's just,. one side has evidence to support it's claims, and.. well.. it makes sense.

Got anything to say about the information provided or...?

 

[legalizeall]

You may have missed the many comments in which I openly state I used to believe in the conspiracy shite..

It's just,. one side has evidence to support it's claims, and.. well.. it makes sense.

Got anything to say about the information provided or...?

I saw you posted that but thats irrelevant to my point. Plus, I have said many things about information if you look at my other posts on this thread

 

[rickolasnice]

The difference being.. the debunking websites directly focus on conspiracy theorist point and debunk them using evidence..

The conspiracy theorists points are all snippets of information twisted, taken out of context, assumed to be (impossible / possible / this way / that way (wrongly)) and portraying it in such a light it fits their agenda.

So the powers that be rigged building 7 with explosives (huge feat, many, MANY people are involved in bringing down an EMPTY building) and hoped and prayed it would take major damage from debris which would subsequently cause fires around the main support columns so that they could then demolish it.. right..

They even waited for a bulge to appear in the building and for creaking to sound to trick the firefighters into thinking it was going to collapse before deciding to bring it down themselves..

 

[bit_pattern]

You may have missed the many comments in which I openly state I used to believe in the conspiracy shite..

It's just,. one side has evidence to support it's claims, and.. well.. it makes sense.

Got anything to say about the information provided or...?

Same.

Climate change (and a few liberal doses of ayahuasca) changed my worldview - once I saw how deniers manipulate evidence I started to notice all kinds of correlations between them and conspiracy theorists. Evidence is king.

 

[rickolasnice]

Did we.. did we win? Is it over?

I've noticed a lot of conspiracy theorists have a huge similarity in ways of thinking with theists.. No amount of evidence will sway their misguided beliefs.. Each new piece will be dismissed as untrue, unimportant or both while immediately bringing up another point to "prove" their claim.. repeat..

I guess you could consider religion a conspiracy 8(