Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

1363739414246

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭ Curious_Case


    " It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it " -- Aristotle



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,341 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Ok.

    So you don't believe the conspiracy because it's nonsense.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,341 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Some conspiracy theorists believe that the towers were destroyed using a space based energy weapon.

    This idea is relatively more plausible and rational that the one you are suggesting where the buildings were destroyed using secret silent explosives.

    Why do you dismiss this idea? Lack of imagination?


    However both theories are actual implausible and silly and should be equally dismissed as childish fantasies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭ Curious_Case


    Perhaps you can show me where I said silent explosives were used.

    When you realise you can't, perhaps you can apologise.

    Maybe you're stupid? I don't know 🙂



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭ Curious_Case


    You "read" all that from the Aristotle quote did you?

    Interpret this: "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,341 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    OK so then if silent explosives weren't used why are there no rapid sequence of explosions immediately preceding the collapse?


    Also how were these explosives planted in secret? That's the other part of the idea that is comparably silly.


    So why do you not want to entertain the space laser theory? Is your imagination so limited?



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,341 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    OK. Then why do you not accept the theory?


    If the theory is sound and rational, why do you not believe it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,438 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe



    Ever since the flat-earther was here (and the whole Covid thing turning out to be not a conspiracy) most of the resident conspiracy theorists have gone deathly silent. I don't even see them posting their shite in other threads.

    All that's left in here is this character




  • Registered Users Posts: 23,341 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭ Curious_Case


    "Comparably silly" - that's a weird phrase but you may have meant "demonstrably silly" or "comparatively silly".

    You got angry and now your thought process is all over the place.

    You now realise that I didn't say what you imagined I said but you're not quite sure how that could have happened. You were over-confident, with no appreciation for detail whatsoever. I have made my point sufficiently and I refer you back to the Aristotle quote.

    Don't engage with me on this forum again.

    I mean that, don't engage with me on this forum again.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,341 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    You haven't made any point.

    You just made a claim that turned out to be false, and now you've spend the last few pages dodging and claiming that you don't have to address any points.


    And again, I asked you to explain the lack of a rapid sequence of explosions before the collapse of the towers. If you are suggesting that they were brought down by explosives, you must explain this. So far you have refused to. (Probably because you can't.)

    So baring any other explanation you must believe the explosives were somehow magically silent. This is something other conspiracy theorists here have claimed.

    If you don't believe in silent explosives, what's your alternative?

    If you can't or won't provide one, I will simply continue with my initial assumption regardless of your complaints.


    If you don't wish to engage with me, or my points (You haven't really anyway) feel free to not post any more.

    Your demand is very very silly.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭ Curious_Case


    Now hear this, you absolute moron - the person you claim didn't say "xyz" on the day, is recorded as having said he did say "xyz" on the day.

    Ergo it matters not a jot whether he was televised saying it or not.

    Get this through your head, you idiot 🤡



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,341 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    And as always, a conspiracy theorist is resorting to basic insults rather than just answer questions.


    And no, Larry Silverstein did not say that quote "on the day". Nor did he say that on live tv as you claimed.

    The quote comes from a documentary a year later. And in the documentary (I'm going to hazard a guess you've not actually watched it) it is clear that he is not admiting to being involved in a secret demolition.


    If you believe I'm wrong, prove it. Show I'm an idiot.

    Post a link to a video or otherwise that supports your claim that he said that quote on the day and on live TV.


    Or if you prefer, you could take a swing at my original question that you've still not addressed.

    Why did he say this?


    Or alternatively you could address the other point that you've dodged:

    If the WTC buildings were demolished with secret explosives, how do you explain the lack of a very loud very apparent sequence of explosions immediately before the collapse of the buildings?


    You will do none of these however.

    You will feign outrage or pretend not to be bothered or be too busy. You will scoff and rattle off something smug and something you believe sounds terribly witty and droll. You might even lash out with more insults.

    But you won't address the questions.

    Because you can't.

    And no one will be fooled by your theatrics.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭ Curious_Case


    Another comprehension fail.

    Standard language, "basic" words, the result is always the same.

    You're an unreachable nuisance !!!

    🎠🎠🎠



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,341 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    See, as I predicted.

    I comprehend your post completely mate. You are simply deflecting and trying to appear cleverer than your posts actually are.


    Your initial claim was false. You claimed that Silverstein said that quote on the day and on live TV. This wasn't true. You got this basic fact wrong, yet were declaring it as if it was a smoking gun. You highlighted the idea that he supposedly said it on the day and on live TV as if those elements made the case for you.

    But as per usual for conspiracy theorists, you were foiled by the fact you didn't bother to actually fact check anything.

    So, from the outset, your "credible" argument is based on a shakey foundation since the initial claim wasn't actually true.


    Then, from there, you failed to explain your theory any deeper than this surface level (and false) claim. You didn't explain why you believed Silverstein would do this. You ignore the fact that it makes no sense for him to do this either on the day or a year later. I've asked you repeatedly several times to explain this, but you refuse to even acknowledge the question.


    As I said, you are providing the perfect example of why conspiracy theories and theorists are not credible.


    So, lets leave aside the 9/11 stuff as you've made it clear that you are unwilling and unable to engage on it. (Because your theory is nonsense and you know it.)


    Why do you think your tactics on this thread are going to help the case that conspiracy theorists should be taken seriously?

    Why should people be convinced by false facts and then dodging and weaseling away from questions?

