What scares those who scream "conspiracy theorist"

But this doesn't really answer my point.

I'm asking you how you tell the difference between what is valid and what isn't.

You are now claiming that you just disagree with the NIST's report. I take it that means you agree that it's not possible that the building was demolished then.

So if a conspiracy theorist suggested that the building was demolished secretly, in your opinion, is this a valid conspiracy theory or an invalid one?

What if they claimed that it was demolished by secret silent explosives? Valid or invalid?

What if they claimed that it was demolished by 3 people? Valid or invalid.

Again, not discussing the particulars of these theories, I'm asking if you view them as valid or not.

Weird that moderna was taken off the market in Japan for having traces of metal in it though..

I saw the minister saying they were going to stop using it..

That article doesn't say they're going to keep using other batches..those batches were 1.6 million doses..And different from the other contaminated batches..

Great. Very mature for you to actually cop to a mistake. Very refreshing too.

Could you still answer the question though. Did you post that claim without actually check if it was true?

You claimed to "see the minister saying they were going to stop using it" Why did you claim this? Did you just make it up on the spot?

Do you see how this kind of thing is a bit illustrative of what conspiracy theorists do and why it's a problem?

Lol Yea. People should stop asking questions. That sounds right for a conspiracy theorist.

So since you're again avoiding questions when caught out, we have a perfect self contained example of the issues with conspiracy theorists.

You made a claim that was false. Most likely because you half remembered something, and you did nothing to verify if it was true or not.

Then when challenged on it, you still didn't do any checking, you doubled down on the untruth. You even seemed to pluck a new factoid out of the air. You claimed to have heard something from a minister. This could be something you half remembered, it could be something you just made up on the spot. I can't tell.

Then after it was made abundantly clear that your claim was false you admittedly did the mature thing and cop to it. But now, you're returning to the same dishonest tactics of ignoring and avoiding things that make you doubt your beliefs.

This exact thing seems to be happening again and again on different scales for conspiracy theorists.

Thank you for illustrating the points being made.

When you guys are actually able to address my points without running away and whinging.

Why would I change my position because dishonest people keep being dishonest and ignoring difficult questions.

Are you going to go back and address the last batch of very short questions I asked you?

It's almost like conspiracy theorists are embarrassed by the reasons they believe what they believe. Almost as if it's a shameful secret they don't want to discuss...