The 9/11 Vore Conspiracy argues that the twin towers were not hit by planes externally. Instead, planes were built inside the towers, and continually inflated which eventually caused a collapse.
The anonymous theorist, reviewing footage of the 9/11 attack, stops the footage numerous times to point out "weak zones" of the town that gave in as a response to the increasing weight of the internal aircraft.
He highlights areas in the footage that portray people and objects being violently thrown out of the windows with force, as well as small billows of steam and fire, happening at the lower floor levels of one of the towers.
"Look at this shit. You're telling me there's just random ass explosions going on? Down here? We ain't even remotely close to where the plane collided. Bull fucking horse shit.'
The theorist explains that the planes were built by "crazed U.S. government scientists who watched too much Doctor Who, it was like that of a real life TARDIS experiment".
"They built these massive towers, for what? Business? Hell nah, have you seen the economy pre-9/11? It was shit. We didn't have the money nor energy for no goddamn tower of that size, and definitely not two."
We asked why the experiment would take place in the middle of a city as crowded as NYC. The theorist responded:
"It's hidden in plain sight. NYC's got all the resources in the world, right at your disposal. Nah, seriously man, look at these streets, there's a fuckin' garbage pile up just down the road. You know what kind of technology you can find in these piles? There's some fuckin' money to be made. Plus you get to make a nationwide scare if your experiment fucks up, and publicity means more money. They had all to gain and nothing to lose."
The theorist explains that any and all footage taken inside the Twin Towers pre-9/11 was simply simulated, props, or illusion. Footage of NYC recorded in a position respective to which the twin towers overlooked, was created via a clever series of mirrors originally sourcing from the "432 Park Avenue" building.
The theorist claims that any and all footage of the planes are "so fake, it's laughable", he states: "Nobody saw any planes... not in real life. Outside of what the TV stations would tell you, not a single soul saw an actual, physical plane hit the buildings. Hell, you could ask everyone in New York today, you won't find a single person who saw a plane."
Meh, nobody that looks at what the research says subscribes to the rightoid worldview in relation to immigration tbh, this paper might as well say "water is wet."
Rightoids aren't rightoids because they care about facts.
Rightoids are retarded, but the majority of what social sciences call "facts" can be safely lumped with astrology and other such disciplines. The studies they produce are either faulty in design or can't be replicated by anyone.
They even contradict themselves within the same frame. For example look at crime statistics
Right - 13/53 blacks are violent etc
Left - no, that's actually poverty and racism
Right - ok so if we bring in more Poor and Minority immigrants you're going to have more crime
Left - reeeee fucking nazi
Seriously, like I know these fields can be misleading and hard to understand but that's why people spend a decade studying them before being called an expert.
You can also comment on Reddit, which makes you morally equivalent to an expert in any given social science field.
The obvious flaw in this argument being that immigrants provably have lower crime rates than the native population, and there's an entire historical context behind extreme black poverty in the united states.
The Sokal papers revealed and proved how social “sciences “ aka the social studies don’t deserve to be even be called a soft science. It’s utter agenda driven trash.
The right in America worships the idea of being poor. They are a weak ideology which idealises weakness. There is no reason to support the working cla--- sorry, I mean "blue collar workers".
Both siderism is the bread and butter of the politically illiterate. Only one side declares entire scientific fields of study invalid, expert consensus invalid, and claims the education system is rigged against them.
Yes but that's misleading in in it of itself. If muslims commit the vast vast majority of terrorist attacks regardless of location then taking all immigrants and averaging their terror plots in order to downplay the islamic threat then they're already misleading you. Averaging all immigrants is pointless as most terrorists are from islamic states. It's like oh see the usa domestic terrorism is 0.001 but immigrants are like 0.005 see the numbers are insignificant. However if you only count the worst ones like mexican cartel drug dealers or islam...
The idea of the science post is to mislead the people upvoting. The people conducting the science itself never mention illegals or islam. Op is a faggot and didn't include the source but only the abstract. Not only that but the person who wrote it has a far left tilt and is the founder of Cato Institute a largely discredited organization. Not only that that, BUT however also, ONLY the abstract is present here. The actual article itself shows that muslims DO cause a disproportionate amount of terror deaths.
Is is super significant to non-islamic countries? No because most countries have competent police. The article in itself went out of it's way to average all 170 countries they used, many of which have basically no islam or cartels. Basically, the people who wrote it should be locked in a room with pizzashill.
But they're talking about immigrants in general. If you pick the most extreme set of immigrants (Muslims), obviously it's going to be higher. There is an argument to be made that immigrants can be selectively filtered but the issue is that although a group might be disproportionately prone to violent, that percentage is still small compared to the group itself so is it really fair to discriminate the majority just because of the actions of the minority? I guess it boils down to risk aversion levels.
