Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

McGinniesta

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The whole video was designed to manipulate the viewer by casting doubt on the event. The points it raised have long been explained/debunked or shown to be irrelevant/out of context

Have you watched it?
What credible evidence-backed conspiracy theory does it put forward?
What points do you think haven't been explained/debunked?

Building 7. The fire explanation is clearly nonsense.

Fighting Tao

McGinniesta wrote: »

It's not so much what happened, It's what didn't happen.

The official story appears to be as unlikely as any conspiracy that has been formulated.

I don't know what happened. Frankly, nobody else knows for sure either.

Just because people don’t believe the official story doesn’t mean that they should make crap up to make money off gullible people.

McGinniesta

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Just because people don’t believe the official story doesn’t mean that they should make crap up to make money off gullible people.

I believe that the official story has been uneconomical with the truth at minimum, if not also made up.

Dohnjoe

McGinniesta wrote: »

Building 7. The fire explanation is clearly nonsense.

Multiple investigations found that building 7 fell due to fire. That includes insurance investigations.

Do you have a credible alternative explanation as to how it fell?

It's not so much what happened, It's what didn't happen.

The official story appears to be as unlikely as any conspiracy that has been formulated.

I don't know what happened. Frankly, nobody else knows for sure either.

This is a common trope among 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

9/11 is one of the most studied events in recent history, we know a great deal about what happened. There's no real debate outside of conspiracy circles, which, to date, haven't produced any coherent conspiracy or credible alternative explanation.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I have done and can't find anything on Mr. 95%

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/put-paid/

A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html

McGinniesta

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Multiple investigations found that building 7 fell due to fire. That includes insurance investigations.

Do you have a credible alternative explanation as to how it fell?



This is a common trope among 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

9/11 is one of the most studied events in recent history, we know a great deal about what happened. There's no real debate outside of conspiracy circles, which, to date, haven't produced any coherent conspiracy or credible alternative explanation.

No. Some engineers have stated that it's unclear what exactly happened.

https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/world-trade-center-7-building-did-not-collapse-due-to-fire-report

McGinniesta

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Just because people don’t believe the official story doesn’t mean that they should make crap up to make money off gullible people.

That applies equally to the authors of the 911 commission report

Dohnjoe

McGinniesta wrote: »

No. Some engineers have stated that it's unclear what exactly happened.

https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/world-trade-center-7-building-did-not-collapse-due-to-fire-report

Those are conspiracy theorists. AE911.

Their head, Gage, makes money from perpetuating the whole thing, at best they are a shower of loons who mislead with pseudo-science at worst they are scam artists.

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

No I haven't worked in demolition. I don't doubt that it's a pretty complicated procedure to rig a building. So in your expert opinion if these buildings were to be rigged for demolition how long would that process take?


How long would it take to rig say and 30 floor tower block of flats that was slated for demolition?

Im not an expert but i have worked in demolition
and I would reckon at least a month And thats out in the open, every single hole drilled and every piece of steel that gets cut has to be precise.

And even if they did manage to do that in secrecy a couple of planes crashing into the buildings would take out some of the explosives/cord so now you don't have a fully set up demolition that would have to be done in correct sequence.

Timberrrrrrrr

McGinniesta wrote: »

It's not so much what happened, It's what didn't happen.

The official story appears to be as unlikely as any conspiracy that has been formulated.

I don't know what happened. Frankly, nobody else knows for sure either.

I do, two planes hit the buildings weakening the structure, out of control fires weakened more of the structure leading to catastrophic failure of said structure causing the buildings to collapse.

Dohnjoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Im not an expert but i have worked in demolition
and I would reckon at least a month And thats out in the open, every single hole drilled and every piece of steel that gets cut has to be precise.

And even if they did manage to do that in secrecy a couple of planes crashing into the buildings would take out some of the explosives/cord so now you don't have a fully set up demolition that would have to be done in correct sequence.

Most demolition experts I've seen questioned about it say it would have been flat out impossible. Even Danny Jowenko, the "conspiracy theory demolition worker" said it would have been impossible to rig both towers.

Then of course there is the glaring question of why. Why on earth would anyone with half a braincell rig two skyscrapers with explosive that were just about to be hit with fuel-laden airliners at full speed, what if one missed? what would have been the point? It's beyond stupid from any angle.

McGinniesta

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Those are conspiracy theorists. AE911.

