| o_O.Q said: a. well there's various evidence out there here i'll give you a taste https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PY_qM28rnA "It is illogical because there is far to large of a leap between the evidence and the conclusion. " based on what? your own investigation or what you have been told?
b. fair enough that's true that's why i said with regards to the symbol, comic, 911 memorial that obviously i could not be sure that they really are connected but i'm more inclined to believe they are but that's me
c. "Most of the evidence these illuminati supporters follow is propagated by youtube conspiracy theorists. If the Illuminati actually exists, I'd be willing to bet that it is nothing like what most people think. "
i personally don't claim to understand how this whole thing works all i'm saying is that there is evidence that shows that what we are led to believe is false
"most of this "evidence" is strung out of context"
can you give an example?
d. "Most of these conspiracy theorists are making tremendous leaps of logic and as a self proclaimed "critical thinker", that just isn't logical. "
looking at evidence and deriving a conclusion based on the evidence is logical you may not always reach the right conclusion but imo its the right process |
A. Based on the evidence that I have been presented in this thread I find the conclusions illogical.
Heres a pretty definitive article about Building 7 citing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) who is a pretty big deal in the scientific community:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874
"Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse. "
C. Just look up. You can see a few cases where someone posts a quote out of context which someone else provides context to. If fact, you just posted a quote not too long ago, which someone pointed out was in the context of the cold war. People see these quotes and say "oh, it must be a conspiracy!" and pass them around without validating their own facts.
D. Looking at a twinkling light in the sky and concluding "it must be aliens" is not logical. I don't see much of a difference between a lot of these claims. There needs to be a logical continuance between the evidence and the conclusion and a lot of times with this type of thing, that just isn't there. Additionally, you have people passing around these "undisputable facts" without looking at the other side.
