When Al-Qaeda themselves claimed responsibility, even with overwhelming evidence aside? Why were so many people still reluctant, I was researching about this stuff and was shocked to see people who I respect a lot believe in this

186 points

Because Bush and company did everything they could to protect the Saudis and the Bin Laden family, and then made massive fortunes attacking Iraq which had nothing to do with the attack.

At best, the Bush administration were opportunistic war-profiteers who abused the situation for their own gain.

That doesn’t validate any of the absurd theories about demolitions or RC planes.

permalink
report
reply
39 points

Unfortunately many “leaders” seem to abide by the saying “Never let a good disaster go to waste.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

Every conspiracy theory comes back to covering for oil money and the political party they run (Republicans).

Watergate proven to happen? “Yeah, but aliens…” worked so well to distract and muddle the public that Reagan was elected in another landslide six years later.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Not to mention all the ties between the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royal family and the Bush family… https://www.denverpost.com/2006/09/11/bush-ties-to-bin-laden-haunt-grim-anniversary/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Bush,_House_of_Saud

permalink
report
parent
reply
117 points

It’s easier to believe the people in charge are secretly in control of everything than to believe they’re barely in control of anything.

permalink
report
reply
73 points

This.

Conspiracy theories are comforting because they are more pleasant to believe than the truth, which is that we’re all aboard a ship going full steam ahead with nobody at the rudder.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

It also gives people a sense of deep satisfaction believing they know some dark hidden secret nobody else does… regardless of how absurd it is

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Vanity. It’s the Devil’s favourite sin.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Nobody’s at the rudder, but also all of us are. Everyone has more capacity than anyone is comfortable with

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Also, at the time, in the west, Al Qaida were a largely unknown terrorist cell operating in far-away third-world countries. It seemed incredible that such a devastating attack could be carried out on US soil by a small group most people had never heard of.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

And yet, this all powerful government couldn’t even fake finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to “validate” their invasion reasons.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Government incompetence is the main reason I didn’t go down the conspiracy rabbit hole. They’re too stupid to pull most shit off without tripping over their own dicks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
80 points
*

I didn’t actually believe this, but it was fun to entertain the idea.

Here’s why. At the time, there were a bunch of very odd coincidences. I’ll do my best to remember the best of them.

  • The CIA/NSA (one of the “secret” agencies) put out a budget report showing a large amount of money that was not trackable, in the billions.
  • Coincidentally, the section of the pentagon hit by the “plane” was reportedly where financial records were stored.
  • By “plane”, I mean object. If you watch the 1 video that got out (all other videos were confiscated) from the nearby gas station, the thing that hits the pentagon does not look like a plane but instead a missile.

Next!

  • reportedly, the owner of the twin towers took out a massive insurance policy against the buildings the day or week before 9/11 (I forget exact timing)
  • also, the building was covered in asbestos, the cost to remove was in the billions, and the cost to keep the building occupied always also increasing

Next!

  • building 7 (I think that’s the right one) collapsed under what appeared to be demolishing conditions
  • building 7 was never hit by a plane or anything else, it just dropped like it was purposefully demolished

Edit: forgot one!

  • the towers were obviously hit by planes, we have plenty of video evidence of this. The controversy is around how the towers actually fell. This is where the “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” meme comes from.

There are more, but it’s been 20 years and my memory is hazy.

Overall, there were some oddities around the whole event that, when allowing yourself to think completely outside of reality, make sense as to why it was an inside job.

Finally, personally I believe the Saudis did it in cooperation with Bin Laden and their goal was to bankrupt America. They did a pretty good job, from their perspective.

permalink
report
reply
38 points

I can’t vouch for the veracity of most of your content but I wanted to add that building 7 was also announced to have collapsed before it actually did.

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points

I can’t vouch for the veracity of most of your content but I wanted to add that building 7 was also announced to have collapsed before it actually did.

Yep. There was also the quotes from Rudi Guilani where he said something along the lines of “Pull Building 7”, where pull is demolitions parlance to set off the charges. This was like a day of audio snippet. Its also basically impossible to find the original footage that isn’t pure conspiracy drivel, but I remember it from the time when all of this was happening. There was so much going on in the wake of 9-11, with the country pretty much instantaneously jumping into war mode, being immediately handed a narrative around al-Qaeda with no investigation into the causes or veracity of the government claims around al-Qaeda.

The push back on questioning the narrative was surreal. Like, you would be drawn and quartered publicly for doing so. The ‘feeling’ at the time was that the investigation into what actually happened and how felt like a complete sham that the government didn’t really want to do because so many people weren’t accepting the party narrative.

Also, keep in mind the context. There was a strong anti-war sentiment in 2003 going into the invasion of Iraq. The “9-11 was an inside job crowd” found themselves running with the anti-war crowd as general anti-institutionalists. This was when Alex Jones was just finding his footing and definitely wasn’t quite fully right wing. He was more accurately (at the time, in historical context) anti-establishment. The modern right-wing movement hadn’t fully formed, although it found its roots in this historical period (the Tea party would also come out of this period).

So just broadly consider the different vectors operating on public perception at the time. We were basically instantly construction a “Going to War is the Solution” narrative within hours of 9-11 happening, and the narrative around that construction was found to be fully formed as soon as it emerged, almost as if the institutions of the US government and its surrounding media had been prepared for this exact moment. Push back against this was effectively an instantaneous scarlett letter and there basically was none in US mainstream media*. There was a strong push back against any kind of independent investigation into the events leading up to the event. We got reports from the CIA and FBI, but considering the context, like, if those are the parties in question, do you believe them? Then you had the Saudi Bush family connections, the fact that we were basically going to war with Afghanistan when we knew it was the Saudis that did 9-11, which was like a pretty big red flag. Then there were the reports that globally, many governments warned about this happening to US intelligence agencies, but it seemed like they just kind of let it happen. Which is really where the conspiracy was focused. These days it gets too wrapped up in ‘inside job’ etc, but the general scheme was more about 9-11 being allowed to happen as an excuse for a Bush invasion into the middle east. This wasn’t a conspiracy that was built in hindsight, the speculation was built in real time (before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq), and then go figure, Bush invades the middle east, and specifically, goes after Iraq. This basically fully validates the theory, and to put a cherry on top, the evidence on Iraq was all just… fraudulent. So if you limit the scope of the theory to 9-11 was ‘allowed’ to occur to justify a military industrial complex incursion into the middle east, its kind-of like “well yeah duh” because thats exactly what happened.

Wild fukin time and wild bit of history. Important to keep context in mind, and to have sources of information about the past which aren’t ‘edited’ to reflect newthink.

*Democracy Now did exist by this time (finding its establishment after the Seattle WTO protests). If you want to really understand what was going on at the time, this would be the media source I would recommend.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Do you write? I really enjoyed reading your comments, just flowed naturally talented

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Before the Bush election, Cheney and Rumsfeild belonged to a think tank called a New American Century that created the plan to invade Iraq in order to create a government friendly to the US.

One author even said that America would need a new Pearl Harbor to regain its military strength.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Hard to believe he was Super America Mayor Man, and threw it away for an overgrown child. And his tax rate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

The push back on questioning the narrative was surreal.

The vast majority of the time, the pushback was low effort “asking questions” based on fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter or entirely pulled our of their asses.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Incorrect information in a chaotic situation? Would never happen!

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Countless incorrect things were announced. Everyone was collectively panicking. That’s odd, but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything considering the building was already visibly damaged.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

The building had been on fire for hours at that point with no water pressure to run the sprinklers or allow firefighters to effectively combat it. It was decided to stop efforts to save the building as it was presumed the integrity of the structure was damaged beyond repair.

