Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

Dohnjoe

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.

Are you claiming one of the buildings was "blown up"?

King Mob

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's a common tactic that conspiracy theorists employ. When they are trapped in a corner they will throw out new random points to try and distract from the hole they've dug themselves into.

I think your accurate post hit a nerve with Alan there and he had to lash out with what he probably thinks is a killer post.

King Mob

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.

Explosive demolitions do not blow out entire walls.
Blowing out entire walls like you claim would require massive explosives which are not at all recorded or reported at the time of that video.

So we can see that it's not possible that this was the result of a controlled demolition.

Fighting Tao

King Mob wrote: »

It's a common tactic that conspiracy theorists employ. When they are trapped in a corner they will throw out new random points to try and distract from the hole they've dug themselves into.

I think your accurate post hit a nerve with Alan there and he had to lash out with what he probably thinks is a killer post.

It must have been so striking that he replied a second time even angrier :pac:

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Provide direct examples of this



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



I mixed up UAL with AA.




You've just linked to some conspiracy site.

Well if you could elaborate on this it would be appreciated:


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



I'm not singing the praises of Loose Change. You, are the one calling it a load of bullshit. So I'm just asking for you to tell what exactly is bull about it.



You must be confident that you are correct in every aspect of the 9/11 episode, hence you should have no fear or doubt regarding the veracity of Loose Change, or any other commentary that questions your beliefs.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I'm not singing the praises of Loose Change. You, are the one calling it a load of bullshit. So I'm just asking for you to tell what exactly is bull about it.
.

All of it is bull****.
A particularly notable point of bull**** is that it directly lies about how long the buildings take to collapses to support the bull**** claim that the buildings fell completely at free fall speeds.

Now you are once again demanding answers to random tangents all while refusing to explain your position and theories.
Using your own logic, this implies that you aren't confident in them.

Strumms

Conspiracy theories only exist where there is a lack of compelling witnesses or evidence to an event or events...

JFK... because there is no video evidence, no witness evidence the accused was killed before trial by the mob.. Jack Ruby..Oswald’s killer died (cancer supposedly) before his second trial, all very convenient....zero trail, dead end... everybody boxed and buried within 5 years...

ShatterAlan

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

I see.


And when does a building go from not being able to support the weight of the upper floors to not being able to?



Take all your son's Meccano and build a 4 foot high structure in the back garden. Go one better and stick a few bricks on top. Stuff it with a few dozens newspapers and wrap it in an old quilt and set fire to the whole arrangement.



Let us know if you hear any pieces of Meccano explode outwards. Let us know if the whole things falls to the ground, brick or no brick on top.

ShatterAlan

knucklehead6 wrote: »

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

Timberrrr is gone now and you are stepping in?


I'll ask Timberrrr again about demolitions.

ShatterAlan

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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.

Forget the planes.


There is (according to you) no way possible of rigging these 3 buildings for controlled demolitions.

That level of knowledge would, I think, qualify you as an expert, if what you say is true and I have no reason to doubt it.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Forget the planes.


There is (according to you) no way possible of rigging these 3 buildings for controlled demolitions.

No way to rig them in secret.

You shouldn't misrepresent people like that.

Please explain and show how they could have been rigged in secret using silent explosives.

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Forget the planes.


There is (according to you) no way possible of rigging these 3 buildings for controlled demolitions.

Secretly? No.

Stop watching shìtty Steven Sega movies, you can't just slap a block of C4 on a couple of columns and stick a timer in it to blow a building down.

It takes months of planning and preparation. And even then, if you somehow did manage all that, to have planes crash into the buildings but not have any of your dynamite knocked out or have the det cord broken. Its impossible and could never happen.

If you don't believe this then please explain how you think it could have happened.

How was the building rigged for explosion?

How could a plane hit a building and not ruin the precise sequence of explosions needed to bring the buildings down?

ShatterAlan

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have limited experience



I worked on tower blocks and also some chimney demolition.



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.

So then why did you say "maybe a month" to pull down a high-rise?

Cerveza

The fella who drives the digger with the track motors and idlers and blade behind him. Legend.

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So then why did you say "maybe a month" to pull down a high-rise?

Because you could do it in a month if you were not stripping out interior walls, taking metals (copper) from inside, clearing any asbestos that may be there etc.

But it would be messy/dusty/noisy and no way would it be done in secret.

ShatterAlan

Strumms wrote: »

Conspiracy theories only exist where there is a lack of compelling witnesses or evidence to an event or events...

JFK... because there is no video evidence, no witness evidence the accused was killed before trial by the mob.. Jack Ruby..Oswald’s killer died (cancer supposedly) before his second trial, all very convenient....zero trail, dead end... everybody boxed and buried within 5 years...

So what are your thoughts then about the conspiracy against the Guildford Four?


Compelling evidence existed days after their arrest yet was buried.


Was the notion that they were wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for 15 years in the full knowledge of the Crown Prosecution Service regarding their innocence, a conspiracy theory?


It certainly was until such time as it all came to light, wouldn't you say?


Then the "conspiracy" became a "scandal", a "miscarriage of justice", a "regrettable error".

ShatterAlan

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Secretly? No.

Stop watching shìtty Steven Sega movies, you can't just slap a block of C4 on a couple of columns and stick a timer in it to blow a building down.

It takes months of planning and preparation. And even then, if you somehow did manage all that, to have planes crash into the buildings but not have any of your dynamite knocked out or have the det cord broken. Its impossible and could never happen.

If you don't believe this then please explain how you think it could have happened.

How was the building rigged for explosion?

How could a plane hit a building and not ruin the precise sequence of explosions needed to bring the buildings down?

I can't stand the bastard, Segal.


But I want to ask you one more thing, Timberrrr, seeing as you have worked in the demolition field. You say it could take months to rig a tower block and drop it to the ground.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I can't stand the bastard, Segal.


But I want to ask you one more thing, Timberrrr, seeing as you have worked in the demolition field. You say it could take months to rig a tower block and drop it to the ground.

Once again ignoring points and questions and demanding answers for odd questions.

This shows that you have no confidence in your own beliefs.

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I can't stand the bastard, Segal.


But I want to ask you one more thing, Timberrrr, seeing as you have worked in the demolition field. You say it could take months to rig a tower block and drop it to the ground.

Ask me all the questions you want, I am more than willing to answer them to the best of my abilities.

But first it would be nice if you answer the questions that I have posed, otherwise it's a very one sided debate would you not agree?

ShatterAlan

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ask me all the questions you want, I am more than willing to answer them to the best of my abilities.

But first it would be nice if you answer the questions that I have posed, otherwise it's a very one sided debate would you not agree?

I'll try that.


The question I wanted to ask you is this:


If it takes months and a huge team to rig a building and drop it down and if it's so easy to drop a building by burning it then why the months of prep work?


If girders and the structures themselves fall so quickly as a result of fire then why the need for all this work? Wouldn't it be quicker and cheaper to just set fire to the building?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Well if you could elaborate on this it would be appreciated:


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



I'm not singing the praises of Loose Change. You, are the one calling it a load of bullshit. So I'm just asking for you to tell what exactly is bull about it.

I've addressed this question several times already.

You must be confident that you are correct in every aspect of the 9/11 episode, hence you should have no fear or doubt regarding the veracity of Loose Change, or any other commentary that questions your beliefs.

It's nothing to do with "beliefs", it's to do with facts and evidence.

I'll ask again, are you claiming that any of the buildings were blown up?

Strumms

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So what are your thoughts then about the conspiracy against the Guildford Four?


Compelling evidence existed days after their arrest yet was buried.


Was the notion that they were wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for 15 years in the full knowledge of the Crown Prosecution Service regarding their innocence, a conspiracy theory?


It certainly was until such time as it all came to light, wouldn't you say?


Then the "conspiracy" became a "scandal", a "miscarriage of justice", a "regrettable error".

It existed then disappeared... not sure that’s a conspiracy ‘theory ‘ it was an actual conspiracy.

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I'll try that.


The question I wanted to ask you is this:


If it takes months and a huge team to rig a building and drop it down and if it's so easy to drop a building by burning it then why the months of prep work?


If girders and the structures themselves fall so quickly as a result of fire then why the need for all this work? Wouldn't it be quicker and cheaper to just set fire to the building?

As I said, you will need to answer my questions first.

Mellor

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.

A building, all buildings, are basically volumes of trapped air. For a house, this is negligible. For a skyscraper this issues are massive - also why skyscrapers have revolving doors.

If you were to push down on a volume of air (a bag, balloon, box). The air expands the lower section as the pressure increased. This pushes out the sides. And it is what you would see if a building collapses on lower floors with walls intact.

That is why the glass bows out.
The force from an explosion would have been much greater and sent the walls going much further. It's also why in a controlled explosion the glass facade (exterior walls) are stripped away.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And when does a building go from not being able to support the weight of the upper floors to not being able to?

I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense. The to/from states are the same. As soon as it is not able to it is not able to.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

If it takes months and a huge team to rig a building and drop it down and if it's so easy to drop a building by burning it then why the months of prep work?

If girders and the structures themselves fall so quickly as a result of fire then why the need for all this work? Wouldn't it be quicker and cheaper to just set fire to the building?

It takes months to rig a controlled demolition. This involves stripped back the building, and carefully timing the sequence of collapse.
The twin towers was an uncontrolled demolition. As a result of an uncontrolled demolition there was damage to surround structures, debris thrown everywhere.
The cleanup of all of that took months and months.

Could they light a fire and take down a buildign quickly. Yes. Very easily.
But there damage to other buildings, risk of fire spread, and a massive massive clean up that is more expensive and more work overall. I'd have thought that was obvious. The fact you even asked that is a bit baffling.

It's asking to asking why would you pour a bottle of gone off wine down the drain and recycled the bottle when you could just smash it on the floor in seconds.

King Mob

Mellor wrote: »

A building, all buildings, are basically volumes of trapped air. For a house, this is negligible. For a skyscraper this issues are massive - also why skyscrapers have revolving doors.

If you were to push down on a volume of air (a bag, balloon, box). The air expands the lower section as the pressure increased. This pushes out the sides. And it is what you would see if a building collapses on lower floors with walls intact.

That is why the glass bows out.
The force from an explosion would have been much greater and sent the walls going much further. It's also why in a controlled explosion the glass facade (exterior walls) are stripped away.

.

What's funny is that a few pages ago he was arguing that it was impossible for elevators to fall in their shaft for similar reasons.

ShatterAlan

Mellor wrote: »

A building, all buildings, are basically volumes of trapped air. For a house, this is negligible. For a skyscraper this issues are massive - also why skyscrapers have revolving doors.

If you were to push down on a volume of air (a bag, balloon, box). The air expands the lower section as the pressure increased. This pushes out the sides. And it is what you would see if a building collapses on lower floors with walls intact.

That is why the glass bows out.
The force from an explosion would have been much greater and sent the walls going much further. It's also why in a controlled explosion the glass facade (exterior walls) are stripped away.




I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense. The to/from states are the same. As soon as it is not able to it is not able to.




It takes months to rig a controlled demolition. This involves stripped back the building, and carefully timing the sequence of collapse.
The twin towers was an uncontrolled demolition. As a result of an uncontrolled demolition there was damage to surround structures, debris thrown everywhere.
The cleanup of all of that took months and months.

Could they light a fire and take down a buildign quickly. Yes. Very easily.
But there damage to other buildings, risk of fire spread, and a massive massive clean up that is more expensive and more work overall. I'd have thought that was obvious. The fact you even asked that is a bit baffling.

It's asking to asking why would you pour a bottle of gone off wine down the drain and recycled the bottle when you could just smash it on the floor in seconds.

Really?


Why does the GPO in O'Connell Street in Dublin have revolving doors? It's only maybe 60 or 70 feet high on 3 floors?


I always thought that revolving doors were designed to stop the wind and elements from entering a building. but no they exist to preserve the integrity of the structure.

ShatterAlan

Mellor wrote: »

A building, all buildings, are basically volumes of trapped air. For a house, this is negligible. For a skyscraper this issues are massive - also why skyscrapers have revolving doors.

If you were to push down on a volume of air (a bag, balloon, box). The air expands the lower section as the pressure increased. This pushes out the sides. And it is what you would see if a building collapses on lower floors with walls intact.

That is why the glass bows out.
The force from an explosion would have been much greater and sent the walls going much further. It's also why in a controlled explosion the glass facade (exterior walls) are stripped away.




I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense. The to/from states are the same. As soon as it is not able to it is not able to.




It takes months to rig a controlled demolition. This involves stripped back the building, and carefully timing the sequence of collapse.
The twin towers was an uncontrolled demolition. As a result of an uncontrolled demolition there was damage to surround structures, debris thrown everywhere.
The cleanup of all of that took months and months.

Could they light a fire and take down a buildign quickly. Yes. Very easily.
But there damage to other buildings, risk of fire spread, and a massive massive clean up that is more expensive and more work overall. I'd have thought that was obvious. The fact you even asked that is a bit baffling.

It's asking to asking why would you pour a bottle of gone off wine down the drain and recycled the bottle when you could just smash it on the floor in seconds.

If a building can be brought down in minutes as a result of fire then why take so many months bringing it down with explosives? That's all I'm asking. I've seen tower blocks in the UK in the middle of nowhere with not a house around dropped using explosives. If it takes months to rig a building of this nature then why not set fire to it if fire can melt the steel and drop it in an hour?

