Fact Check: The Eiffel Tower is one of the most visited monuments in the world.

Fact Check: The Eiffel Tower is one of the most visited monuments in the world.

Published July 1, 2025
VERDICT
True

# Fact Check: "The Eiffel Tower is one of the most visited monuments in the world." ## What We Know The Eiffel Tower, located in Paris, France, is wi...

Fact Check: "The Eiffel Tower is one of the most visited monuments in the world."

What We Know

The Eiffel Tower, located in Paris, France, is widely recognized as a global cultural icon and is one of the most visited paid monuments in the world. According to the Eiffel Tower's official statistics, it welcomed approximately 6.91 million visitors in 2015, making it the most visited monument with an entrance fee globally. In 2022, the tower received around 5.89 million visitors, demonstrating its continued popularity (Eiffel Tower Tourism Statistics).

Additionally, a comprehensive list of the most-visited national monuments indicates that the Eiffel Tower ranks among the top attractions, alongside other notable sites like the Forbidden City in Beijing and St. Peter's Basilica in Rome (List of most-visited palaces and monuments).

Analysis

The claim that the Eiffel Tower is one of the most visited monuments is supported by multiple reliable sources. The Wikipedia page on the most-visited palaces and monuments lists the Eiffel Tower prominently, confirming its status as a leading tourist destination. Furthermore, the Eiffel Tower's official page provides specific visitor statistics that affirm its popularity.

While the statistics from 2015 show a peak of 6.91 million visitors, the numbers have fluctuated in recent years, with 2022 reporting 5.89 million visitors. This decline can be attributed to various factors, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global tourism (Eiffel Tower Tourism Statistics). However, even with these fluctuations, the Eiffel Tower remains a top contender among the world's most visited monuments.

The sources used are credible, with the Wikipedia page drawing from various authoritative tourism statistics, including those from the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA) and other national tourism boards (List of most-visited palaces and monuments). The Eiffel Tower's official website also provides direct information about visitor numbers, further establishing its reliability (Eiffel Tower).

Conclusion

Verdict: True
The claim that "The Eiffel Tower is one of the most visited monuments in the world" is true based on the evidence presented. The Eiffel Tower consistently ranks among the top attractions globally, supported by substantial visitor statistics and credible sources. Despite variations in annual visitor numbers, its status as a leading monument remains intact.

Sources

  1. List of most-visited palaces and monuments - Wikipedia
  2. Eiffel Tower - Wikipedia
  3. Eiffel Tower Tourism Statistics - How Many People Visit? (2023)
  4. World's most visited monument with an entrance fee: The Eiffel Tower
  5. Eiffel tower facts, height & weight