Their head, Gage, makes money from perpetuating the whole thing, at best they are a shower of loons who mislead with pseudo-science at worst they are scam artists.

All qualified in their field of expertise (presumably the same as the people who produced the 9\11 report and the insurance reports that you quoted ) Speaking about 9\11 conspiracies how much money does Richard Gage make from perpetuating conspiracies and pseudo science.

McGinniesta

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I do, two planes hit the buildings weakening the structure, out of control fires weakened more of the structure leading to catastrophic failure of said structure causing the buildings to collapse.

Of course you do

Timberrrrrrrr

McGinniesta wrote: »

Of course you do

OK, I have explained what I believe happened.

Please explain what you believe happened, please give as much detail as possible as to how and why it happened the way you think it did.

McGinniesta

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

OK, I have explained what I believe happened.

Please explain what you believe happened, please give as much detail as possible as to how and why it happened the way you think it did.

I have no idea. I believe that the official story is implausible and no further investigation was conducted to clarify matters.

Other professionals in certain fields have raised questions as to what happened, people who are eminently more qualified than I am.

At the very least there was clear negligence on the day that was never investigated.

Timberrrrrrrr

McGinniesta wrote: »

I have no idea. I believe that the official story is implausible and no further investigation was conducted to clarify matters.

Other professionals in certain fields have raised questions as to what happened, people who are eminently more qualified than I am.

At the very least there was clear negligence on the day that was never investigated.

So just a "feeling"?

OK.

Dohnjoe

McGinniesta wrote: »

All qualified in their field of expertise (presumably the same as the people who produced the 9\11 report and the insurance reports that you quoted ) Speaking about 9\11 conspiracies how much money does Richard Gage make from perpetuating conspiracies and pseudo science.

A month after a steel-framed building collapsed in Iran due to fire, AE911, with no access to site or evidence, released a detailed statement suggesting, among other things, that it was an inside job, that's not a joke..

Gage earns 60K to 80K a year minimum. The AIA has distanced itself from his views, he's banned from using their premises for his conspiracy stuff and any time he has a proposed a vote to "reinvestigate 9/11" it's overwhelmingly voted against by the association. This is a guy who suggested that explosives might have been planted when the towers were first built in the 70's..

They have been caught numerous times trying to sneak their pseudo-science into journals, after one such incident the editor resigned. They are a group of cranks.

I believe that the official story is implausible and no further investigation was conducted to clarify matters.

The FBI investigation was the largest in it's history, there were multiple investigations into the collapses of the buildings, including insurance investigations. None discovered any "inside job".

Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists describe the event to be "implausible", but then go on to view the same event with the added twist of controlled demolitions as "plausible", which doesn't make much sense..

Nearly always a case of "I can't believe a group of terrorists flew planes into buildings, that's absurd, but the same group of terrorists flying planes into buildings rigged with secret explosives and the whole thing was pulled off flawlessly with no evidence, sure"

Samsonsmasher

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Well the NYPD didn't guard the building so they wouldn't have had to be bypassed. Have you ever worked in an office block? I have, in New York City I might add and in several different high-rise buildings. There were teams in and out all the time doing work on something or other, elevators, heating, ventilation, aircon ducts, electricals, network cabling, watering the plants, servicing the coffee machines, etc. Nobody ever said boo to them. So your theory that they would have to somehow get past the thousands of people who worked there is nonsense. As if Stacy the secretary or Jose the mail room worker is going to have the slightest clue or interest in guys riding the freight elevators or rummaging around in the cable conduits.

To rig the buildings with explosives would have required hundreds if not thousands of people who all would have been guilty of mass murder if caught. They would have been moving tons of explosives. That kind of operation would be impossible to keep secret at the time without attracting curiosity. NONE of the people involved talked? Absurd

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/put-paid/



http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html

You're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. You're tabling content that muddies the waters, casts doubt and misrepresents things out of context.



For example what makes Loose Change such "bullshit" and 911myths so truthful and reliable?


You stated that the 95% person placed AA puts yet the article you posted says it was UAL. Which is it now?


I could post this:


http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html#.YBB4_q7Lecw

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]One wonders how much damning evidence is necessary to respond to what is now irrefutable proof that CIA knew about the attacks and did not stop them. Whatever our government is doing, whatever the CIA is doing, it is clearly NOT in the interests of the American people, especially those who died on September 11.