As for the reporters announcing it collapsing early, its doubtful that it was anything but one of many mistakes reporters made live on air hours into an exhausting day of chaos. Maybe that had been told the building was going to collapse at any minute or maybe they had been told efforts to stop collapse had ceased and an assumption was made by the crew on the ground it had already fell. As I recall it was the BBC that said it fell before it actually did, so the idea of a foreign news outlet being in on a false flag conspiracy is just too ridiculous to be believable over something such as an exhausted reporter misspeaking in the middle of an emotionally overwhelming day.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

A building fire started by jet fuel absolutely can melt steel beams, and the collapse of building 7 occurred exactly as you would expect from a building fire, which happened because the fire in the other buildings was blown across by the wind and explosions. None of the building collapse videos look like a demolition.

If the government wanted to execute an attack on Americans, why not just fund the terrorists and ignore warnings? Let the jihadists crash planes into buuldings. Setting hidden, controlled demolition charges and trying to make it look like a collapse is harder than finding some terrorists willing to die for their cause and teaching them to fly.

It is conceivable to me that members of the intelligence community, the military-industrial complex, and/or the government ignored warnings and allowed the attacks to happen for their own benefit. I would prefer to think it wasn’t true, but I must concede that it would explain many inconsistencies.

It is theoretically possible, but implausible to me, that those same people would coordinate the attacks and support the terrorists to ensure that the attacks would happen as a false flag operation. This is an extraordinary claim with almost no evidence.

It is not in any way possible that the government demolished any of the buildings attacked on purpose and then covered up all evidence of the demolition. There would need to be too many people involved, too many videos altered or destroyed, and too much evidence planted after the fact. It is demonstrably false.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

and the collapse of building 7 occurred exactly as you would expect from a building fire

It wasnt the first skyscraper fire, but it was the first and still only skyscraper to collapse from a fire. So no i wouldnt say its expected at all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

As I said with the very first statement, I don’t believe any of this.

why not just fund the terrorists and ignore warnings?

This is exactly what many tinfoil hatters thought and probably still think.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I mean… In a way they were financed and armed by the US, just not recently…

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

The main one for me was that NORAD, for the first time ever, was “stress testing” their system and running every flight sim they had, so when things went down, they had no idea what was real and what wasn’t.

The order to do so, for the first time, unprovoked, unnecessarily and unneededly came from Dick Cheney himself, who didn’t even have the authority to order the Pentagon to do ANYTHING but his orders were followed regardless.

That’s a pretty big discrepancy. It’s really hard for me to rule that one out

Building 7 is a big leap of faith to hurdle.

The twin towers themselves collapsing in a controlled manner, that doesn’t happen without blowing individual floors. Buildings in war zones don’t fall down vertically, they’ll partially collapse or fall over, not straight down - that ONLY happens with controlled demolition.

That’s a big leap of faith.

Like almost everyone else, I was glued to the TV all day on 9/11. I remember when the Pentagon footage was aired on TV. It was played ONCE. That was a missile. It was clear as day. Beyond that, if it was an airplane, where’s the fucking wreckage? Cuz that would be the first plane crash in all of history that left zero wreckage.

That’s a big leap of faith.

It requires to many leaps of faith to believe the given story. Idk the whole of what happened, but I know we weren’t told it.

The Patriot Act was introduced 5 weeks after the attack. 342 pages, no contradictions in the whole thing. Introduced, passed, and signed into law in 4 days. 5 weeks isn’t enough time to read 350 pages of legalese, let alone write it. It was ready to go

Add to all the sus, America’s government post WW2, at least, has not warranted any trust from the public. The CIA has done a LOT of fucked up, illegal shit to us. The Bay of Tomkin was a false flag fucking lie to the people. The incessant lie of Neoliberalism telling us that GDP is up! But everyone’s quality of life is being striped away faster than our rights. Citizens United is bullshit, 2000 election was bullshit, Iraq and Afghanistan were both bullshit, qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture are fucking repressive FASCIST bullshit and yea, you know, I don’t think the people calling the shots have our best interests in mind, how could you?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

“_______ doesn’t happen without _______” all all bullshit based on nothing. NIST has published their findings. They had 200 Experts, 125 of which came from the private sector investigate how the towers came down, and there is absolutely no evidence what so ever that they were brought down in a controlled manner. I even remember watching a documentary that interviewed the owner or engineer of one of the US’s top demolition companies that easily pokes holes in the idea that a major skyscraper with people, furniture, etc could be brought down like that at all. It’s total nonsense. NIST has a FAQ page

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Someone showed a video of WTC 7 collapsing to a Dutch demolitions expert. He said it was clearly brought down in a controlled demolition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JXRctbAkQE

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

Donald Trump’s presidency pretty much removed any doubt I had about the official 9/11 story.

