Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

There were three complete structural collapses in New York. Twin towers collapsed and a building seven collapsed hours later.  

Building seven has all the hallmarks of a controlled implosion. Explosives inside building seven could have been set of wirelessly the technology was available back then,

As to how the twin towers collapsed, it's complicated because of the dust. In this dust, there's evidence that some people put nano-thermite inside the structures before the collapse. It's a clever way to hide their dark deed, but they didn't expect so many people to investigate it later. Probably thought no one would ever suspect foul play.  

Here's the thing. This is the first time in human history a structure of this type has collapsed this way. There's your starting point. 

You can't just say it collapsed because of fires inside. If that was the case, same buildings would start falling down whenever a fire erupted!

In spite of plenty of details why the official narrative is wrong, prefer to ignore it. If the official study about the collapse got it so wrong, what does that tell you? Why you so confident was fire when NIST own structural models shows no freefall? Lack of understanding that freefall was is it? If structure is falling at freefall the only resistance is air thats it. How can NIST claim steel resistance and not specify how much? I never heard of a building falling through itself naturally. As the whole structure collapses, its top half crushes the lower half, but there's always concrete and steel to move out away. 

On 9/11, the building structural rules don't apply because their top half didn't crush the lower half, it just smashed through it over 100 feet with no slowdown. That makes no sense unless there's some other energy pulverizing the concrete and steel. 

Instead of claiming all conspirators believe the same stuff, stick to 9/11. Clearly pointed out numerous times the Boston marathon attack and 7/7 are genuine homegrown terrorist attacks. Now stop making the argument we all believe same things are true. 

My theory is they were conspirators. The evidence shows seven building was not natural collapse. I try to think who could be behind and why.

The official story doesn't mention that Atta had shady german friends and one of them was an international gangster with ties to criminal organizations and far right groups. All I know is that parts of it weren't discussed. An independent journalist conducted the investigation in Florida and spoke to people; and other training school heads and story is very odd. In a restaurant, Atta and some hijackers were arguing about money and owed it to family kept shouting about. This family's identity is a mystery. There's a narrative that these guys are devote Muslims. People in Flordia claimed would drink and smoke and and go to discos. Official story is a big lie. However, only real journalists on the ground found this out because big media is onboard with government lies. Then we have the cover ups of funding from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, so these guys were well known to state actors before 9/11.

As my opinion goes, the collapse of buildings was an operation based on intelligence gathered about the hijackers. Due to the complexity and state of power at the time, it's most likely a rogue group of neocons hijacked the event. I cant be sure so keep an open mind on who did it include ( international fascists) and Israel and maybe there a group i am unware of? 

As soon as the official story collapses, the credibility of the official story falls apart.

A freefalling building means all the steel and concrete are gone. There's no resistance to slow it down. 

NIST model of progressive collapse shows half the building was still providing resistance during the freefall ( unless you're completely blind and think that blue shaded area is cauliflower)  At this point, the full collapse is well underway, so the resistance highlighted in the NIST model is a big problem. 

As a result of failing to understand Freefall originally happened, NIST then split the failure into three stages to hide the collapse implications. They had to slow the fall or else they would have be open with everyone was a controlled demolition. 

With no stage 1 it was a controlled demolition and they know that.

Model shows they're lying about everything since the west section of building is still slowing the fall at stage 2

None of debunkers will ever explainn how the freefall occurred here in this screenshot since so convinced of the official narrative. Did the steel and concrete part ways like Moses did with the Red Sea?

I have received a number of PMs from posters over the years stating they were not interested in 9/11 stuff to debate it , but wanted to know more about the problems. There are many complaints in PMs about how you derail threads and silly attacks. The truth is, some people are too afraid of confronting your bullshit openly in public. 

I am hearing this from the same individual who was exposed in JFK conspiracy threads and lied. 'Single bullet theory' is a lie based on a bullet tumbling on its side hitting Connally in the back. Nal's lie was obviously based on an after-surgery wound that was not apparent to him. As a result, you went after Doctor Shaw Connally and accused him of lying, saying that the bullet wound was 3cm before surgery and again exposed.. The Kennedy debunkers betrayed you and what you read was a lie. 

Historically, Kennedy debunkers have claimed that Connally's back wound was 3cm, which explains the Carcano thumbling claims that it exited Kennedy's throat. Reality is that wound was only 1.5cm confirmed by DR shaw numerous times. 

This is an image that you uploaded to prove the official version of the story.

An important part of the image is the entry wound.

Nal and Kennedy debunkers claimed for decades that the Connally wound was 3cm ( 1.25 inches)

As a result, you were caught unaware that the bullet caused a 1.5cm wound, and that the 3cm wound was an enlargement of that wound by DR Shaw during surgery.

The length of the Carcano bullet is 3cm, so how can it be the same bullet? What you can't comprehend here is that the hole in the right shoulder was only 1.5cm in length, not 3cm.

In order to fit with the official theory, the wound had to be 3 cm. Many people fail to look at all the reports and notice that DR Shaw said it was 1.5 cm before he touched it.

It all fit nicely into the cover-up since Debunkers had a wound of 3cm and Carcano 3cm in length. Debunkers of course lying about that wound for long time. 

