Depends how far you want to go. In truth we don't know anything about it, not without being there. The whole thing could be CGI and a lie purported by the mainstream media. But that's going way too far. If one wants to believe there's something suspicious about it, they will, and no amount of contradictory evidence will make them think otherwise.
Massive blast in Beirut
- Thread starter VincentHanna
- Start date
Depends how far you want to go. In truth we don't know anything about it, not without being there. The whole thing could be CGI and a lie purported by the mainstream media. But that's going way too far. If one wants to believe there's something suspicious about it, they will, and no amount of contradictory evidence will make them think otherwise.
and a red cloud commensurate with an ammonium nitrate blast forming the relevant compound reaction products; Photos of the stuff in that very warehouse; a chain of court documents discussing said ammonium nitrate and how it came to be there, and could they legally dispose of it please:; all the relevant parties, on both side of the political divide unanimously saying it was an accident; blast experts saying it is a chemical explosion and ammonium nitrate of that quantity stored badly could well do this; etc etc. FFS there's quite a lot of compelling evidence that all stacks up. Things are rarely black and white, but the evidence aligns nicely here, and in more depth than the average legal case trial ends up being ruled on.
Soldato
Reasonably strong? Pretty sure it's concrete and confirmed that there was a store of 2700 tons of it for 6 years and not stored properly / in a safe manor and never moved when it should have been years ago.
This ^ exactly this ^. Documented in multiple official sources, ships records, news reports (as far back as 2014), court documents, etc etc. Any conspiracy theory has to essentially claim this has been planned since 2014 when the stuff first arrived there. What do people have for brains these days? We supposedly gave these people a free education. Can we have our taxes back please?
Not to mention Israel giving aid to Lebanon, which is a pretty big move, and Hezbollah saying the Israelis had nothing to do with it.
Soldato
British art for understatement. I'm aware of all of that documentations, the request to move it etc.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,909
When it comes to conspiracy theories, i'm as exasperated as Hermes in Futurama, when Zoidbergs shell-home "burns down" under-water:
Careful. The conspiracy nuts will use that as evidence that it can't be true!
It's too neat!
Permabanned
Well for me “could” doesn’t mean conclusive. Maybe your world is a bit different but I would need conclusive information luv. Maybe you could post this information from these experts your referring to. Or are you the expert.
I have no disbelief this was some sort of accident. I don’t condone any of the bomb or rocket theories. I see a very basic story of events. Also is AN the only chemical to give a red smoke ? I don’t believe it is an absolute.
The 'interactive' aerial view on this page shows the changes very clearly:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53668493
It certainly does look like the closest boat has been lifted on to the shore.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53668493
It certainly does look like the closest boat has been lifted on to the shore.
Caporegime
Because, as you put it, they're conspiratards. If they were good at thinking they wouldn't be conspiratards. Remember 9/11? Literal video of planes flying into buildings isn't enough evidence. Flat earthers are a thing. Anti-vaxxers are a major movement. There's nothing so straightforward that the conspiratards won't come of the woodwork for it.
quite. If they bother to read back through the thread there's enough there. I cannot fathom how these people get by in life. My aunt is one of them. Everything is a conspiracy. How does she trust someone to mend her car if the world is out to screw her over at every turn? It baffles me.
Because they're not looking for the truth, they're just looking for attention.
It would seem so. They also demand (endless) references and sources to the nth degree from others, while spouting baseless twaddle as gospel based on no more than a single youtube video or random tweet. It makes me both angry and sad all at once.
and yet we give them an equal vote. As an ideology I do think all people should be treated equally, but we're surely hitting a point where some kind of screening or filtering or weighting should be given to voting based on ability to demonstrate sound reasoning of some kind. Otherwise this swelling tumor of [insert moderator approved collective noun of your choice] will start pulling us evermore towards the disfunctional and dystopian abyss they seem to think is already being created for us. Once they reach critcial mass of influence they will perpetuate their own nightmare scenario, and then say "hah we were right along". It's madness.
The problem with the internet is that it gives everyone a voice and a platform. Before it existed, people who were widely heard had to earn it. Now that's not the case, and the issue is that all kinds of insecure people who would never be heard can be, and what you're looking at, by reading their posts, is simultaneously their base insecurities and the reasons for them. The upshot is that they will constantly demand attention in whatever way they can whilst having very little of import to offer: 'offer' is the operative word here, because the intent is not to seek truth or to give back to the community, but to constantly take from it.
Caporegime
Quite apart from the fact that any such system is ripe for abuse, Democracy gets its legitimacy from the mandate granted to it by the populous. People are not more or less part of that populous based on their knowledge or ability to reason.
Caporegime
Eh. The Sun and The Daily Mail, among others, were giving plentiful voice to vile idiocy long before the Internet, and Mein Kampf was a global bestseller. On the milder front, Uri Geller's faked spoon bending got him regular talk show slots, Mystic Meg was a fixture on the National Lottery Show, and von Däniken rocked on the New York Times bestseller lists with Chariots of the Gods?. The Internet may give more people access to the microphone but its not like it is necessary for the spread of this stuff.
I quite agree, but at what point does one let said populous self-harm through its own stubborn stupidity? In the same way we try to stop people throwing themselves off bridges and remove sharps from people demonstrably inclined to use them, there comes a point at which the argument can be made for not blindly embarking on acts of grave folly just because dimwits-en-masse think it might be a good idea. E.g. I do not think we should legislate cancelling vaccination programmes even if a loud vocal part of the populace were foaming at the mouth demanding it.
It facilitates propagation in a volume and depth that previously would not exist. Youtube will automatically serve up similar content on autoplay reinforcing the idea (however crackpot) and giving a perception of corroboration and basis that would not exist otherwise. It would be the equivalent of reading a news article and straighaway 10 pamphlets arrive on your coffee table. etc etc. I'm not saying stupidity is a new thing, but the internet and social media level-up the problems. Ditto social media allows every nut job and screw-loose bar-stool loudmouth to connect and reinforce each other's hogwash en masse in a way not possible before. Before their individual influence was a small number of people in one location. Now each can have potentially global reach.
Last edited by a moderator: