Conspiracy Theorists

Cheerful S

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The key reason for you is the fact that you believe the Twin Towers and Building 7 were literally blown up in secret controlled demolitions in the middle of New York in broad daylight with the entire world watching.

The collapse was due to fire then was NIST removing construction from the local area where the collapse started?. You real-world model, the actual performance of the materials, and what there inside the building. NIST does not get to decide on what construction should be present and taken out and removed. Nobody serious does that. Since we know NIST did this we got evidence the finite model collapse model was not reacting and collapsing the way wanted due to fire. I can prove NIST removed the construction by showing the actual blueprints for that floor. You can’t provide a good answer to why NIST removed key components that would prevent a sudden collapse.

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

I seen a youtube about it

It convinced me more than science ever could

I saw a few brilliant ones on youtube, where it explained simply using logic to disprove all the common flat earther arguments.

Plus I saw other ones why there is a tendency for certain type of mindset to believe in conspiracy theories such as those. They are willing to be fooled/convinced. In an odd way it gives their lives meaning.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful S wrote: »

The collapse was due to fire

No, you believe the collapse was due to explosives. That it was a controlled demolition involving some sort of silent or "semi-silent" planted explosives.

Many conspiracy theorists who have extreme views like this try to hide them behind a whole bunch of denial. It's almost like they know it's nonsense themselves so they try to keep it under wraps as much as possible.

ShatterAlan

silliussoddius wrote: »

Except the abuse scandal in Ireland broke because through real journalism and victims speaking out, not because of a super secret agent on twitter telling people to do their own research and making consistently wrong predictions.

It was still a conspiracy. Is that lost on you?


When something hasn't come to light yet people are doubting the narrative, they are called "conspiracy theorists" and what they rail against is somehow unbelievable.


When it transpires that they were actually correct in their suspicions and assumptions then the conspiracy is renamed as a "scandal" or a mistake or <insert epithet here>.


Sexual abuse in Ireland and its defenders was and is a conspiracy. Do you deny that? It fits the bill of a conspiracy.


Except it is now being called an "outrage" or a "tragedy" or a "scandal" or a "dreadful episode". Except before it all came to light, anyone who suggested as much was a conspiracy theorist.

Cheerful S

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No, you believe the collapse was due to explosives. That it was a controlled demolition involving some sort of silent or "semi-silent" planted explosives.

Many conspiracy theorists who have extreme views like this try to hide them behind a whole bunch of denial. It's almost like they know it's nonsense themselves so they try to keep it under wraps as much as possible.

WTC7 collapse was not silent. This a myth. You can hear the clear boom on the mic, blocks away.

Open your ears at 1 to 2 seconds. Something after happening inside because right after the east house Penthouse falls.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Sexual abuse in Ireland and its defenders was and is a conspiracy. Do you deny that? It fits the bill of a conspiracy.

Plenty of real conspiracies have happened. The issue is that conspiracy theorists and people with extreme beliefs use them as evidence that whatever unrelated theory/belief they are peddling could be true.

It's that dumb.

Purple is a Fruit

Yeah I've no problem with people theorising - with something solid to support their theory.

My issue is with the presenting of a theory as fact, with little to no support, and throwing insults at those who disagree. They're always so hostile (the viciousness of some of the anti vaccinations crowd is off the scale) which comes across as not being secure in their assertions either/lashing out is all they have because what they posit is that flimsy.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful S wrote: »

WTC7 collapse was not silent. This a myth. You can hear the clear boom on the mic, blocks away.

According to you, this sound is explosives. Planted explosives. That all three buildings fell due to controlled demolitions.

That someone planned the whole thing so that when the hijackers flew the planes into the buildings, they would press buttons and "blow up" the buildings, plus one that wasn't hit by a plane.

Cheerful S

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to you, this sound is explosives. Planted explosives. That all three buildings fell due to controlled demolitions.

That someone planned the whole thing so that when the hijackers flew the planes into the buildings, they would press buttons and "blow up" the buildings, plus one that wasn't hit by a plane.

Completely ignore large steel column framed constructions don’t give way to fire like this. There be a good deal of examples if it was common. Its an imaginary theory NIST came up with to explain away something odd on that day.. NIST even admits on tape this was never known before and the explantation brand new- one of a kind -and took them six years to figure this and tell the public.

All good in theory, the study profoundly flawed. Why do you place so much faith in a group decides to remove building construction? Do you not think this evidence of cover up or least malpractice by them?

They must model the trigger collapse area as is not reshaped to fit an agenda. NIST finite global models are lacking a key feature of seven collapse the freefall. A natural collapse should never have freefall when there steel attachments throughout every one of the floors inside the buildings. Top half squeezes the lower half during a natural collapse. For some strange reason when the roofline and building started coming down 8 stories of the building had disappeared over 100 feet at the bottom. Freefall is actually prove of a removal of steel columns using another energy source not meant to be there in the building.

YFlyer

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I fail to see how that question is relevant.


What does she say?


You're the one who says that all "conspiracy theorists" agree with each other. That was in your initial posting.