He proved that our government is full of regular idiots who are just barely able to work together. Of course the 3 letter agencies have a lot of power and fancy technology, but if the CIA or NSA was seriously that in control of this country, Trump would have never happened. He is a bumbling moron who did a ton of damage to this country and nobody lifted a finger apparently? Damaging alliances, burning undercover assets, etc.

Our Congress can’t work together long enough to pass basic bills. No way the Patriot act was planned with a false flag in mind.

The 9/11 conspiracy is just way too big and would need way too many participants to keep it under wraps like that.

Plus, every big disaster has conspiracy theories. If you believe all of them, you’re pretty much saying bad things never happen without the overlords planning them. 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, JFK assassination, RFK assassination, Pearl Harbor, and every other major event have had massive conspiracy theories and claims that they were inside jobs.

Yeah, the official story has holes but reality is messy. It was a big attack involving/affecting a lot of agencies, corporations, and people. It’s pretty much guaranteed that out of the measly 365 days in a year, a lot of these groups and individuals would be doing their “once a year” inspections, misremember details in their panic, deal with other terrorist attacks, intersect with ongoing crimes that were being committed separately, etc.

Seriously, a plane crashed into one of the biggest and wealthiest business centers in the world. The conspiracy theories write themselves no matter how clear the evidence is. Of course one of those companies has ties to foreign governments, obviously one of the CEOs is commiting fraud, one of the employees is bound to have worked for the government in a sensitive role. Imagine the ties you could find on one of the planes alone. Every plane in the sky right now has a politician’s relative, a political activist, a criminal, a foreign diplomat, high-ranking military, or all of the above. All of these things would spark a great conspiracy theory. Imagine the things you could find if you wanted to blame Boeing. Start looking into details about every employee they have and connect some dots. It’s easy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Oh I agree, you dig for dirt, you’ll find it, guarenteed. Whether or not it’s actually connected and not happenstance, that’s a different story.

You only need you and 23 other people in a room to find two people with the same birthday. Coincidence is much more common than we think, just like true random doesn’t feel like random to us, and if something doesnt make sense, the brain can basically retcon on the spot and you’ll believe it as dogma to your core.

It’s important to be aware of and to acknowledge our limitations, for sure. Crazy important.

But let’s keep playing. Take my comment and strike out everything about the buildings falling and I’m still calling it sus.

Were we just that unlucky that the first ever stress test of NORAD happened to coincide? Maybe, it’s a possibility, an extremely small one. 1/18687 to be exact. Not very probable.

How about the missile into the Pentagon that was broadcast on live TV? The gas station footage was broadcast not the actual live event. Story goes reporters found a single camera that hadn’t already been seized and was pointing in the right direction.

So I’m a poli sci guy. Where normal people flow sports teams or celebrities, I follow politics. Global politics as well as domestic, both federal and my state. It’s just what I do. Easily I’ve read 50+ articles a day since 1997. EASILY. That day was the first day for me at a new tree service, and I was the first guy to arrive at the arborists house before we rolled out and I delivered the news of the attack. Guys started showing up, we had the news flipped on and BAM 2nd Impact. Work was called off that day, after that. The Pentagon news came about 2 hours later, we were all still sitting in the arborists living room, just watching when the footage played, so 5 sets of eyes saw it and I said bullshit that’s a plane. 2 guys were ex military, they went off, about wreckage, how small the impact is. I can not forget that memory, besides the 2nd tower falling, the Pentagon lie, a quick oopsies they hoped ppl would forget if they just lied loud enough and fast enough, that redacting in real time, really set the dark tone that was to come. It wasn’t that we were just attacked. Some part of it was opportunistic.