[/FONT]

ShatterAlan

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

To rig the buildings with explosives would have required hundreds if not thousands of people who all would have been guilty of mass murder if caught. They would have been moving tons of explosives. That kind of operation would be impossible to keep secret at the time without attracting curiosity. NONE of the people involved talked? Absurd

Timberr is the one who has demolition expertise, not you. So can you tell me how long it would take to rig a building and how many people would be needed to do that? I've seen chimneys, high-rise flats (20 + floors) in the Uk being "pulled". How many does it take to rig them and how long?

ShatterAlan

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Im not an expert but i have worked in demolition
and I would reckon at least a month And thats out in the open, every single hole drilled and every piece of steel that gets cut has to be precise.

And even if they did manage to do that in secrecy a couple of planes crashing into the buildings would take out some of the explosives/cord so now you don't have a fully set up demolition that would have to be done in correct sequence.

Well how experienced are you? And the demolition of what, exactly?


Have you rigged buildings? Overseen the placement of charges? Studied the architectural and engineering plans of the structure structure of a building and determined how it should be brought down? If you have, great. That, in my opinion would qualify you as an expert.

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Well how experienced are you? And the demolition of what, exactly?


Have you rigged buildings? Overseen the placement of charges? Studied the architectural and engineering plans of the structure structure of a building and determined how it should be brought down? If you have, great. That, in my opinion would qualify you as an expert.

No, as I said I am not nor never claimed to be an expert.

I have work on demolition of multiple.story buildings though, I have spoken to and worked with the experts and they have explained what is needed. I worked on the placement of the charges overseeing a team of people who drilled the holes. These holes had to be exactly the correct depth in the exact position.

Can you explain how a building could be rigged for explosive demolished without anyone knowing?

ShatterAlan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Just because people don’t believe the official story doesn’t mean that they should make crap up to make money off gullible people.

How charitable and magnanimous of you.



There are charlatans who make money off gullible people ALL the time and they extend from Tarot Card readers and psychics to organised religion to governments. If huckesterism is your biggest bugbear then I suggest you develop a bit more skepticism.

Physicskid9

The one about the secret bases in the Antarctic is credible. Large areas are blanked on maps and Google streets. Wonder what they are hiding.

Fighting Tao

ShatterAlan wrote: »

How charitable and magnanimous of you.



There are charlatans who make money off gullible people ALL the time and they extend from Tarot Card readers and psychics to organised religion to governments. If huckesterism is your biggest bugbear then I suggest you develop a bit more skepticism.

I am very sceptical of everything you say. You have shown a lack of understanding of virtually every topic you are involved in and haven’t learned when people have explained how you are wrong. My scepticism is alive and well, thank you very much.

Fighting Tao

Physicskid9 wrote: »

The one about the secret bases in the Antarctic is credible. Large areas are blanked on maps and Google streets. Wonder what they are hiding.

Damn big tech controlling the world! They need to be regulated.

Physicskid9

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Damn big tech controlling the world! They need to be regulated.

I don't necessarily think it's anything crazy but it's not such a stretch to assume the US military has secret bases to test new technology.

Fighting Tao

Physicskid9 wrote: »

I don't necessarily think it's anything crazy but it's not such a stretch to assume the US military has secret bases to test new technology.

Maybe the google car wasn’t suitable to drive in the Antarctic to take the snaps.

ShatterAlan

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

OK, I have explained what I believe happened.

Please explain what you believe happened, please give as much detail as possible as to how and why it happened the way you think it did.

Well, all you need to do is look at the alternatives.


Were the buildings knocked down by wind? An earthquake? Elves? Lightning? Seems implausible.


So what you're really asking for is an alternative to what you believe in in order to scoff.


Could the 3 buildings have fallen as a result of fire? Many say yes.


Could the buildings have come down as a result of controlled demolition? Do you say ABSOLUTELY NO, and if so why might you say that?


Could the buildings have come down as a result of an earthquake, wind, lighning, Elves or Divine Intervention?



Now just because someone doubts the official narrative doesn't mean that they think that Batman flew in and knocked them down on his way to Vegas, much as you are trying to have people proffer in some way, shape or form.


So what's your real reason for believing the official narrative?

Physicskid9

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Maybe the google car wasn’t suitable to drive in the Antarctic to take the snaps.

