Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 😂😂😂

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 ?

None of you are right about 911

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.

Ok, I'll bite . . .

So why would be say he said it, he absolutely DOES say he said it.

Forget the associated issue, you're already deviating.

Lol. See. You dodged my question completely.

I will answer this new question when you go back and address mine.

Here it is again to help you with your focus:

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

If you dodge and ignore this question again, you are demonstrating that you aren't capable of engaging.

In your world.

Goodbye.

I will be posting the clip of Larry Silverstein saying that he used the phrase "pull it" on the day of 9/11

King Mob seems to know better than the man himself as he clearly stated "NO" when I posed the question

Actually no, I have to take that back.

The video $hifty linked shows on screen "As in, you know we've had...". But listening carefully and finding the quote from another source, it's:  "and I said, “We’ve had..."

The full quote is:

That's not a video of a live broadcast from 9/11.

Also, the full quote is given here and shows how it does not support your conspiracy claims.

I didn't say it was, you can't seriously be this thick ???

Because you claimed that he made this quote on the day on live TV.

This isn't true. The fact it isn't true and you keep dancing around the fact you got this wrong demonstrates why you, and conspiracy theorists in general are not taken very seriously.

Yes, you did.

You helpfully capitalise it to highlight it.

No, I explained this to you. You either didn't understand, or you're pretending not to understand to troll and waste time.

He did not say it refering to building 7.

Building 7 was not the "it" that was being pulled.

I again remind you that you have shamelessly dodged all of the questions I have put to you. You can't really accuse people of skirting around anything.

Ok. Then post the video of the live broadcast you were claiming from your first post. Was this a different clip?

For reference here is you claiming that you saw him say that on the day live on TV:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118726937/#Comment_118726937

Also, again, you can't really accuse people of being oblivious to context my man.