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
🔍
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Autistic Non-Verbal Episodes in Marriage: Why Words Vanish Sometimes and What to Do About It Neurodiverse Couples Tuesday, august 12, 2025. Here’s the scene: You’re in the middle of a conversation with your spouse. Maybe the topic is small (“Did you pay the water bill?”) or monumental (“Are we happy?”). And then—without warning—your autistic partner’s voice disappears. No yelling, no slammed doors. Just… gone. You’re left holding the conversational steering wheel while they’ve quietly climbed into the trunk. If you’ve never lived with high-functioning autism, this can be tragically misconstrued as stonewalling or contempt. It isn’t. It’s just neurology pulling the emergency brake. Why This Happens: The Science Without the Lab Coat Smell For autistic adults, losing speech under stress is often a shutdown—a form of nervous system overload that knocks language production offline. Think of it like your phone freezing: all the apps are still there, but none of them open when you tap. Research calls this autistic burnout when it happens in a longer, chronic cycle—linked to masking (Hull et al., 2017; Raymaker et al., 2020). Masking is the art of “performing normal” so well that non-autistic people think you’re fine. The issue is that it eats through your energy reserves like a car idling in traffic with the A/C on full blast (Mantzalas et al., 2022). Eventually, one hard conversation can tip you from functional to frozen. And here’s where couples therapy meets neuroscience: physiological flooding—the body’s fight/flight/freeze switch—is a known relationship killer (Malik et al., 2019; Gottman Institute, 2024). In other words, for some autistic partners, flooding may tend to show up sooner, last longer, and is more likely to pull the plug on speech entirely. The Danger Loop in Marriage Autistic partner goes non-verbal — brain says “nope.” Non-autistic partner reads it as avoidance — brain says “attack.” Pressure increases — “Just say something.” Shutdown deepens — and now you’ve both lost. Do that a few hundred times and you’ll start conflating a physiological response into a moral failing. That’s the real marriage-killer. The Protocol: Three Phases, Zero Guesswork This is where we get practical. You can’t “love away” a temporary shutdown, but you can stop it from turning into World War III. Before: Build the Net Name the state. Agree on a phrase or signal ( I call this a couple code)—such as “words offline,” “shutdown,” a hand over the heart. The point is to make the invisible visible. The Shutdown Card. A literal card that says: I can’t speak right now. Please lower lights, reduce sound, give me X minutes. I promise I will circle back. The Pause Rule. Require a minimum of 20 minutes before resuming any tough talk. Autistic partner may need 90+. Agree ahead of time. Downgrade Kit. the usual gear; earplugs, soft light, weighted blanket, fidget, a quiet room. You know, human decency in object form. Reduce Daily Load. Avoid heavy talks right after work or big social events. Chronic overload makes a nervous shutdown more probable. During: Do Less, Better Autistic Partner: Give the signal. Exit stimulation. Switch channels if possible (text, notes app, yes/no cards). Send a short pre-written message: “Safe, can’t talk, back at 8:15.” Non-Autistic Partner: Acknowledge once—“Got it, I’m with you.” Hold the pause boundary. Lower stimuli. Go regulate your own nervous system—walk, journal, pet the dog. Don’t rehearse comebacks. Both: Avoid sarcasm, interrogation, ultimatums. Nothing lengthens a shutdown like moral outrage. After: Close the Loop Check in: “Are you ready to talk, or should we start in text?” Debrief: Identify triggers and what helped. Solve the actual problem. No conflict gets left to rot in the corner. Spot burnout early. If shutdowns start clustering, it’s time to reduce demands, not double them. How This Isn’t Stonewalling Stonewalling is a choice. Shutdown is a lockout. Stonewalling says, “I won’t talk to you.” Shutdown says, “I can’t talk to you yet, but I will.” The key difference? Repair intention. A shutdown protocol builds that right into the process. The Ten-Minute At-Home Drill Co-create your signal and card. Agree on a pause window. Pack the downgrade kit. Rehearse the exchange (“Got it, I’m with you.”). Check in weekly to tweak the system. Remember, you’re not aiming for zero shutdowns. You’re aiming for shorter, kinder, safer ones. Why This Works Because it matches lived autistic experience (Raymaker et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2023). Because it honors nervous system limits instead of punishing them (Malik et al., 2019). Because it lets both partners keep their dignity and still solve the problem. In other words: you’re building a marriage that can survive the occasional moments when the words are gone for the time being. Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed. REFERENCES: Hull, L., Mandy, W., Lai, M.-C., Baron-Cohen, S., Allison, C., Smith, P., & Petrides, K. V. (2017). “Putting on my best normal”: Social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Autism, 21(5), 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316671012 Raymaker, D. M., Teo, A. R., Steckler, N. A., Lentz, B., Scharer, M., Delos Santos, A., … & Nicolaidis, C. (2020). “Having all of your internal resources exhausted beyond measure and being left with no clean-up crew”: Defining autistic burnout. Autism in Adulthood, 2(2), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2019.0079 Mantzalas, J., Richdale, A. L., Adikari, A., Lowe, J., & Dissanayake, C. (2022). What Is Autistic Burnout? A thematic analysis of posts on two online platforms. Autism in Adulthood, 4(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0079 Lewis, L. F., et al. (2023). The lived experience of meltdowns for autistic adults. Autism, 27(7), 1787–1799. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221145783 Malik, J., et al. (2019). Emotional flooding in response to negative affect in romantic relationships. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 18(4), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2019.1641188 Gottman Institute. (2024, March 4). Making sure emotional flooding doesn’t capsize your relationship. Retrieved from https://www.gottman.com/blog/making-sure-emotional-flooding-doesnt-capsize-your-relationship/

