Pizzagate Subverse Network
/v/AskPizzagate – Pizzagate-related questions
/v/pizzagatewhatever – anything Pizzagate-related
/v/PizzagateMemes – Pizzagate memes
/v/pizzagatemods – meta concerns and Pizzagate moderation discussion
For Newcomers
Submission Rules
See also "subverse best practices"
Policy on linking dangerous research
1: Relevance: Posts must be directly relevant to investigation of Pizzagate: the sexual/physical abuse and/or murder of children by elites, child trafficking organized by elites, and/or cover-up of these activities and/or the protection/assistance provided to the people who engage in said activities. See definition of Pizzagate and examples of relevant posts.
2: Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link. If you ask a question: Explain what led to your question and provide sources. If you present opinion/argument, connect your dots and provide sources for them. Avoid baseless speculation. ALL posts must include at least one link.
3: Clarity: All titles must adequately describe post content and must establish direct relevance to pizzagate. EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post (except when markup is used to embed links in the specific text they support).
4: Meta submissions and general discussion submissions without sources will be removed. Please submit indirectly relevant posts to /v/pizzagatewhatever and unsourced questions to /v/AskPizzagate. Sourced activism / publicity posts and memes are allowed. Posts about the subverse itself go to /v/pizzagatemods.
5: You must label NSFW posts (“Not safe for work”; for example gore, nudity etc.) as such when submitting.
6: No Link Posts -- Only editable submissions made with the "Discuss" button are allowed. "Link" submissions have been banned by the community for the reasons described here. Link posts will be immediately removed.
Adspam, illegal content, and personal info about Voat subscribers will be removed, and the offender will be banned.
Moderator Rules and Removal Explanations
Submission Removal Log
WARNING! Due to the nature of this investigation, clicking some links could result in opening incriminating material. Always practice common sense before clicking links, and make sure you're browsing safely.
Use archive.is to archive sources.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] RweSure 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
I call you a liar because you insist on lying. You use a deceptive clip and claim that the "perfect symmetry" proves it must be a controlled demolition. Then when I point out you are being deceptive and not showing the full collapse and it was actually highly asymmetrical, you act like you never claimed the opposite.
Then you make a new claim that an asymmetrical collapse also proves a controlled demolition.
And I call you a liar because I had previously pointed how how deceptive your clip was and you went ahead a d used it with full knowledge it was deceptive.
Your new claim is also high order nonsense.
This is incredibly silly and ignores the fact of how WTC was built and how it differs from other buildings. There is no one size fits all. And there's dozens of examples of demolitions that show you wrong on YouTube. Here this highly asymmetrical collapse starts on the left outer than middle than right outer. https://media2.giphy.com/media/9zA9uLCuGqScM/giphy.gif
Also you had that nonsense explanation about the additional structure at the ready, didn't you? It just shows you knew your clip was deceptive and did not show the entire collapse sequence.
Holy Lord in Heaven, this is dumb. I'm going to give you a chance to rephrase this to make it less dumb, because there's no possible way you meant this.
In terms of how WTC 7 fell, the direction was inluenced by the structural damage caused by the collapsing Towers. Something nobody could have planned for.
[–] DarkMath ago (edited ago)
"I call you a liar"
In science you don't get to call people "liars". Actually the whole idea behind science is to have differing opinions. Right now as I write this brilliant physicists are researching things like Super Symmetry, String Theory, High Temperature Super Conductivity etc etc. There are a panoply of opinions about all of them. Just those 3 examples may total to 20+ differing theories. All but 3 of those you would call "lying". Is that even a useful accusation? Can you imagine Professor Jim Gates opening a lecture at CERN accusing Professor Mikhail Shifman of "lying"?
The worst I ever heard was Newton accusing Leibniz of plagiarism but that's not in the same ball-park. Scientists don't dismiss competing theories with the accusation their opponent is "lying". Even the thought is comical. You would get laughed out of a conference. By your definition AreWeSure
ABOUT 99% OF SCIENCE IS LYING.
Full Stop.
Grow the fuck up. Rewrite your response to me and please remove your accusation that I'm "lying".
:-D
[–] RweSure ago
You know you were being intentionally deceptive. You know because I had already pointed it out.
You know that you argued perfect symmetry equaled a controlled demoliton and when I pointed out it was actually a highly asymmertrical collapse, you pretended you never made that argument.
How does that happen without you intentionally lying? Did you forget you using a deceptive video YET AGAIN?