You said so and slapped "100%" in there to boot.
I'm obviously a conspiracy theorist since I am aware of the South Yorkshire Police conspiring to fit up, and frame a false narrative, surrounding the Hillsbourough Disaster. The police conspired, the government conspired and it has all come out in the wash.


PRIOR to it coming out in the wash, if you were to question the official narrative, you were a conspiracy theorist. Now that it's out and the government have accepted culpability....it's no longer a conspiracy. It's a "scandal" or a "mistake".


So, can you answer my questions?


What has Dolores Cahill got to do with anything I've written?


I could just as well ask you, or rather state, "You go along with Santa and The Angel Gabriel"? Yes?


What does she have to say?

Because you say you study in a Dublin college.

YFlyer

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I fail to see how that question is relevant.


What does she say?


You're the one who says that all "conspiracy theorists" agree with each other. That was in your initial posting.



You said so and slapped "100%" in there to boot.
I'm obviously a conspiracy theorist since I am aware of the South Yorkshire Police conspiring to fit up, and frame a false narrative, surrounding the Hillsbourough Disaster. The police conspired, the government conspired and it has all come out in the wash.


PRIOR to it coming out in the wash, if you were to question the official narrative, you were a conspiracy theorist. Now that it's out and the government have accepted culpability....it's no longer a conspiracy. It's a "scandal" or a "mistake".


So, can you answer my questions?


What has Dolores Cahill got to do with anything I've written?


I could just as well ask you, or rather state, "You go along with Santa and The Angel Gabriel"? Yes?


What does she have to say?

Yes I said.

YFlyer

banie01 wrote: »

Would thank this twice if I could.

Just on our own CT forum, it's not about disproving posters or implying they're idiots.
It is about seeking the evidence CTer's base their beliefs on and testing it's veracity and it's actual cogence against the "accepted".

There are of course conspiracies and some things that we will have taken as "fact" will undoubtedly be proven to be based on a lie or conspiracy at some point.

My own aim when posting in the CT forum, is strange as it may seem, to learn.
A poster may present evidence or a theory in support of a claim that I haven't read before, or a tangent that could well bear investigation or review.

I will say in all my time posting over there, I have learned quite a lot but never, not once have I read any evidence in support of a theory raised over there and in particular the 9/11, Pentagon, WTC and Kennedy threads that stood up to scrutiny or could not be refuted.

Some of the displays of outright mental gymnastics over there really are something to behold.
If one wants some entertainment, I'd recommend the freefall and the pentagon threads.

They are idiots.

Purple is a Fruit

Dohnjoe wrote: »

****ty information and lies should be challenged. It's been left to fester on the internet and we all see the repercussions of it. Not to mention some of the disinformation is actually harmful.

This. If someone spreads misinformation or disinformation regarding serious matters, it is not "just their opinion" - it is lies.

YFlyer

I'm going to sleep soon. OP argument is that conspiracy theorists agree with each other or tend to after a period of time, usually over a short period during a night in. Not that some vague conspiracy became true.

YFlyer

Purple is a Fruit wrote: »

This. If someone spreads misinformation or disinformation regarding serious matters, it is not "just their opinion" - it is lies.

Like the Sandy hook disinformation?

Necro

Cheerful S wrote: »

The collapse was due to fire then was NIST removing construction from the local area where the collapse started?. You real-world model, the actual performance of the materials, and what there inside the building. NIST does not get to decide on what construction should be present and taken out and removed. Nobody serious does that. Since we know NIST did this we got evidence the finite model collapse model was not reacting and collapsing the way wanted due to fire. I can prove NIST removed the construction by showing the actual blueprints for that floor. You can’t provide a good answer to why NIST removed key components that would prevent a sudden collapse.

Cheerful S wrote: »

WTC7 collapse was not silent. This a myth. You can hear the clear boom on the mic, blocks away.

Open your ears at 1 to 2 seconds. Something after happening inside because right after the east house Penthouse falls.

Cheerful S wrote: »

Completely ignore large steel column framed constructions don’t give way to fire like this. There be a good deal of examples if it was common. Its an imaginary theory NIST came up with to explain away something odd on that day.. NIST even admits on tape this was never known before and the explantation brand new- one of a kind -and took them six years to figure this and tell the public.

All good in theory, the study profoundly flawed. Why do you place so much faith in a group decides to remove building construction? Do you not think this evidence of cover up or least malpractice by them?

They must model the trigger collapse area as is not reshaped to fit an agenda. NIST finite global models are lacking a key feature of seven collapse the freefall. A natural collapse should never have freefall when there steel attachments throughout every one of the floors inside the buildings. Top half squeezes the lower half during a natural collapse. For some strange reason when the roofline and building started coming down 8 stories of the building had disappeared over 100 feet at the bottom. Freefall is actually prove of a removal of steel columns using another energy source not meant to be there in the building.

There's a dedicated Conspiracy Theory forum to continue this discussion, this is not the thread or forum to argue your case for or against a particular conspiracy theory

Capt'n Midnight

branie2 wrote: »

Tinfoil hat wearers

There's science and engineering behind this one.