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Autistic Non-Verbal Episodes in Marriage: Why Words Vanish Sometimes and What to Do About It Neurodiverse Couples Tuesday, august 12, 2025. Here’s the scene: You’re in the middle of a conversation with your spouse. Maybe the topic is small (“Did you pay the water bill?”) or monumental (“Are we happy?”). And then—without warning—your autistic partner’s voice disappears. No yelling, no slammed doors. Just… gone. You’re left holding the conversational steering wheel while they’ve quietly climbed into the trunk. If you’ve never lived with high-functioning autism, this can be tragically misconstrued as stonewalling or contempt. It isn’t. It’s just neurology pulling the emergency brake. Why This Happens: The Science Without the Lab Coat Smell For autistic adults, losing speech under stress is often a shutdown—a form of nervous system overload that knocks language production offline. Think of it like your phone freezing: all the apps are still there, but none of them open when you tap. Research calls this autistic burnout when it happens in a longer, chronic cycle—linked to masking (Hull et al., 2017; Raymaker et al., 2020). Masking is the art of “performing normal” so well that non-autistic people think you’re fine. The issue is that it eats through your energy reserves like a car idling in traffic with the A/C on full blast (Mantzalas et al., 2022). Eventually, one hard conversation can tip you from functional to frozen. And here’s where couples therapy meets neuroscience: physiological flooding—the body’s fight/flight/freeze switch—is a known relationship killer (Malik et al., 2019; Gottman Institute, 2024). In other words, for some autistic partners, flooding may tend to show up sooner, last longer, and is more likely to pull the plug on speech entirely. The Danger Loop in Marriage Autistic partner goes non-verbal — brain says “nope.” Non-autistic partner reads it as avoidance — brain says “attack.” Pressure increases — “Just say something.” Shutdown deepens — and now you’ve both lost. Do that a few hundred times and you’ll start conflating a physiological response into a moral failing. That’s the real marriage-killer. The Protocol: Three Phases, Zero Guesswork This is where we get practical. You can’t “love away” a temporary shutdown, but you can stop it from turning into World War III. Before: Build the Net Name the state. Agree on a phrase or signal ( I call this a couple code)—such as “words offline,” “shutdown,” a hand over the heart. The point is to make the invisible visible. The Shutdown Card. A literal card that says: I can’t speak right now. Please lower lights, reduce sound, give me X minutes. I promise I will circle back. The Pause Rule. Require a minimum of 20 minutes before resuming any tough talk. Autistic partner may need 90+. Agree ahead of time. Downgrade Kit. the usual gear; earplugs, soft light, weighted blanket, fidget, a quiet room. You know, human decency in object form. Reduce Daily Load. Avoid heavy talks right after work or big social events. Chronic overload makes a nervous shutdown more probable. During: Do Less, Better Autistic Partner: Give the signal. Exit stimulation. Switch channels if possible (text, notes app, yes/no cards). Send a short pre-written message: “Safe, can’t talk, back at 8:15.” Non-Autistic Partner: Acknowledge once—“Got it, I’m with you.” Hold the pause boundary. Lower stimuli. Go regulate your own nervous system—walk, journal, pet the dog. Don’t rehearse comebacks. Both: Avoid sarcasm, interrogation, ultimatums. Nothing lengthens a shutdown like moral outrage. After: Close the Loop Check in: “Are you ready to talk, or should we start in text?” Debrief: Identify triggers and what helped. Solve the actual problem. No conflict gets left to rot in the corner. Spot burnout early. If shutdowns start clustering, it’s time to reduce demands, not double them. How This Isn’t Stonewalling Stonewalling is a choice. Shutdown is a lockout. Stonewalling says, “I won’t talk to you.” Shutdown says, “I can’t talk to you yet, but I will.” The key difference? Repair intention. A shutdown protocol builds that right into the process. The Ten-Minute At-Home Drill Co-create your signal and card. Agree on a pause window. Pack the downgrade kit. Rehearse the exchange (“Got it, I’m with you.”). Check in weekly to tweak the system. Remember, you’re not aiming for zero shutdowns. You’re aiming for shorter, kinder, safer ones. Why This Works Because it matches lived autistic experience (Raymaker et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2023). Because it honors nervous system limits instead of punishing them (Malik et al., 2019). Because it lets both partners keep their dignity and still solve the problem. In other words: you’re building a marriage that can survive the occasional moments when the words are gone for the time being. Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed. REFERENCES: Hull, L., Mandy, W., Lai, M.-C., Baron-Cohen, S., Allison, C., Smith, P., & Petrides, K. V. (2017). “Putting on my best normal”: Social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Autism, 21(5), 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316671012 Raymaker, D. M., Teo, A. R., Steckler, N. A., Lentz, B., Scharer, M., Delos Santos, A., … & Nicolaidis, C. (2020). “Having all of your internal resources exhausted beyond measure and being left with no clean-up crew”: Defining autistic burnout. Autism in Adulthood, 2(2), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2019.0079 Mantzalas, J., Richdale, A. L., Adikari, A., Lowe, J., & Dissanayake, C. (2022). What Is Autistic Burnout? A thematic analysis of posts on two online platforms. Autism in Adulthood, 4(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0079 Lewis, L. F., et al. (2023). The lived experience of meltdowns for autistic adults. Autism, 27(7), 1787–1799. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221145783 Malik, J., et al. (2019). Emotional flooding in response to negative affect in romantic relationships. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 18(4), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2019.1641188 Gottman Institute. (2024, March 4). Making sure emotional flooding doesn’t capsize your relationship. Retrieved from https://www.gottman.com/blog/making-sure-emotional-flooding-doesnt-capsize-your-relationship/

