8 votes

To all those demanding "Proof" regarding Conspiracy "Theories"

I am going to try to keep this short and sweet.

I have seen here, and recieved from my friends and family, demands that proof be provided to show that such and such attack was really a "false flag" operation. All of these people point out that any evidence provided is simply "conjecture" or "hearsay". Therefore, they conclude, they are going to reserve judgement or side with the official story until they are shown "proof".

Well I have news for you. It will never happen. EVER.

Proof of the sort they are seeking, forensic or otherwise, IS COMPLETELY CONTROLLED BY THE AUTHORITIES WITHIN MOMENTS AFTER THESE EVENTS. We out here in alternative media will never EVER get our hands on the actual evidence of these crime scenes. Furthermore, we have no right or ability to interrogate eye witnesses, subpoena them, or obtain unedited documents that are again CONTROLLED BY AUTHORITIES.

Thus, making such demands for proof plays right into the hands of the perpetrators IF IT WAS A FALSE FLAG ATTACK. This is like trying to prove in a court room that the judge or jury were the murderers of a case. They would never let you do it. The judge would find you in contempt and the jury would rule against you no matter what.

Therefore, in order to reach your own conclusions, you will have to do research yourself or listen to trusted sources that hopefully don't have an agenda.

To me, if the crime or attack is NOT INVESTIGATED PROPERLY BY AUTHORITIES that is CLEAR EVIDENCE of COMPLICITY and therefore GUILT.

I'm not sure about Boston, but it seems like a false flag.

As for 9/11, all I needed to see was the nine second video of WTC 7 collapsing at freefall speed.

So please tell us what reasonable proof might be provided for you? Or are you so enslaved and brainwashed by the authorities that you will only believe the "proof" that they provide?


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Destruction of evidence is proof.

Try typing the word inculpatory and see if the spell checker recognizes the word.

Destruction of evidence is inculpatory evidence = proof.

Look at how eager the destroyers of evidence are when they set themselves to their tasks in this simple thread that could otherwise be understood as an example of proof of a conspiracy.

Look at the replies, and what do you see?

If no one here has ever been in a Jury in a Jury Trial, then they may have no experience concerning the actual use of the concept of proof, as in "proof beyond reasonable doubt", and so what they, in their ignorance, are dealing with is their own ignorance.

Like the monkeys with their eyes, ears, and mouths shut, they are victims ripe for exploitation, and I suppose they seek company in their misery, as if claiming that those who don't actively destroy their capacity to know the facts aught to join the ignorant residing in their self made false bliss. They could be actively destroying evidence, by creating lies, to help the criminals cover up their crimes, aiding and abetting, lending moral and material support, to the enemies of Liberty, as if they too will share in the stolen booty.

Who knows without an accurate confession from the criminals?


I've stopped them dead int their tracks when they try that.

You are right - the evidence disappears. THAT IS A CRIME. On 9-12, what was on TV? The FELONIOUS destruction of a crime scene.
Got a neo-conned fireman to join Oathkeepers, among other achievements, with my 9-12 proof.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

What you're really saying:

I am going to try to keep this short and sweet.

If we find evidence that this is a false flag operation then that is proof! If we don't find evidence that this is a false flag operation then that is proof they're trying to cover it up!

Either way, your conspiracy theory lives on, regardless of the evidence or lack of it. I wonder, do you find it comforting to think that every tragic event has a puppetmaster; that no matter what happens, someone is in control and meant it to happen? Would it frighten you to believe that there is absolutely no sinister master plan behind much of the violence you see, but rather just simple chaos?

Would it frighten you ...

... if there was?


Because the assumption that no one is in control is far more frightening than assuming someone or some organization is in control. However...

"I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude." - Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787

Nope. You misconstrued my post.

I simply stated that the nature of these events makes it impossible for those of us who doubt the official narrative to provide "proof" that might be satisfactory to those who are more willing to reside in ambivalence or deference to authority.

And yes, being an observer of society, I notice that certain explosions and events are made a big deal while other, far more violent and destructive events, are ignored writ large. Therefore, I believe there is an agenda.

As other posters have noted, simply pointing out the flaws of the official stories should be enough to raise suspicion.

And sitting in ambivalence is SO insulting to the victims and future victims of these criminals, regardless of if they are authorities or otherwise. It is our job as free individuals to seek the truth and hold those people accountable.


You say I misconstrued your post, but then you repeat exactly what you said previously: If it's a false flag operation, we'll either find evidence or no evidence, however both options are still reasons to believe it's a conspiracy. You've set yourself up with an illogical belief system that is impossible to disprove.

Refusing to jump to conclusions about who perpetrated this violence is not ambivalence. It is rationalism.

Misconstrued because I said IF

I said IF it is a false flag THEN WHEN the authorities control the forensic evidence and eye witness testimonies they will destroy forensic evidence, silence, release, or discredit real eye witnesses, and direct the investigation toward red herrings.

However, your post helped me clarify that the best way to tell if it is a false flag is to look at the transparency of the investigation and the evidence presented by the official story. If there swiss cheese style holes in the narrative it is likely a false flag.