Physicskid9

ShatterAlan wrote: »

If a building can be brought down in minutes as a result of fire then why take so many months bringing it down with explosives? That's all I'm asking. I've seen tower blocks in the UK in the middle of nowhere with not a house around dropped using explosives. If it takes months to rig a building of this nature then why not set fire to it if fire can melt the steel and drop it in an hour?

It's well for you's that can afford to stay up half the night talking about conspiracies.

Mellor

King Mob wrote: »

What's funny is that a few pages ago he was arguing that it was impossible for elevators to fall in their shaft for similar reasons.

Well that's obvious completely wrong for obvious reasons.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Really?

Why does the GPO in O'Connell Street in Dublin have revolving doors? It's only maybe 60 or 70 feet high on 3 floors?

Revolving doors are are architectural feature associated with grand buildings. You can install one in a bungalow if you wish.

But you are wrong about the GPO. It has large hinge doors. Typcially left open as pressure isn't an issue over 3 stories.

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/AECBKM/dublin-general-post-office-dublin-county-dublin-ireland-AECBKM.jpg

I always thought that revolving doors were designed to stop the wind and elements from entering a building.

Well no, that's completely wrong.
All doors exist to stop the elements from entering a building. What do you think your front door at home is for?
This is basic stuff.

but no they exist to preserve the integrity of the structure.

Where did I mention structure in relation to revolving doors.
If my post was too complicated for you let me know and I can explain. But please do not misrepresent my posts because you don't understand basic architectural features and concepts.

Mellor

ShatterAlan wrote: »

If a building can be brought down in minutes as a result of fire then why take so many months bringing it down with explosives? That's all I'm asking. I've seen tower blocks in the UK in the middle of nowhere with not a house around dropped using explosives. If it takes months to rig a building of this nature then why not set fire to it if fire can melt the steel and drop it in an hour?

Many of the months are spent clearing the surrounding area so there is nothing around. So you would still have to do that if you chose to lit a fire to drop it.
Many of the months are clearing out non-structural elements. Leaving these insitu for a fire makes it controlled.

Demolition is about clearing the site. Not just dropping the building.
The goal to complete the entire task. A fire leaves months of clean up, and often a structure that still needs to be demolished.


I'm not sure what you are questioning tbh.

Are you questioning how quickly a demolition team takes to demolish a building?
Or are you questioning that fire can sometimes take down a building*?
*depends on structure of the building.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

If it takes months to rig a building of this nature then why not set fire to it if fire can melt the steel and drop it in an hour?

No one claims that the fires melted the steel. This is another piece of bull**** either originating from or popularised by Loose Change.

ShatterAlan

Mellor wrote: »

Many of the months are spent clearing the surrounding area so there is nothing around. So you would still have to do that if you chose to lit a fire to drop it.
Many of the months are clearing out non-structural elements. Leaving these insitu for a fire makes it controlled.

Demolition is about clearing the site. Not just dropping the building.
The goal to complete the entire task. A fire leaves months of clean up, and often a structure that still needs to be demolished.


I'm not sure what you are questioning tbh.

Are you questioning how quickly a demolition team takes to demolish a building?
Or are you questioning that fire can sometimes take down a building*?
*depends on structure of the building.

Revolving doors.


You mentioned that skyscrapers had these installed for one reason or another. What reason?

ShatterAlan

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Because you could do it in a month if you were not stripping out interior walls, taking metals (copper) from inside, clearing any asbestos that may be there etc.

But it would be messy/dusty/noisy and no way would it be done in secret.

Is the stripping of the building part of the job of the demolition team?


Have you been responsible for scavenging copper/lead/etc prior to a building demolition?


In conclusion, how tall was the tallest structure that you assisted in bringing down and how long did it take...and with how big a team?

Mellor

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Revolving doors.


You mentioned that skyscrapers had these installed for one reason or another. What reason?

The post you quoted about demolition, not revolving doors. You appear to be struggling to maintain your train of thought. Please re-read the posts and if you have any questions quote that post instead of another random one.

The post where I mentioned revolving doors explained why they are used. It had nothing to do with structure as you claimed. Revolving doors were first utilise to minimise air pressure issues, aka the stack effect, which is is more prevalent the taller a building is. It basically functions as a constant airlock.

knucklehead6

Mellor wrote: »

The post you quoted about demolition, not revolving doors. You appear to be struggling to maintain your train of thought. Please re-read the posts and if you have any questions quote that post instead of another random one.