There is a clear discrepancy between the official report and what I am pointing out. DR Shaw never claimed the Connally wound on his right shoulder was 3cm.. DR Shaw pointed out numerous times in different testimony was 1.5cm.

Debunkers have over decades and seen with the image Nal uploaded claimed the bullet wound matched the length of Carcano bullet. Case closed.

No, that's a lie, and Dr Shaw always said he enlarged the 1.5cm wound to 3cm when he operated on him. What does lying about the trajectory of the bullet tell you?

Address the evidence here. Why do you think the debunkers lied here?

Would we be more inclined to trust a highly respected surgeon at Parkland Hospital than people who lied about what he said?

A bullet caused a 1.5cm wound on the right shoulder. Debunkers lied about that and used the wound after surgery to claim something else, but that's the official story. 

There is nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in official stories. We lost a lot of ourselves over Covid, yes, but it was a small thing. Personally, I am not anti-vaccine or anything like that, so stay out of medical threads. As far as I am concerned, Covid is a real disease, not made up to make you believe its existence.

There is no doubt that UFOS, 9/11, and JFK were genuine conspiracies, but UFOs are less fringe today due to the US government's involvement in these events, so debunkers have a hard time now going against authority. It's just in their nature to try. If you've been around long enough, you might remember the same debunker logic for UFOS that persists in these forums to this day. While 9/11 disbelief was bad, UFOS disbelief was worse in the past, amazing how 3 years of government involvement in admitting there may be some strange unknowns flying about can change the narrative.

What dont understand about building seven and debunker objections. Essentially, freefall is just dropping something from an airplane or a building and allowing gravity to do the rest.

In my opinion, the truthers' questions regarding freefall are not irrelevant and unimportant. Even if the underlying structure is weak or in a state of collapse, must be some pushback if a building collapses. Truther arguments are not weak because NIST had no understanding of the nature of the collapse from the beginning. Denying freefall is not an umimportant thing. In the revision of the draft paper, it was claimed there was a stage of freefall between two collapse points. Since most people are unware what NIST says believe falsely claimed freefall.

In their argument, they claim the underlying structure provided negligible resistance. There must be a definition of resistance in a report otherwise people will think you're hiding something. The west side of the building has a lot of resistance that makes freefall impossible in their finite models. NIST's modeling of the final collapse shows no freefall, which makes me think things are made up as they go along. 

A 9/11 debunker from Metabunk says truthers have done a thorough job addressing column 79 failure. What does that tell you? All their objections are valid.

Mick fails on the idea that the collapse in NIST report was triggered by the connection at column 79. In his own mind, he is making claims about other failures that are out of the scope of NIST's work. According to NIST, the failure of the connection at 79 triggered the failure of the other girders and not the other way around, which confused Mick.

The connection does not fail, there is no progressive collapse as NIST claims. Mick's admission that all findings at column 79 are valid raises questions about the collapse itself. 

It is clear that some individuals pre-rigged the steel columns so they would collapse. The fact that NIST was unaware of the freefall is plenty of evidence, and research proves it. NIST couldn't imagine there would be no resistance beneath, which is why they dismissed the truther question in the first place. In case of freefall, all columns would simultaneously lose all connectional support, so NIST had to take steps to find a solution. They have weak arguments since their modelling shows actual collapse stages without freefall. When their modelling shows no freefall, why would you believe words on paper?

It's impossible to tell why these individuals did what they did on 9/11, but we can guess, but we'll never know for sure why it happened. There are a lot of strange anomalies that don't make sense like fires burning for months, unexplained high heat pockets, and weird leaks coming out of towers melting. Finding some steel pieces with holes in them very strange for office fires. Office buildings usually contain wood, paper, and plastic, not high burning materials. FEMA also had a report about rare melting events, you dont see this in other buildings caught fire. There is something wrong with the official narrative that this building is somehow falling apart because of a few failed connections. 

This is a first in history for a steel framed building to collapse due to fire at freefall acceleration and yet we have evidence that this trigger event may have been wrong. 

Which one of us is crazy?

As a public interest matter, NIST should explain to us what happens to that girder with all connections on. I suspect that never happen because NIST refuses to release their data because of a bogus national security claim. Firstly, you need to understand that collapses are rare events and nobody can repeat their work in a scientific way. It is incredible that no one has questioned the validity of this study for twenty years when the results can't be downloaded and analyzed. 

According to Truthers, nanothermite can be found in dust. This eliminates the need for the towers to be rigged by explosives.

There could be failures based on the weight and volume that this was packed in with steel. Melting connections all over the place will lead to many failures inside the towers. Plus, nanothermite reacts to fire, so it would make sense to use a revolutionary explosive. Due to the nanoscale nature of the chips, it would be hard to see them with the naked eye. Very hard to detect unless you have right lab equipment. Dr. Neil Harris also noticed this gas type release after ignition (which may explain why the tower opened up like a mushroom cloud) a lot of steel was pushed out sideways to street blocks need a lot of pressure and force to push steel away from their collapsed positions. It would also explain the melting anomalies and why fires wouldn't extinguish under normal water pressure. There are chemicals igniting that take ages to extinguish in rubble piles.

For seven. This looks more implosion from beneath. What stuff used here unknown guess at most.