2001 was basically the stone ages compared to now. The Internet was still geocities, a/s/l chatrooms. All your base had JUST belonged to us. It would’ve taken a whole lot less individuals to conduct something in an unmonitored world.

I don’t claim to know what happened, I just knew we’re being lied too. There’s no theory, just calling bullshit for what it is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

if it was an airplane, where’s the fucking wreckage? Cuz that would be the first plane crash in all of history that left zero wreckage.

There was plenty of wreckage. There were no big chunks of fuselage or wings or engines, but that isn’t uncommon with extreme accidents. A plane at high speed slamming into the ground, a cliff, or a heavily reinforced building, is going to disintegrate into pretty small pieces, making investigations difficult. And indeed there are photos of small chunks of plane wreckage found at the Pentagon on 9/11.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

How can you not believe any of what you wrote but also say that you believe the Saudis did it? The Bush-Saudi connection was known for a decade before September 11th.

Bush Sr. literally invaded Iraq to protect Saudi oil interests. No one at the top actually believed Saddam was an immediate threat to U.S. interests.

The only planes that flew out of the U.S. after the attacks were Saudi nationals who were granted exception by the White House to flee the country.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I’m not the person you’re responding to, but where I land on the question is basically I think there’s a very good chance that GWB knew about a credible threat of something like 9/11 happening and deliberately chose not to interfere. So more like an act by intentionally doing nothing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

It’s been pretty well publicized that the lack of collaboration between the three letter agencies allowed them to slip through the cracks. Foreign intelligence knew about it, but domestic wasn’t aware. The fact of the matter is, they aren’t just sitting around getting 1 of these reports every couple months that they have to investigate. They get Thousands of these constantly. There’s a declassified docuseries on Netflix, that despite being “copaganda” to a degree, all describe legitimate threats that could have turned into big things if they were left along. There’s no doubt what the individuals intended to do. I don’t think the Bush Administration left anyone do anything, they simply didn’t let a tragedy go to waste.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Do I think Dubya sat around in dark rooms in 2001 with Bin Laden, planning every stage of 9/11? Absolutely not. I don’t know any serious Truther who does, either. But there’s no doubt in my mind that some members of the Bush admin and the Pentagon knew in advance that something big was going to happen. That, in my mind, is qualitive enough to be an inside job

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Because I knew someone would take the bait. The saudis did it is another conspiracy theory from the time.

The conspiracy theories around 9/11 are almost as numerous and as fun to play with as JFK assassination.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

the towers were obviously hit by planes, we have plenty of video evidence of this. The controversy is around how the towers actually fell. This is where the “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” meme comes from.

Of course, the meme is a parody of anyone who thinks that’s a legitimate argument. You don’t need to liquify a material for it to lose its structural integrity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

No, people actually believed it from day 1.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yes, people believed “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams”, but the meme is a parody of people who believed it.

Sometimes parodies are just literal reflections.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Building 7 had one of the towers fucking fall on it, was seen bulging massively before collapsing, and it was pretty obvious what was going to happen, hence people getting confused and saying it had already collapsed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Weren’t the towers completely closed just prior to the incident?

permalink
report
parent
reply
67 points
*

Because the FBI gave the terrorists all the training, weapons, and about $2bn in cold hard cash money that lead to them being able to commit the act. Because “jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams”, although it does weaken steel beams. Because engineering and demolition experts came out and said the whole thing seemed coordinated exactly in the way in which they coordinate tear-downs for a living. Because the terrorists who on the same day planned to blow up the George Washington Bridge got sent home on a plane and were never spoken about publicly again. Because it was obvious Saidi Arabia had a hand in it, which later became confirmed fact, and we’re buddy buddy with Saudi, so somebody had to have known something was going to happen but didn’t sufficiently try to stop it on our side of the water. Because the Bin Laden family and the Bush family have a weird amount of connections. Be cause conspiracy theory culture was seen as more typical/harmless, and less of a thing for Nazi terrorists like today. Because the FBI had Bin Laden dead to rights in 1998 and had a bedside conversation with him instead of taking the opportunity to kill him while he was on dialysis. Because the 40 years that preceded 9/11 were lousy with proven incidence where our leadership, specifically the FBI & CIA in conjunction with corrupted presidents, in which American citizens were coerced, sabotaged, drugged, tortured, and killed, and all the leaders had to say about it was ‘whoopsy doopsy, so sowwy’

permalink
report
reply
22 points

the whole thing seemed coordinated exactly in the way in which they coordinate tear-downs for a living