The post where I mentioned revolving doors explained why they are used. It had nothing to do with structure as you claimed. Revolving doors were first utilise to minimise air pressure issues, aka the stack effect, which is is more prevalent the taller a building is. It basically functions as a constant airlock.

Poor ol' Al has problems with air. I have to hand it to him though, it takes a special kind of stubbornness to be convinced you are right in the face of overwhelming logic

Timing belt

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Really?


Why does the GPO in O'Connell Street in Dublin have revolving doors? It's only maybe 60 or 70 feet high on 3 floors?


I always thought that revolving doors were designed to stop the wind and elements from entering a building. but no they exist to preserve the integrity of the structure.

Revolving doors are used for crowd control as they would not let a large group of rioters/protestors in etc.

Instead protestors throw coins at the revolving doors in the hope they fill the tracks and block the doors from sliding and being locked.

ShatterAlan

Physicskid9 wrote: »

It's well for you's that can afford to stay up half the night talking about conspiracies.

:pac:

ShatterAlan

Timing belt wrote: »

Revolving doors are used for crowd control as they would not let a large group of rioters/protestors in etc.

Instead protestors throw coins at the revolving doors in the hope they fill the tracks and block the doors from sliding and being locked.

From Wikipedia:

A revolving door typically consists of three or four doors that hang on a central shaft and rotate around a vertical axis within a cylindrical enclosure. Revolving doors are energy efficient as they (acting as an airlock) prevent drafts, thus decreasing the loss of heating or cooling for the building.[1] Revolving doors were designed to relieve stack effect pressure in buildings. High-rise buildings experience immense pressure caused by air rushing through the building, referred to as 'Stack Effect' pressure. At the same time, revolving doors allow large numbers of people to pass in and out.

I guess they do have something, however to do with preventing air buildup in taller buildings.

Fighting Tao

I’m baffled how this conversation keeps revolving....

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

If a building can be brought down in minutes as a result of fire then why take so many months bringing it down with explosives? That's all I'm asking. I've seen tower blocks in the UK in the middle of nowhere with not a house around dropped using explosives. if it takes months to rig a building of this nature then why not set fire to it if fire can melt the steel and drop it in an hour?

Because they are totally different structures.

Physicskid9

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I’m baffled how this conversation keeps revolving....

They were up half the night talking about it. It must be great to not have to be up early for work on a weekday.

Timberrrrrrrr

Physicskid9 wrote: »

They were up half the night talking about it. It must be great to not have to be up early for work on a weekday.

You do understand that people can work shifts? Or work from home? Not everyone works 9-5 Monday/Friday. This may come as a shock to you but some posters are even living in different time zones to you! :rolleyes:

ShatterAlan

Physicskid9 wrote: »

They were up half the night talking about it. It must be great to not have to be up early for work on a weekday.

Haven't really thought this through, have you?

Physicskid9

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Haven't really thought this through, have you?

??

ShatterAlan

Physicskid9 wrote: »

??

It's well for you that you are up at 4pm in the afternoon and yammering and you don't have to be up at midnight for work like the rest of us.

Physicskid9

ShatterAlan wrote: »

It's well for you that you are up at 4pm in the afternoon and yammering and you don't have to be up at midnight for work like the rest of us.

I was on my break in work. You must be doing some work, an hour into your shift and posting on boards.

ShatterAlan

Physicskid9 wrote: »

I was on my break in work. You must be doing some work, an hour into your shift and posting on boards.

Well when you're next on your break from work I recommend you find a discussion forum frequented by others who keep the exact same hours as you so they don't melt your head when they reply.

knucklehead6

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Well when you're next on your break from work I recommend you find a discussion forum frequented by others who keep the exact same hours as you so they don't melt your head when they reply.

He got himself banned (lasted a lot longer than i thought he would too) so i wouldn't be expecting a reply

stoneill

Is there anywhere to sign on or subscribe to The New World Order or the Illuminati?
Can't find their websites anywhere and would love to join as I think their policies are good.

Samsonsmasher

William of Ockham (1287-1347) was a Franciscan who came up with the principle that the simplest explanation is more likely to be the right one.

If you lose your keys you don't need to assume that a time traveller or a member of the CIA stole them if the simplest explanation is that they fell out of your pocket the last time you sat down somewhere.

The same principle should be applied to any conspiracy theory. What is the simpler explanation? If the conspiracy theory is overly elaborate and a far simpler explanation fits then the latter is probably what really happened.