"We find no relationship between immigration and terrorism, whether measured by the number of attacks or victims, in destination countries... These results hold for immigrants from both Muslim majority and conflict-torn countries of origin."
This is entirely misleading as the source data CLEARLY indicates that muslim countries have a higher rate of terror related deaths. No relationship is complete bullshit. Their own data shows deaths from attacks of islam are not only higher but the deaths are higher as well. The attacks aren't double normal people but they are higher. Mostly because islam can't run amok in countries with real police.
Did you read the link this thread leads to where it clearly indicates the source of the study is bias and know for fake science? ANYONE can post science here, it doesn't mean it's legit. There's science around the effects of pokemon go on mental health. Like, there's no standards or anything it's just science whether or not it's real or psudoscience.
Why did you type this out without reading the source I provided which is their data? You can literally see they were lying by reading the actual PDF they intentionally did not provide for free. Please read it before returning.
Steve Huffman: Compensation, well... A few steps down the road what I would like to do is when I say empower communities, I think there’s an extreme version of that, which is where we bring economics into this. Allowing communities to have business models. And hopefully you can use your imagination there, but I think there’s a lot they can do and that would open the door to communities having money and potentially moderators having a share of that. So I think we’re pretty far off, but that’s one of my, kind of, fantasies, that we can elevate communities to such a degree that people can actually run a business or earn a living on Reddit.
They're averaging 170 countries when most of them have no terror threats, that's almost every country on earth. Their logic and framing is that it's an insignificant number but they go out of their way to not say it exists.
For example here's 2 minutes of googling:
Data from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria – and to a lesser extent Pakistan - show that
the number of first-time asylum seekers in Europe is correlated to the number of
deaths from terrorism in the countries of origin.
the person who wrote it has a far left tilt and is the founder of Cato Institute a largely discredited organization.
Are you an idiot? I mean, I know you are, but this is especially dumb. Cato Institute has always been a libertarian/hard leans Republican and is listened to my vast swaths of the government.
They just hate Trump now, but that doesn't make them lean left at all.
69 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2019-08-11
The 9/11 Vore Conspiracy argues that the twin towers were not hit by planes externally. Instead, planes were built inside the towers, and continually inflated which eventually caused a collapse.
The anonymous theorist, reviewing footage of the 9/11 attack, stops the footage numerous times to point out "weak zones" of the town that gave in as a response to the increasing weight of the internal aircraft.
He highlights areas in the footage that portray people and objects being violently thrown out of the windows with force, as well as small billows of steam and fire, happening at the lower floor levels of one of the towers.
"Look at this shit. You're telling me there's just random ass explosions going on? Down here? We ain't even remotely close to where the plane collided. Bull fucking horse shit.'
The theorist explains that the planes were built by "crazed U.S. government scientists who watched too much Doctor Who, it was like that of a real life TARDIS experiment".
"They built these massive towers, for what? Business? Hell nah, have you seen the economy pre-9/11? It was shit. We didn't have the money nor energy for no goddamn tower of that size, and definitely not two."
We asked why the experiment would take place in the middle of a city as crowded as NYC. The theorist responded:
"It's hidden in plain sight. NYC's got all the resources in the world, right at your disposal. Nah, seriously man, look at these streets, there's a fuckin' garbage pile up just down the road. You know what kind of technology you can find in these piles? There's some fuckin' money to be made. Plus you get to make a nationwide scare if your experiment fucks up, and publicity means more money. They had all to gain and nothing to lose."
The theorist explains that any and all footage taken inside the Twin Towers pre-9/11 was simply simulated, props, or illusion. Footage of NYC recorded in a position respective to which the twin towers overlooked, was created via a clever series of mirrors originally sourcing from the "432 Park Avenue" building.
The theorist claims that any and all footage of the planes are "so fake, it's laughable", he states: "Nobody saw any planes... not in real life. Outside of what the TV stations would tell you, not a single soul saw an actual, physical plane hit the buildings. Hell, you could ask everyone in New York today, you won't find a single person who saw a plane."
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 heeehaaw 2019-08-11
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/co9imx/we_find_no_relationship_between_immigration_and/
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-11
Meh, nobody that looks at what the research says subscribes to the rightoid worldview in relation to immigration tbh, this paper might as well say "water is wet."
Rightoids aren't rightoids because they care about facts.
1 Volkstrummer 2019-08-11
the research is literal lies and bullshit tho you dumb leftoid
1 UnregulatedPope 2019-08-11
Rightoids are retarded, but the majority of what social sciences call "facts" can be safely lumped with astrology and other such disciplines. The studies they produce are either faulty in design or can't be replicated by anyone.
