The bees owner dislikes asking question. Also weird alliance with dwire
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (68)
sorted by:
Smug assholes getting angry when other people question a generally accepted narrative that the assholes have taken for granted.
As someone who regularly questions gay conspiracy theories, you people are infinitely more shitty and angry. No question.
I can't even get Sandy Hook Truthers to own up as to why Dear Wolfgang has a certain incredibly obvious, wildly blatant lie about how much ammo Adam Lanza had on him. And it's not a "misspeaking" error, it's what can only be described as pure fabrication.
Conspiracy theorists will find 1% of 1% of something that seems weird and build a conspiracy around it, but their theories will be like 40% fabrications and they just fucking ignore it. I can't even tell you how many times I've seen that meme posted about the Vegas shooting that says Paddock "removed" the "hurricane proof glass" (which isn't even a thing) and they leverage that into making people go "woah hold up, how did he do that???" They ignore that the glass was clearly smashed apart from multiple photos inside and out, and inside the hotel room was clearly visible a mallet or splitting maul he used to do the deed.
They just lie like that. And nobody can tell me why.
Like goddamn tell me what a BB-18 fuse holder is. Can you? Because it's central to many 9/11 troofer arguments.
Or maybe "conspiracy theory" is just a lazy thought-terminating cliche meant to lump lots of wildly different ideas together while pretending to be a critical thinker.
If you can't address the best version of a given "conspiracy theory" without demanding that your interlocutor address the dumbest versions of said theory, despite the fact that they've never supported those aforementioned dumb versions, then you're arguing in bad faith.
For example, someone pointing out telltale indications of thermite usage in the WTC doesn't need to address some retarded argument about Richard Nixon having TNT installed during the construction because that's not the argument they're making.
Because it doesn't exist. The second you point out any flaw they will >literally< lie to your face and tell you 'nobody believes that'.
What they believe is completely amorphous and undefinable. It's one thing that's convenient, until pushback occurs, then it's something else, and then something else. Trying to cling to the 'best version' is like grasping a jelly-like slime.
Well first, should I ask about the "cut column" before you deny anyone ever believed it? Because AE911 was obsessed with that column until it was revealed they basically hid exculpatory evidence it was cut by ground crews.
As for the "nanothermite" study, there's a wealth of evidence that it wasn't nanothermite, but a type of primer on the steel (which likely explains why they so easily found it, while not finding the reacted thermite which should've been in far greater quantities).
https://www.rajce.idnes.cz/bobule100/album/li1epoxid#LI1_16epi_04.jpg
This guy functionally replicated the results by mimicking the formulation of the steel primer, even resolving iron microspheres, and finding a duplicable spectrographic analysis. The issue of the MEK is also explained because bonded epoxies are functionally immune to MEK.
The problem is many conspiracies open up more questions that have a very obvious lack of any attempt to answer. If you want to build a fully-fledged theory, fine. But no matter what, things like 'official narratives' offer complete pictures, while conspiracy theories rarely ever do.
Thermite usage has a lot of questions involving how it actually was used, how it was placed, how much of it would've been used, when it was installed, etc. "Just" thermite isn't used in demolition projects for a reason, it just burns straight down, and it's very inefficient requiring a huge amount of thermite to burn remarkably little material, and it burns very fast.
Are you ruling out the possibility that maybe the "nanothermite" wasn't what they thought it was? Even in light of a lack of collaborating evidence that should exist if thermite were used?
It's only amorphous because the very label of "conspiracy theory" is amorphous. Much like the istaphobe labels, it lumps together so many wildly divergent ideas and then provides opportunities for gotchas based on conflating different groups of people.
Sure, you can poke holes in any "conspiracy theory," but you're assuming from the get-go that holes in the official account necessarily have mundane explanation. This accusation of unfalsifiability goes both ways.
As for the thermite point, what makes me raise an eyebrow is that there was never a proper forensic investigation of the rubble made in the first place, the vast majority of it was immediately shipped off to China to be melted down. So that's already very suspicious, you'd think that our government would be very interested in thoroughly investigating what happens when an airplane crash allegedly causes structural failure in a skyscraper. That kind of knowledge would be very useful for national security purposes, after all.
Moreover, there's glowing yellow-orange liquefied metal pouring out the side of the towers. And aluminum melts prior to glowing orange, and immediately turns back to its silver-grey color once it's removed from the source of heat. Yet the molten metal pouring out of the towers retained its orange glow all the way down, and in contrast to aluminum, iron and steel glow orange prior to melting.
That, btw, is what the "kerosene doesn't melt steel memes" point was about. Everyone knows that kerosene can burn hot enough to soften steel, but deboonkers always ackshually this meme to evade the point being made.
To be sure, maybe there was something else that melted from the kerosene, I'm open to being proven wrong, but I'm not sure if you can say the same.