Aug 12, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: the eiffel tower grows every year
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: the eiffel tower grows every year

Detailed fact-check analysis of: the eiffel tower grows every year

Aug 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
911 was a false flag. For the
first 10 years, I did not think
anything other than the
official narrative then after
being shown a video, a close up
video of building number seven
coming down and that got me
going because it's obvious to
me that building seven was was
a controlled demolition because
the building collapses from the
bottom down. The trade centers
were unique in that they were
designed to withstand the
00:33
impact of a a a jet. From what
I understand the the outer
skeleton of the building. The
outer columns was like a a fish
net and you had these inner
core columns which was
substantial thick steel beams
to withstand four or five times
what the loads were. Got it.
The engineers always over
design a building. No steel
frame building has ever
collapsed before or since 9/
eleven. So that should say
something right there. And it
said that building seven it was
01:05
aggressive collapse that it was
caused by fire but progressive
collapse unlike the twin
towers, the twin towers
collapse from the top down.
That's a progressive collapse.
Sure. Floor by floor by floor.
But if you look at the videos
of building seven collapsing,
it collapses uniformly, it's
collapsing from the bottom, the
building stays intact all the
way to the bottom of the ground
and you could see the sides
caving in on it. For a building
to collapse uniformly which the
video show all the load bearing
it would have to have failed
01:36
simultaneously. Now, fire
doesn't act like that. I came
across an analogy of the twin
towers and if you could
visualize cast iron stoves
stacked. One on top of each
other. The stoves up at the
top. Yes, there's fire and
they've been damaged but the
stoves on the bottom, they
haven't been damaged. Okay. So,
the structure underneath all of
that is intact. So, it's
impossible for a building to
collapse near free fall speed
and increase. Without a
02:07
controlled demolition. You're
running into the path of most
resistance. I something else is
going on. I don't believe that
it was just the planes or the
fires I think that and they
examine the dust and they found
what they call thermitic
material which is like a
explosive incendiary which was
in the dust samples and that's
documented. There were reports
of the buildings were
undergoing a extensive elevator
renovation in the two or three
years prior to all kinds of
02:40
workers they had access to the
the core the cores of the
building and on the day of the
attack the the elevator company
would not assist in the
operations of the elevators and
the elevator company was the
elevator company it
subsequently went out of
business and a couple of years
after that
False

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The Eiffel Tower was completed in 1889.
Unverified

Fact Check: The Eiffel Tower was completed in 1889.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The Eiffel Tower was completed in 1889.

Jul 1, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: From the lofty Ivory Tower, to the Ghettos in Skid Row, we the Tribe move as One, as Above So Below
Needs Research

Fact Check: From the lofty Ivory Tower, to the Ghettos in Skid Row, we the Tribe move as One, as Above So Below

Detailed fact-check analysis of: From the lofty Ivory Tower, to the Ghettos in Skid Row, we the Tribe move as One, as Above So Below

Mar 17, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The Eiffel Tower is one of the most visited monuments in the world. | TruthOrFake Blog