I saw satellite images where large areas of land in the Antarctica were essentially copied and pasted over.

ohnonotgmail

Physicskid9 wrote: »

The one about the secret bases in the Antarctic is credible. Large areas are blanked on maps and Google streets. Wonder what they are hiding.

Probably blank because the google cars find it very hard to drive on the ice and snow.

Fighting Tao

Physicskid9 wrote: »

I saw satellite images where large areas of land in the Antarctica were essentially copied and pasted over.

50 shades of white tend to look the same.

I’m not saying there aren’t army bases as the Chilean army have a base in Antarctic.

Antarctic army bases have been featured in sci fi movies.programmes too.

ShatterAlan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I am very sceptical of everything you say. You have shown a lack of understanding of virtually every topic you are involved in and haven’t learned when people have explained how you are wrong. My scepticism is alive and well, thank you very much.

Fair enough.

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Well, all you need to do is look at the alternatives.


Were the buildings knocked down by wind? An earthquake? Elves? Lightning? Seems implausible.


So what you're really asking for is an alternative to what you believe in in order to scoff.


Could the 3 buildings have fallen as a result of fire? Many say yes.


Could the buildings have come down as a result of controlled demolition? Do you say ABSOLUTELY NO, and if so why might you say that?


Could the buildings have come down as a result of an earthquake, wind, lighning, Elves or Divine Intervention?



Now just because someone doubts the official narrative doesn't mean that they think that Batman flew in and knocked them down on his way to Vegas, much as you are trying to have people proffer in some way, shape or form.


So what's your real reason for believing the official narrative?

There is evidence of planes hitting the buildings

There is evidence of fire.

There is no evidence of explosives.

Therefore (unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise) there was no controlled demolition of any buildings on 911

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. You're tabling content that muddies the waters, casts doubt and misrepresents things out of context.

Provide direct examples of this

For example what makes Loose Change such "bullshit" and 911myths so truthful and reliable?

Loose Change is a video based on denial. A site like 911myths is based on fact.

You stated that the 95% person placed AA puts yet the article you posted says it was UAL. Which is it now?

I mixed up UAL with AA.

I could post this:


http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html#.YBB4_q7Lecw

You've just linked to some conspiracy site.

ShatterAlan

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No, as I said I am not nor never claimed to be an expert.

I have work on demolition of multiple.story buildings though, I have spoken to and worked with the experts and they have explained what is needed. I worked on the placement of the charges overseeing a team of people who drilled the holes. These holes had to be exactly the correct depth in the exact position.

Can you explain how a building could be rigged for explosive demolished without anyone knowing?

You were quick to point out that you worked in demolition and that you knew the procedures needed. And that's fine, I don't doubt you. Someone else came along and said that thousands of people would be needed to rig a building for demolition. I pointed out that you were the one here with demolition experience.



What's your definition of "multi-storey" because a car park over 3 or 4 floors is called multi-storey, no?


So what types of buildings did you bring down or participate in the demolition of them. High-rises? You say you supervised guys drilling holes and placing charges. Did you know exactly where to place these charges and the mechanics of how a building should implode and collapse?

jam_mac_jam

List from reddit conspiracy https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/lopc

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Could the 3 buildings have fallen as a result of fire? Many say yes.

It's nothing to do with what "many say". The supporting evidence demonstrates this.

Could the buildings have come down as a result of controlled demolition? Do you say ABSOLUTELY NO, and if so why might you say that?

There is no credible evidence for "controlled demolition".

Now just because someone doubts the official narrative doesn't mean that they think that Batman flew in and knocked them down on his way to Vegas, much as you are trying to have people proffer in some way, shape or form.


So what's your real reason for believing the official narrative?

Denialism is not the same as skepticism. You deny facts surrounding 9/11 with incredulity (and ignorance) and provide no counter-explanations.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A month after a steel-framed building collapsed in Iran due to fire, AE911, with no access to site or evidence, released a detailed statement suggesting, among other things, that it was an inside job, that's not a joke..

Gage earns 60K to 80K a year minimum. The AIA has distanced itself from his views, he's banned from using their premises for his conspiracy stuff and any time he has a proposed a vote to "reinvestigate 9/11" it's overwhelmingly voted against by the association. This is a guy who suggested that explosives might have been planted when the towers were first built in the 70's..

They have been caught numerous times trying to sneak their pseudo-science into journals, after one such incident the editor resigned. They are a group of cranks.