They even contradict themselves within the same frame. For example look at crime statistics
Right - 13/53 blacks are violent etc Left - no, that's actually poverty and racism Right - ok so if we bring in more Poor and Minority immigrants you're going to have more crime Left - reeeee fucking nazi
1 Matues49 2019-08-11
This is what happens when you breastfeed your kids fentanyl
1 Ardvarkeating101 2019-08-11
Seriously, like I know these fields can be misleading and hard to understand but that's why people spend a decade studying them before being called an expert.
You can also comment on Reddit, which makes you morally equivalent to an expert in any given social science field.
1 UnregulatedPope 2019-08-11
So you're saying the people describing 98 different genders are using the same scientific rigor as the Pharma labs?
1 Ardvarkeating101 2019-08-11
“Trickle down doesn’t work, we need higher and more evenly distributed taxes as well as better regulation of existing businesses”
“SHUT UP YOU FUCKING SOCIALIST KILL YOURSELF COMMIE REEEEEE!”
Was more of what I was referring to.
1 wow___justwow 2019-08-11
Social "science"?
Yep
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-11
The obvious flaw in this argument being that immigrants provably have lower crime rates than the native population, and there's an entire historical context behind extreme black poverty in the united states.
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-08-11
In gen-1. For gens 2-infinity, it's higher. But I'm into it, so 🤷
1 UnregulatedPope 2019-08-11
No they don't because the studies use creative ways to slice the data to reach that conclusion.
They say crime doesn't go up, but somehow 90% of their rapists have foreign sounding names
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-11
Making stuff up doesn't change reality.
1 error404brain 2019-08-11
L M A O, a rightoid got so mad he paid to ban you for a day. Incredible. o7
1 Mayos_side 2019-08-11
Working as intended.
1 UnregulatedPope 2019-08-11
Wtf can you do that?
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-08-11
Money talks more than peer review up in this bitch.
1 TotesMessenger 2019-08-11
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 zwiebelhans 2019-08-11
The Sokal papers revealed and proved how social “sciences “ aka the social studies don’t deserve to be even be called a soft science. It’s utter agenda driven trash.
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-11
No, it didn't, and I'm sick of seeing dumb ass rightoids repeat this shit because they're scientifically illiterate.
Getting stuff published in shit tier feminist science journals does nott discredit social science as a whole.
you want it to be fake because it conflicts with conservative views. And don't pretend conservatives accept hard science either, because they don't.
They deny literally every scientific field, from soft to hard.
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-08-11
Pizza, what is better science?
A) sociology
Or
B) national political polling 🤭
1 Slump_o 2019-08-11
rightards btfo. The only cure for conservautism is a lobotomy.
1 artificial_lunacy 2019-08-11
solid base for your argument there
1 FearOfBees 2019-08-11
Okay now redo the science but exclude non-whites/asians/native americans
1 [deleted] 2019-08-11
[removed]
1 atmpls 2019-08-11
Oh my god why don't people trust scientists
1 Mayos_side 2019-08-11
They all agree!
1 Elite_AI 2019-08-11
The right in America worships the idea of being poor. They are a weak ideology which idealises weakness. There is no reason to support the working cla--- sorry, I mean "blue collar workers".
1 throwaway_999912 2019-08-11
The party of facts over feels
1 GourmetImp 2019-08-11
leftoids AND rightoids don't care about facts
1 professorshillphd 2019-08-11
Both siderism is the bread and butter of the politically illiterate. Only one side declares entire scientific fields of study invalid, expert consensus invalid, and claims the education system is rigged against them.
1 Ardvarkeating101 2019-08-11
I still can't tell which side you're talking about. How mad are you?
1 [deleted] 2019-08-11
[removed]
1 GaysianSupremacist 2019-08-11
Tell me again how the left reacts to economics nowadays sweaty?
1 wow___justwow 2019-08-11
You mean the radical centrists? The absolute chads of politics?
1 GourmetImp 2019-08-11
Confirmation bias and general blindness to obvious patterns is the bread and butter of the general illiterate, go back to the proletariat
1 anaconda300 2019-08-11
why are you seething over rightoids in every comment? can’t be good for your mental state
1 Jas0nJewnova 2019-08-11
have sex
1 lannister_stark 2019-08-11
Let rightoids stoopid xD
1 FearOfBees 2019-08-11
Well that's a hot take /r/science
1 throwaway_999912 2019-08-11
They're talking about immigrants in general not illegals or Muslim terrorists
1 FearOfBees 2019-08-11
Yes but that's misleading in in it of itself. If muslims commit the vast vast majority of terrorist attacks regardless of location then taking all immigrants and averaging their terror plots in order to downplay the islamic threat then they're already misleading you. Averaging all immigrants is pointless as most terrorists are from islamic states. It's like oh see the usa domestic terrorism is 0.001 but immigrants are like 0.005 see the numbers are insignificant. However if you only count the worst ones like mexican cartel drug dealers or islam...
