Conspiracy theorists, when they are challenged and generally when they get pissy like to accuse people of being the same poster because it's more comfortable for them than to think that maybe people disagree with them.
Of course when folks like yourself are challenged on these false accusations you continue to deflect and dodge.
It's like clockwork.
And if you agree that your theory is being challenged on a very basic level, why aren't you addressing that challenge? Why are you dodging and deflecting from very simple points and questions?
To most people it just makes it look like you aren't able to address them and your theory falls apart at basic challenges.
As I said, you are demonstrating this nicely along with how conspiracy theorists behave when they are out of their comfort zone.
Try addressing points and questions?
Where do you guys stand on Lee Harvey Oswald ?
I urge interested parties to read this, it's a perfect retort to nonsense -
But bear in mind, that Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane
A conspiracy theory need not be based on one big event. It can be aimed at an individual. You need only look at the Ryan Tubridy thread. Where statements that he would say, might say, very quickly turn into 'fact'. It happens where there is cohort so committed to the conspiracy they view it as 'work'.
The same thing happened with a cohort on boards.ie who was rabidly against Dublin GAA more - specifically football. That conspiracy theory was that finances meant Dublin were successful and will continue to be etc. With no let up.
On a broader scale I would say there is bound to be a few intergovernmental theories that come true. But the problem with conspiracy theorists. They ignore all the bits where they are wrong and just focus on one issue that seems to back up their argument. And when the conspiracy theorist is really wrong the narrative just gets hastily rewritten to fit.
--
But here are a list of conspiracy theories that could be true/plausible (obviously written from an American point of view)
I particulary like the one -
"The societal norm of the “American lawn” was propagated to keep us from growing food on our property and keep us consuming."
Lol but why should people take you seriously when you've just run away from the first questions you were asked?
I urge parties to think about why he has to do this. Why is he running away and dodging? Why wad the first thing he claimed demonstrably false and easily shown to be with 5 seconds of googling?
Parties should also start asking the questions that he doesn't want people to ask.
Like how did the WTC7 really fall if the official story is false?
How was this achieved? Who did it? When? Why?
If there's one thing conspiracy theorists and theories hate, it's questions.
They'd much rather you shut off your brain and just accept what you're told even if it's false and even if it doesn't make sense.
Yeah 7 was hit by fire, the same thing that ultimately brought down WTC 1 and 2. Same principle.
Again you can't seem to decide whether you're a parody or not, but whatever.
👇️ Spoiler - he did it
Glad to hear it's the same principle, that means the difference in temperature would have an effect
Let me know what part/s of the above sentence is/are ambiguous
You fall at the first hurdle every time 🙂
You're a double-act, see my reply to your alter-ego
Pearls before swine 🙂
so, just to clarify, you know that it wasn't a fire that brought down building 7 but you don't know what brought it down. Would that be accurate?
Yes, as I said, you guys resort to this tactic because you aren't able to actually say anything of substance and you aren't able to address basic questions about your conspiracy theories.
You're not presenting any pearls.
The first thing you presented wasn't actually true, and the second you were asked the basic, most obvious question about it, you dodged and deflected.
Why is that?
Do you think that people will be convinced by your posts?
Dismount your elevated equine and ponder why you can't appreciate nuance 🙂
What nuance are you referring to? In what way am I on a "high horse".
How is claiming something false as true and then refusing to answer any questions "nuance"?
Again, kinda sounds like you're just trying to use big words to not actually say anything.
Which again, proves our point.
Modern buildings tend not to disintegrate vertically when hot
Don't you think that steel weakened by heat would lean by some appreciable amount? or collapse more slowly?
All 3 buildings displayed the characteristics of a controlled demolition
The above statements are worth considering irrespective of my existence
New Sense 🙂
Except for all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition like the very loud very noticeable sequence of explosions immediately preceding the collapse.
But let us guess, you're going to suggest the reasonable idea of silent explosives?
No, your statements are not worth considering as they are 1. not actually true, and 2. don't make sense in the context of a conspiracy.
If you are asked to explain, detail or support your claims, you will run away. Cause that's all you guys seem to be able to do when asked any questions.
And now you're stopped being coherent.
Perhaps try actual full sentences?
Don't you think that steel weakened by heat would lean by some appreciable amount?
Possibly. Or just as possibly the fire burned to the point where part of the structure lost integrity. When that collapsed the structure below that would also fail and so on. which is precisely how a controlled demolition works. the explosion causes the structural integrity to fail which (hopefully) brings the building straight down. that the collapse of the buildings looked similar to a controlled demolition should not be a surprise. the only other possibility is that it was a controlled demolition. The logistics of that are very conspiracy theory territory. Believing such would mean that explosives were placed in secret prior to the day. Also that near silent explosives were used. It just isn't rational.
This is exactly what I'm talking about
nuance, new sense, nuisance
Most other people would have spotted that 🙂
Sure, but an explosive charge would weaken a steel beam a mite faster than a fire would. Even red hot metal takes a fair bit of hammering from a blacksmith's hammer. Concrete stands up to heat pretty well too and we're not talking about timber construction here. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I don't know how to convince you of that. I've had interactions with those other two before, they don't recognise respect when given.
of course explosives are faster but a hot enough fire can do the same thing. that the fire burned for several hours before it collapsed would lead credence to the fire theory. Plus of course the little problem of explosives not being silent. In summary it is entirely possible for the events to be caused by a fire and in the absence of a better theory it is one I am happy to accept.
If what I've listened to, or read, is accurate it was only the presence of aviation fuel that enabled them to put forward the explanation that heat caused the collapses of WTC 1 & 2. How could building 7 have been subjected to the same level of heat? Furnaces require the injection of oxygen, open fires are limited by various constraints. Video clips of firemen referencing explosive sounds do exist but I can't say they're genuine because I don't know.
Temperature did have an effect, the 1 and 2 fell in a short time, 7 took hours.
What is with this bizarre infantile approach? if you believe it was a conspiracy, cool, just say so. If you are parodying conspiracy theorists, alright, say so.
It wasn't subjected to the same level of heat. Structural steel doesn't require aviation fuelled fire temperatures to weaken to failure it can happen from normal office fires.
You find my approach infantile because you're a linear thinker 🙃
Prove it
Already done, many times, on the 9/11 sub-forum. Go read any of the threads there. Otherwise, you can do it yourself, look up office fires, how hot do they burn? then find a steel strength vs temperature graph. Or go read the conclusions of the NIST report or Weidlinger report which go into detail on how and why WTC 7 failed due to fire.
No, it's because your comments are idiotic.
If you genuinely believe WTC 7 was an inside job, okay, that's your claim, the onus is on you to demonstrate it.
If you are parodying conspiracy theorists, well done, good job so far.
Hmmm, would I find that info. on howhotdoofficefiresburn.rigidthinking
A total cop-out !!
Sure skyscrapers fall everytime a butt gets thrown in the waste basket 🙂🙂🙂
Bye for now, I've got, like, things to do 🐷🐷🐷
So, why do you guys keep announcing when you're leaving?
Very odd thing to do.
But again, readers please note how he has not addressed any questions or points before his dramatic exit.
He will not address anything when he returns.
Because he can't. Conspiracy theorists never can.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