And THEN since it is a false flag there can be little to no PROOF because the criminal themselves had complete control of the investigation and therefore all hard evidence.

BOTTOM LINE: If you demand hard evidence of a false flag YOU are setting yourself up in a logical contradiction that is impossible to disprove!

Religions and conspiracy

Religions and conspiracy theories seem to be almost entirely non falsifiable.

'They're all in on it.'

'You cannot know god's will.'


maybe it'll breed jornalists

maybe it'll breed jornalists once again

i for one will not fucking witch hunt possible inocents over questionable proof

to all conspiracy theorists, i respect the nature of always asking questions, but when you say you have proof, learn to fucking present it in a way the leaves no question

a right answer for the right question

do not bloody moan, because liberty folks dont want to turn into the very people who use these fucking tactics, its a fucking insult

now, ive been holding that in a very long time, out of respect for your freespeech, and by all means, i encourage you to continue, even if its to berate me

but do not try to change peoples minds on this, principle.......i will not condemn someone over suspicion, regardless if i think they are entirely capable of the act in question

learn to produce something in a way that is without question, if its proof, call it proof, if its suspicion, CALL IT A BLOODY SUSPICION.....i do not fcking like seing something presented as proof, only because the poster forgets to mention it a suspicion, like it or not, its fear mongering

i mean no disrespect, as i said before, i would not put NOTHING past our governments, but i wont do so over a conjecture, and yes, i think we CAN get proof, when the majority of people learn the camera being mightier then the pen

But isn't ambivalence just as egregious?

Unless you yourself take up the torch of finding the truth, do not attack those that "raise suspicion". Doing that potentially protects the murderers themselves.

The point of all this is to show that there is reasonable doubt to accepting a particular narrative. And when one person is found innocent, it means the criminal is still at large.

hey op, just to say, nothing

hey op, just to say, nothing personal man, its the subject in question that illicits the response, and recieves ALL of it, not you personally, you made me think, and i can appreciate that

ill give you one example, is

ill give you one example, is so silly, so minor, but it always rings alarm bells

try to avoid it, and you have a better chance of no alarm bells when providing facts

heres a picture of two "suspects", the very first thing that pops to mind, why is it cropped? Does it seem like its nightime in that picture? why not show the whole picture?is it becuase they needed to zoom in? but if thats the case, you should have shown the exact same picture unzoomed, so we KNOW this picture was taken where its claiming to be taken?

this could very well be genuine, but im not gonna follow blindly, and just assume its genuine because its supposedly from our side, after all, wouldnt you be asking me to stop questioning, no, as id never ask you......by the way, im just using this as an example, if someone posts the full image, or proves undeniably through road markings and other pictures, then well done, that is what we are asking for, and my appreciation

please dont ask us to act on something that we may not see as definitive prove, however much we wish to see it, if your angry at us for not acting, stop getting angry, and become better journalists......and i for one think you guys are perfect, you have the drive, but the, for lack of a better word, "presentation" needs to grow, and i am most definatly rooting for new journalists, dont get angry, get growing

Yes, you do need to provide evidence to back up claims.

I can prove the official story of 9/11 is a fraud, because it contradicts the laws of physics and basic logic.

I can prove the Warren Commission Report is a fraud because it is contrary to the laws of physics and basic logic.

But there is no proof to substantiate a claim that the Boston Marathon Bombings are a false flag, one can speculate that they are, but it is intellectually dishonest to assert it as fact.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Evidence is different from Proof

Proof is very tricky. I doubt there is such a set of evidence that would ever be called "proof" by all observers.

Regardless I upvoted you because that was the whole point of my post.

When I say proof, I'm using this definition:

Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I would be happy with a peer

I would be happy with a peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal presenting an alternative to the NIST version of of the collapse.

You have to give us some leeway. If there is no evidence then we are simply going by hearsay. I have not read the NIST report in its entirety and even if I did, not being a materials or structural specialist I would not understand it.

The thing with scientific papers is that if there are mistakes they will be picked up in the peer review process. You simply cannot research everything, you have to trust to the experts.

Every time you get in a plane or a car, you are trusting to the belief that experts have done their job.

As far as conspiracy theories go, their science is a bit low brow so even someone like me who has studied science extensively but is not an expert can debunk a lot of the points.

If you like you can post what you believe is the most compelling scientific proof of a controlled demolition and I will see if I can bring it down (pun intended).

Just don't call me a govt shill please. I'm sure they haven't outsourced their govt disinfo dept. yet.

until most people are personally affected by the nefarious . . .

actions of those who work in the darkness . . .

they will not wake up.

It took being personally affected to wake *me* up.


I don't really try to convince anyone; if their lives have been easy enough that they don't want to see, nothing I say will change their minds--

but I know what I know--

and nobody can take that away from me, even if I had to suffer to learn that there are shadow players--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

What authorities?

Authorities are folks one can hokd accountable and we have none concerning 911.

The lack of proof, The lack of confidence, Faith that isn't

The lack of proof in these matters is what throws the "official" story out into "conspiracy land". Then people struggle to find proof that it didn't happen the way that the story tellers are telling the story, but rather it is the lack of proof that causes the suspicion, and that its been proven throughout history that governments can't be trusted.