The FBI investigation was the largest in it's history, there were multiple investigations into the collapses of the buildings, including insurance investigations. None discovered any "inside job".

Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists describe the event to be "implausible", but then go on to view the same event with the added twist of controlled demolitions as "plausible", which doesn't make much sense..

Nearly always a case of "I can't believe a group of terrorists flew planes into buildings, that's absurd, but the same group of terrorists flying planes into buildings rigged with secret explosives and the whole thing was pulled off flawlessly with no evidence, sure"

Take a look at the video of that building. You can see the side walls being blown out by explosives and then the whole thing coming down like an ice cream wedding cake in the Sahara.

ohnonotgmail

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Take a look at the video of that building. You can see the side walls being blown out by explosives and then the whole thing coming down like an ice cream wedding cake in the Sahara.

blown out or pushed out because they can no longer support the weight of the floors above?

ShatterAlan

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There is evidence of planes hitting the buildings

There is evidence of fire.

There is no evidence of explosives.

Therefore (unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise) there was no controlled demolition of any buildings on 911

Can you tell me a little more about your knowledge of demolishing high-rise buildings other than looking at technicians drilling holes?

ShatterAlan

Physicskid9 wrote: »

The one about the secret bases in the Antarctic is credible. Large areas are blanked on maps and Google streets. Wonder what they are hiding.

Well in fairness, most of China is blanked and StreetView won't work in most of Germany because they have this little phobia about surveillance dating back to the 30's and 40's.

knucklehead6

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Can you tell me a little more about your knowledge of demolishing high-rise buildings other than looking at technicians drilling holes?

Can you tell me more about lift shafts and compressed air?

ShatterAlan

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No, as I said I am not nor never claimed to be an expert.

I have work on demolition of multiple.story buildings though, I have spoken to and worked with the experts and they have explained what is needed. I worked on the placement of the charges overseeing a team of people who drilled the holes. These holes had to be exactly the correct depth in the exact position.

Can you explain how a building could be rigged for explosive demolished without anyone knowing?

No I can't. But you you said you could.

ShatterAlan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I am very sceptical of everything you say. You have shown a lack of understanding of virtually every topic you are involved in and haven’t learned when people have explained how you are wrong. My scepticism is alive and well, thank you very much.

Where did the failure of beams on all 3 buildings occur?

Fighting Tao

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Where did the failure of beams on all 3 buildings occur?

You quote posts every now and again at random and throw crap hoping that some will stick. Sorry, but I’m not taking part in your games. You had no reason to quote me there.

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You were quick to point out that you worked in demolition and that you knew the procedures needed. And that's fine, I don't doubt you. Someone else came along and said that thousands of people would be needed to rig a building for demolition. I pointed out that you were the one here with demolition experience.

I have limited experience

What's your definition of "multi-storey" because a car park over 3 or 4 floors is called multi-storey, no?

I worked on tower blocks and also some chimney demolition.

So what types of buildings did you bring down or participate in the demolition of them. High-rises? You say you supervised guys drilling holes and placing charges. Did you know exactly where to place these charges and the mechanics of how a building should implode and collapse?

I worked with the experts, we marked every wall/column that needed holes drilled, these had to be in the exact spot marked and to the depth specified. we also marked interior walls that needed to be removed altogether. A team of others were used to cut the structural steel to weaken it. It took us over 3 months to prepare that building for demolition. The drilling of holes took seven weeks.

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

No I can't. But you you said you could.

Simple answer, it can't. No way can you rig a multi-storey building (never mind three of them) for demolition in secret.

There is zero possibility of doing this and then having planes fly into the buildings in such a way that would not mess up the very intricate set up of explosive/det cord that would be needed for a successful demolition, it just could not happen.

ShatterAlan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You quote posts every now and again at random and throw crap hoping that some will stick. Sorry, but I’m not taking part in your games. You had no reason to quote me there.

It was a question but feel free to cease and desist.


Your fellow travellers seem more au fait than you do.



Adieu, FT.

ShatterAlan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You quote posts every now and again at random and throw crap hoping that some will stick. Sorry, but I’m not taking part in your games. You had no reason to quote me there.

And YOU have no right to quote anyone else either, sniping, and interjecting.


If this is a "game" as you so euphemistically endeavour to state then write the rules and stick by them.



I asked as to where the beams started to fail. That it was in response to one of your postings seems to have resulted in no end of pique on your behalf.



Ignore it then and allow others to reply.