If you disbelieve all "conspiracy theories," you then believe . . .

Oh, SweetSue92 .....here's more your 'track record'.

View attachment 786493

So tell us more about how the Whitmer kidnapping plot was 'staged events' by the FBI.

And nothing says 'discredited' like convictions and 16 year prison sentences.

View attachment 786494



Tell us how you fell for masks/social distancing/vaccines first, to the point of having yourself injected with God only knows what. How many did you get?
 
SweetSue92, oh, Sue?

1684394972164.png

What 'lies' did the J6 committee tell about Ray Epps? This after you claimed that J6 was 'likely prompted by the feds'. Following up with fantasies about FBI/CIA 'psy-ops'.

Lets put your 'track record' to the test, shall we?
 
Tell us how you fell for masks/social distancing/vaccines first, to the point of having yourself injected with God only knows what. How many did you get?

So much for your 'track record', sweetie.
 
Oh, SweetSue92 ....your meandering down batshit lane isn't done quite yet, is it?

Tell us again about how the 'election was stolen'. So we can all laugh at your 'track record'.
1684395369311.png
 
J6 and the Patriot front incidents were not government black ops.
The vax program saved millions from dying of covid.
Ten thousand or ten million who believe differently witness only to their mental illness not any truth.
 
I don't need to believe that the government is 100% honest to demand evidence of conspiracy theorists and their fantastically stories.
Fair.

However . . . if government is not 100% honest, meaning that they hide evidence, then evidence is sometimes hard to find. That doesn't mean that ordinary people with common sense are barred from using that common sense to analyze a given situation. Nor are they disallowed to use past deceptions by government as a reason to suspect current deception by government.

Let's take three example, the Russia collusion hoax, the vaccine hoax, and the COVID wet market hoax. I assume you are aware of the evidence that each of these was a deliberate deception. If not, let me know.

Each of those false narratives was created out of whole cloth by either our government or by powerful politicians whose colleagues were in control of government. In all three cases, "conspiracy theorists," called them out as hoaxes, and were ridiculed for it. Each of them caused significant disruption in the normal course of government and in the lives of ordinary Americans. For all three, the production of the evidence came long after the conspiracy theorists told us that they were hoaxes.

The reason for the delay in evidence production in each case was the same: Government actors conspired with media to hide the evidence.

So, by all means, continue to ask for evidence when the government you trust is accused of decieving you. But maybe to avoid looking silly, you should avoid mocking "conspiracy theorists" who so consistently turn out to be right.
 
Last edited:
Is "vax" short for "vaccine?" Because the "vaccine" turned out not to be a vaccine at all. How did it save lives when people get COVID after they are "vaccinated?"

The "COVID vaccine" is a proven hoax.
Your denial is a hoax. Millions were saved. You can get the flu even if you have the shot. Same with covid. Both reduce greatly the risks of serious illness or death.
 
Your denial is a hoax. Millions were saved. You can get the flu even if you have the shot. Same with covid. Both reduce greatly the risks of serious illness or death.
Then why were we told that we could neither get COVID nor spread COVID if we got the vaccine?

I got the vaccine specifically because we were told that once we got it, we would no longer be required to wear masks. That hoax only lasted a few weeks, and then I was forced to wear one as a condition of employment, though fully "vaccinated."

I fell for it, I have to admit. But I'm not going to fall for your gaslighting. You cannot erase my memories.
 
Fair.

However . . . if government is not 100% honest, meaning that they hide evidence, then evidence is sometimes hard to find. That doesn't mean that ordinary people with common sense are barred from using that common sense to analyze a given situation. Nor are they disallowed to use past deceptions by government as a reason to suspect current deception by government.
Most conspiracies are explicitly irrational for two reasons, one of which is especially relevant to your point.

1) They don't have evidence to support them. They are stories, backed little to nothing.

2) They're contradicted by evidence. Which the conspiracy theorist ignores.

If the 'government' is hiding evidence, then conspiracies fail on the first point. Without evidence, they literally fill in the gaps with their imagination. And you get crazy ass stories like particle beams in orbit shooting the WTC, North Korean submarines sneaking in fake ballots through Maine, 'Q-Drops', or the entirety of the J6 riot being caused by some dude named 'Ray'.

What you call 'common sense' is people using their imagination in place of evidence. Literally just making shit up. And there's little sense in it.

As demonstrated elegantly by point 2: the conspiracy theorist's irrational denial of evidence, ignoring all the evidence that contradicts them and replacing it with......you guessed it....

.....their imagination.

Worse, once you've got your ticket on the 'replace evidence with your imagination' train, then anything that contradicts you gets folded into your conspiracy. With the conspiracy getting more wildly elaborate, more ludicrously complicated, and more inherently fantastical.

The audit contradicts you? Well then the republican lead election board must be in on it too! A court rule against you? Then the judiciary has to be in on it too, they're nothing but corrupt judges! The Republican Secretary of State contradicts you on election fraud? Well then the GOP must be part of the Deep State and conspiring against you. The Republican AG contradicts you on election fraud. Why then this must go up to the entire Department of Justice! The whole government! They're all in on it!

There's no sense in any of that. Common or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
But you do claim THIS is NOT controlled demolition...



Any particular reason why you use a video that doesn't show the entire collapse? Your video cuts out 6 or 7 seconds of partial collapse before your video starts. I wonder why conspiracy theorists always use the shortened version?

 
Any particular reason why you use a video that doesn't show the entire collapse? Your video cuts out 6 or 7 seconds of partial collapse before your video starts. I wonder why conspiracy theorists always use the shortened version?



Even if they use the long version, it still runs into the same problems: it is quiet.

Any explosion powerful enough to severe steel support beams would be powerful enough to make a noise.

This alone disproves the conspiracy. There are LEGIONS of other holes in the WTC7 conspiracy. But its kinda overkill.
 
Any particular reason why you use a video that doesn't show the entire collapse? Your video cuts out 6 or 7 seconds of partial collapse before your video starts. I wonder why conspiracy theorists always use the shortened version?




Anyone who concludes from that video that is not controlled demolition is one of two things

a moron
a traitor
 
Anyone who concludes from that video that is not controlled demolition is one of two things

a moron
a traitor

Or.....can conclude that any bomb powerful enough to cut massive steel support beams would be powerful enough to make a noise.

You've been apeing the conspiracy for years.

And I dismanlted it in a sentence.
 
Even if they use the long version, it still runs into the same problems: it is quiet.
The conspiracy claims are that all the supports were cut simultaneously which led to immediate free fall. Which is why they use the cut/edited video. It spreads the misconception that it WAS immediate freefall/collapse of the whole building.
 
Then why were we told that we could neither get COVID nor spread COVID if we got the vaccine?

I got the vaccine specifically because we were told that once we got it, we would no longer be required to wear masks. That hoax only lasted a few weeks, and then I was forced to wear one as a condition of employment, though fully "vaccinated."

I fell for it, I have to admit. But I'm not going to fall for your gaslighting. You cannot erase my memories.
You got it for lessening your chance of hospitalization and or death. The mask mandates were a boner for the Dems and the pubs.

Who is gaslighting, Seymour?

I lost friends and quite a few people I know to the damn disease, and I am sure you did, too.

Businesses have the right to insist on work conditions. Neither you nor I have a constitutional right to not wear a mask at work.
 
The conspiracy claims are that all the supports were cut simultaneously which led to immediate free fall. Which is why they use the cut/edited video. It spreads the misconception that it WAS immediate freefall/collapse of the whole building.

If you use the long video, the penthouse imploded 19 seconds before the facade of the WTC7 came down. The building didn't collapse all at once, but in stages.

WTC7 had been catostrophically damaged by pieces of the falling towers. Stories high chunks of the building had just been carved out. Fires raged uncontrolled inside for hours.

And of course, the FDNY had been monitoring the massive fire and slow structural collapse of building for hours. They'd evacuated the area around WTC7 in anticipation of the collapse due to fire and structural damage HOURS before it came down. They monitored the bulging and leaning as it burned. The FDNY put transits on the building to measure both.

The conspiracy theorists know all of this. But they really hope their audience doesn't.
 
You got it for lessening your chance of hospitalization and or death. The mask mandates were a boner for the Dems and the pubs.

Who is gaslighting, Seymour?

I lost friends and quite a few people I know to the damn disease, and I am sure you did, too.

Businesses have the right to insist on work conditions. Neither you nor I have a constitutional right to not wear a mask at work.
Just curious.

What did you disagree with in my previous post?
 

Forum List

Back
Top