On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets:
An Empirical Study

The helmets amplify frequency bands that coincide with those allocated to the US government between 1.2 Ghz and 1.4 Ghz.

...
It requires no stretch of the imagination to conclude that the current helmet craze is likely to have been propagated by the Government

dxhound2005

Physeter

I'm suspect of anyone who makes the effort to discredit the concept of conspiracy rather than a particular theory of conspiracy.

dxhound2005

Physeter wrote: »

I'm suspect of anyone who makes the effort to discredit the concept of conspiracy rather than a particular theory of conspiracy.

I'm firmly in the camp of cock-up not conspiracy.

silliussoddius

Physeter wrote: »

I'm suspect of anyone who makes the effort to discredit the concept of conspiracy rather than a particular theory of conspiracy.

I see false flags

Physeter

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I'm firmly in the camp of cock-up not conspiracy.

You're performing the critical end-step. Considering the probability and moving on with your life.

Hulk Hands

The Conspiracy forum on this website is even odder than you'd imagine.

Pop in for a look and there's the expected couple of crackpots posting theories about every single big current event. They're clearly too far gone but reflective of a small portion of the population.

Even more strange is theres a few debunkers who literally spend all their time on the site proving above crackpots wrong. Their posting history has little to no hobbies like sport, entertainment or bargain hunting or weather. Nope just thousand's of posts disproving conspiracy theories.

I don't know which group I feel more sorry for

Purple is a Fruit

Hulk Hands wrote: »

The Conspiracy forum on this website is even odder than you'd imagine.

Pop in for a look and there's the expected couple of crackpots posting theories about every single big current event. They're clearly too far gone but reflective of a small portion of the population.

Even more strange is theres a few debunkers who literally spend all their time on the site proving above crackpots wrong. Their posting history has little to no hobbies like sport, entertainment or bargain hunting or weather. Nope just thousand's of posts disproving conspiracy theories.

I don't know which group I feel more sorry for

Kinda depressing.

ShatterAlan

banie01 wrote: »

And here we have confirmation of that famous theory regarding how someone knows when one has attended Trinity!

No, I have been called a conspiracy theorist for doubting official narratives. Yet the OP claims that people like me all agree 100% with people who believe in faked moon landings and chemtrails. Another poster claimed that conspiracy theorists (I wouldn't called my self one because I think the label is stupid, but others would call me one for their own reasons) are all low iq vegans. Well again if I'm a so called conspiracy theorist then I'm not a vegan and I'm certainly not of low intelligence.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Off the top of my head, you denied Bin Laden died in 2011, denied the Salisbury poisoning, denied stuff about 9/11, and more. So yes, that is denial. You do it via a mixture of disbelief and scoffing at the facts, never addressing them, nothing of substance.

Very similar to how conspiracy theorists "question" an event, endlessly attempting to discredit the facts so they can hint at some conspiracy they often can't detail.

I didn't deny them. I said I didn't believe them.



I don't believe in God. That doesn't mean I'm denying his existence just that am not convinced. There's a difference between denying something and doubting its veracity. But it's a trick that people like you use to shut down the discussion.


There are people who question the figures of those who died in the Holocaust. They are called Holocaust Deniers even though they are not denying that the Holocaust occurred.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Plenty of real conspiracies have happened. The issue is that conspiracy theorists and people with extreme beliefs use them as evidence that whatever unrelated theory/belief they are peddling could be true.

It's that dumb.

That's not what this thread is about. It's about all conspiracy theorists agreeing with each other which is what the OP stated.


The guy droning on about paedophile rings in the Church would have been classified as a conspiracy nut without question. I don't for one minute think that he would also agree with some fool who was convinced of the existence of lizard people.



And that is the bullshit that the original poster is trying to sell.

dxhound2005

Hulk Hands wrote: »

The Conspiracy forum on this website is even odder than you'd imagine.

Pop in for a look and there's the expected couple of crackpots posting theories about every single big current event. They're clearly too far gone but reflective of a small portion of the population.

Even more strange is theres a few debunkers who literally spend all their time on the site proving above crackpots wrong. Their posting history has little to no hobbies like sport, entertainment or bargain hunting or weather. Nope just thousand's of posts disproving conspiracy theories.

I don't know which group I feel more sorry for

Purple is a Fruit wrote: »

Kinda depressing.

But is it true?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I didn't deny them. I said I didn't believe them.

You denied them.

There are people who question the figures of those who died in the Holocaust. They are called Holocaust Deniers even though they are not denying that the Holocaust occurred.

These are Holocaust deniers. They are trying to round down the numbers of people (specifically Jews) killed during the Holocaust. They use a well-worn technique of pretending to "ask questions" about the event, in reality they are trying to pour doubt on the facts by attempting to undermine or discredit them.

Conspiracy theorists use exactly the same technique.

ShatterAlan

YFlyer wrote: »

Because you say you study in a Dublin college.

Now you're just being childish. Fair enough. Troll away.