    Were you convinced by someone doing this?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭ Curious_Case


    An obvious persistent nuisance with no point whatsoever to make

    One doesn't even need bait on the hook 🙂🙂🙂



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,341 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    No mate, I think my point is pretty clear.

    Conspiracy theorists are not credible because they often present falsehoods as fact, and the things they claim don't make sense when you think about them for more than 2 seconds. And that to avoid these uncomfortable facts, conspiracy theorists will engage in a lot of silliness.


    As I said, you're a perfect example.


    So again, why do you think your tactics are effective?

    Who do you think you're addressing in the above post?


    If anyone does actually think Curious's arguments have been convincing or even just adequate, please make yourself known.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭ Curious_Case


    I see King Mob is playing to the gallery now, I had formed the impression that he viewed such behaviour with disdain

    "Mate"? - I fear his descent towards the vernacular has begun

    Will he continue to ramble incoherently? - stay tuned 🦠🦠🦠



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭ Curious_Case


    OMG! - He replied to one of my posts (which didn't quote him) and in the reply he queries who I'm addressing - LOL

    I told him not to engage with me, he didn't oblige, now look what's happened 😂😂😂



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 23,315 Mod ✭✭✭✭ robinph



    Your making incoherent rambling accusations of incoherent rambling. :)



  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers Posts: 36,036 ✭✭✭✭ sydthebeat


    Lads, it's obvious that this curious lexy baby luthor case character is a complete troll. They don't believe what they post, they only post to troll and will never ever answer a question or develop their point.


    Engagement in the covid threads was important as spreading lies and disinformation about covid and vaccines was dangerous, and thankfully those CTers there are down to one single nutball.

    But here, who cares what he posts. He obviously hasn't even the most basic grasp of engineering structures as he thinks high rise buildings are designed to fail leaning outwards and not vertically, as they are. Not does he have an idea how he failure of one structural element had the capacity to cause vertical collapse.

    The guys a time waster, an admitted troll, let him spout whatever crank wants to about an incident from over 20 years ago



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,341 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    I think you're right. Lex pretending to hold a ridiculous position to waste people's time, or a poster that behaves exactly like him.

    It bares highlighting though that these tactics are pretty indistinguishable from "real" conspiracy theorists though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭ Curious_Case


    With respect, there's a history to this.

    You say I don't believe what I post, but at the same time you say I think buildings are designed to fall leaning outwards.

    In the case of unevenly distributed weakening, would the building stay within the footprint ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,341 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    If you are being genuine, why not just state your belief directly instead of asking questions you don't want the answer to?#


    As you've demonstrated in this thread and in your other accounts, you are not actually seeking to engage, you're playing a part for reasons unknown. You've demonstrated that answering your questions is a waste of time.


    If this isn't the case, the onus is now on you to show otherwise.

    State your actual beliefs in clear, direct and unambiguous terms.

    You won't be able to do this though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,266 ✭✭✭ passatman86


    None of you are right about 911



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭ Curious_Case


    The person my post was addressed to, in all probability, is bound to have better answers than you.

    You have consistently failed to understand simple sentences.

    You are unrelentingly building up a chronology of stupid posts, I ask again - are you stupid?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,827 ✭✭✭ $hifty


    You're being asked pretty basic questions here, and your response is, to a tee, exactly the same response that has been trotted out time and time again on this and many other threads in this forum.

    You refuse to say what the conspiracy is

    You refuse to say whether you believe in it or not

    When challenged on this, you refuse to confirm/deny your standing, only to then turn around 5 posts later claiming "ha, I never said that, show me where I said that, huh?"

    You refuse to answer fundamental questions because, to do so would force you to pick a side, or to take a stance on something. Once that happens, you have plausible deniability against anything other posters use to challenge you

    You claimed you are done with answering certain posters

    And now, in the post quoted above, you've descended into firing insults / personal abuse.

    KM would be well within his (can you be a non-binary King?) rights to report that abuse and get you booted off the thread, but, this isn't their first rodeo. He and others have experienced all of this before, and it is another blatant, transparent attempt to effectively leave the thread without having to address points, answer questions or even, in this case, state your beliefs.

    When this has happened before, the posters either leave of their own accord, get banned, or simply create a new account and come back in 2 months time rehashing the same old crap that has been debunked...........multiple times in some cases. It gets tiresome. It can be entertaining sometimes, but anyone reading the last few pages of this thread can only come to the conclusion that you're on the wind-up. and nobody likes having their chain yanked like that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭ Curious_Case


    In order to assist King Mob with his focus, I NOW raise the question - did Larry Silverstein use the phrase "pull it", in reference to building 7, on the day of the 9/11 attacks.

    It's a simple yes or no 🙂🙂



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭ Curious_Case


    I agree with a lot of that but I've seen how he treated others and I'm not easily wound up. I tried interacting respectfully but was instantly dismissed.

    I've been called a "dude" and a "shite-talker", maybe more, I'm not sure.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,341 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    No.

    He did not use that phrase in reference to building 7. The "it" that is being "pulled" is not building 7.

    The quote you are refering to was not from the day. Nor did he ever say that on live television.


    See how easy it is to answer a question directly, clearly and unambiguously.


    Since I answered yours in such a manner, will you answer mine:

    Why do you believe he admitted his involvement in the conspiracy on camera?


    I fully suspect that you will not answer this.



Advertisement