Oh, yeah, there’s that. The buildings had a very unusual¹ structure that tends to naturally collapse on a similar way as controlled demolition. It’s extremely unlikely for normal buildings to go down that way, so it did raise some suspicion.

1 - Unusual for buildings in general, but common for buildings of that size.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

CIA. FBI is domestic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
62 points

I think it’s because people would rather believe the world is secretly controlled by some truly awful people than acknowledge no-one’s steering the bus.

permalink
report
reply
19 points
*

I think it is because of the bizarre way the towers collapsed. Just like a controlled demolition looks like. The way the WTC7, that did not get hit by any plane, also collapsed. Supposedly because it caught on fire too.

I think this is really the cause of suspicion, it was just pretty bizarre. A lot of people came forward to explain that a fire couldn’t brind such a massive structure down.

Also, the US is known for doing weird shit behind everyone’s backs. The CIA is constantly doing shit like taking governments down or causing a drug crisis in black neighborhoods. You gotta admit the US agencies are sneaky in general, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if they were actually responsible for the twin towers. There’s no evidence but I’m pretty sure the CIA was somehow involved with the Nord Stream pipeline

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Also a lot of people came forward to explain that a fire couldn’t brind such a massive structure down.

And yet One Meridian Plaza was a skyscraper built in the same era as 7 World Trade Center that had a fire so bad that caused the building to be condemned due to structural damage caused by the fire. The only reason One Meridian Plaza didn’t completely collapse during the fire was because there were fire sprinklers on some of the floors and the fire got up to a floor that had them.

So now Lower Manhattan had lost water pressure, making the fire sprinkler system worthless. You also had a lot of the people who would be responsible for fighting the fire pancaked in debris nearby. This was the first skyscraper of its size in a over a decade allowed to burn.

But a controlled demolition is a lot more comforting of a thought that the complete failure of disaster response.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I think the biggest evidence of structural damage and not a controlled demolition is the lack of explosion sounds. This is what a controlled demolition sounds like, but witnesses didn’t hear or feel explosions:

https://youtu.be/HfQOfNyn6Zc?feature=shared

more demolitions:

https://youtu.be/gcN4VrZk_5w?feature=shared

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

How do you place explosives at exactly the height of impact?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

I’m not saying it is a conspiracy, I was just explaining why people think it is.

But let’s assume they did place the explosives, they wouldn’t have to be in the place of impact, they would be located in many places, just like a controlled demolition.

Again, not saying that’s what happened, just saying that the US is constantly doing sneaky stuff under the covers, which is why most conspiracies don’t seem far fetched.

Do you really think it is insane to believe the US made up the moon landing as a propaganda campaign against Russia? I believe we went to the moon, but if they came up with official documents saying we didn’t, I would be like “welp, US doing US things I guess”

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

Here is an interview with a Dutch demolitions expert, who claims that WTC 7 was clearly brought down in a controlled demolition.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That’s an awful video, he didn’t talk technically about anything.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

This explains most conspiracy theories: it’s easier to believe that the bad in the world is caused by some evil cabal than it is to accept that it’s just chaotic and crazy shit happens. It’s no surprise that most conspiracy theorists are also religious and believe there is some fight between the devil and god playing out. It’s a small leap from one position based on faith to the other.

permalink
report
parent
reply

No Stupid Questions

!nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

Create post

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others’ questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That’s it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it’s in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

Community stats

  • 9.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 3K

    Posts

  • 117K

    Comments