The idea of the science post is to mislead the people upvoting. The people conducting the science itself never mention illegals or islam. Op is a faggot and didn't include the source but only the abstract. Not only that but the person who wrote it has a far left tilt and is the founder of Cato Institute a largely discredited organization. Not only that that, BUT however also, ONLY the abstract is present here. The actual article itself shows that muslims DO cause a disproportionate amount of terror deaths.
Is is super significant to non-islamic countries? No because most countries have competent police. The article in itself went out of it's way to average all 170 countries they used, many of which have basically no islam or cartels. Basically, the people who wrote it should be locked in a room with pizzashill.
1 throwaway_999912 2019-08-11
But they're talking about immigrants in general. If you pick the most extreme set of immigrants (Muslims), obviously it's going to be higher. There is an argument to be made that immigrants can be selectively filtered but the issue is that although a group might be disproportionately prone to violent, that percentage is still small compared to the group itself so is it really fair to discriminate the majority just because of the actions of the minority? I guess it boils down to risk aversion levels.
1 FearOfBees 2019-08-11
The title is:
This is entirely misleading as the source data CLEARLY indicates that muslim countries have a higher rate of terror related deaths. No relationship is complete bullshit. Their own data shows deaths from attacks of islam are not only higher but the deaths are higher as well. The attacks aren't double normal people but they are higher. Mostly because islam can't run amok in countries with real police.
1 throwaway_999912 2019-08-11
I'd still rather trust them than some guy with a couple of bar charts
1 FearOfBees 2019-08-11
Did you read the link this thread leads to where it clearly indicates the source of the study is bias and know for fake science? ANYONE can post science here, it doesn't mean it's legit. There's science around the effects of pokemon go on mental health. Like, there's no standards or anything it's just science whether or not it's real or psudoscience.
1 throwaway_999912 2019-08-11
Apparently Cato institute is libertarian. It seems like you are calling it fake news and left leaning because it doesn't conform to the agenda
1 FearOfBees 2019-08-11
Why did you type this out without reading the source I provided which is their data? You can literally see they were lying by reading the actual PDF they intentionally did not provide for free. Please read it before returning.
1 AutoModerator 2019-08-11
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 throwaway_999912 2019-08-11
Will read it in sometime when I'm back home. But why would they publish the facts too if it mean they contradict themselves?
1 necrocannibal2 2019-08-11
"economic freedom" institute funded by Charles Koch publishes article supporting more cheap immigrant labor, very contradictory indeed
1 FearOfBees 2019-08-11
They're averaging 170 countries when most of them have no terror threats, that's almost every country on earth. Their logic and framing is that it's an insignificant number but they go out of their way to not say it exists.
For example here's 2 minutes of googling:
This source has dozens of references as evidence that certain places produce terrorists depending on how war torn and islamic they are
The OP article took every single country with immigration and averaged it, then framed it like all immigrants are good.
1 xlhat 2019-08-11
What're his views on global Muslim terrorism ?
1 lickedTators 2019-08-11
Are you an idiot? I mean, I know you are, but this is especially dumb. Cato Institute has always been a libertarian/hard leans Republican and is listened to my vast swaths of the government.
They just hate Trump now, but that doesn't make them lean left at all.
1 FearOfBees 2019-08-11
I'm not even the one saying this, the subreddit is
1 lickedTators 2019-08-11
Yo I quoted the thing you specifically said and responded only to that. Nothing you just said is related to what i said.
1 Day_of_the_COPE 2019-08-11
This post cannot be real lol
1 [deleted] 2019-08-11
[removed]
1 [deleted] 2019-08-11
[removed]
1 [deleted] 2019-08-11
[removed]
1 Chapose 2019-08-11
I doubt there is one scientist on r/science
1 Peetrius 2019-08-11
Reddit getting butt hurt over the Koch Brothers and Cato is my favorite meme.
1 i_Chapo-d_my_pants 2019-08-11
the timing of it getting published ~ muslim holiday Eid al-Adha really makes you 🤔
1 [deleted] 2019-08-11
[removed]
1 [deleted] 2019-08-11
[removed]
1 ardasyenden 2019-08-11
can someone give me a real explanation of how these people exist?
1 Psyman2 2019-08-11
r/science always has a buttload of deleted comments you moron
1 coleserra 2019-08-11
r/science is the worst subreddit on this site by a mile. What's the point of a subreddit if you ban 99% of any comments?