Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

1333436383944

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,098 ✭✭✭✭The Nal




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    What does the military do about working around the work and remaining undetected? Did you know that Bin Laden was located in a compound adjacent to Pakistan's military academy before it was reported on the news? Not knowing how it could have been done is not proof that it didn't happen.

    The fact remains that seven didn't collapse naturally, so how they got inside the building is secondary to what happened. You have to know lots about what security was like there at night and what happened in place before 9/11. Why would anyone suspect a few guys doing some work before 9/11? Would you normally stare at workmen or people on their way to work trying to figure out what they are doing? There is clearly evidence of military grade nanothermite in these buildings. This was a major operation involving powerful people with the power to get men inside. 



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,098 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Another pathetic dodge.

    This is a conspiracy theory forum. How they planted the explosives is a huge part of any conspiracy.

    And you have no answers and therefore no theory. Just waffle. As per usual.

    "A few guys" lol



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,231 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    First time in history multiple skyscrapers were secretly brought down with explosives - but that seems perfectly credible to you.

    So which is it, if something happens for the "first time in history", it's possible or impossible according to you?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    You didn't answer the question, or provide any hint of an idea.

    Why?

    This is the conspiracy theories forum, come up with a theory.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,407 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yea. He'd claimed that it was only 16 guys who did it over a weekend.


    He and other 9/11 truthers don't want to give details because if they lay out a theory they know it will sound ridiculous and will make it harder to change the story to suit their argument.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,029 ✭✭✭deirdremf


    I don't accept his wierd theory, but that is probably the easy bit.

    Modern office buildings have false ceilings, it's easy to get into that space. There are maintenance and cleaning staff, generally run by external companies, so theoretically it would be possible to get teams in to plant the explosives. Unlikely in the extreme that it happened, but not an insurmountable problem.

    Now if Trump had owned the buildings and needed the insurance money that might make it more credible and even likely!!!!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    In building seven, a secret CIA office is located, according to the New York Times. It is very strange that the New York Times reported that this office had a deep involvement in counterterrorism and was handling files directly related to Al Qaeda activities, such as the USS Cole bombing in Yemen and the Embassy attack in East Africa. This was a consequence of the CIA secret field office being here before 9/11. Therefore, this provided a way for the CIA to intervene.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/04/us/nation-challenged-intelligence-agency-secret-cia-site-new-york-was-destroyed.html

    The tracing of hijackers by others in authority was covered up by the CIA . It is clear from leaked documents that the CIA deliberately avoided flagging hijackers on watch lists, and even refused to divulge their identities to FBI agents and White House officials. The CIA had foreknowledge of the attacks on 9/11. Since the CIA operates outside the norm, its officers have refused toanswer questionss about their knowledge. CIA is covering up JFK and 9/11 attacks, they have a hand in both. 



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Considering the events of that day where planes were hijacked and flew all over the country in an attempt to target buildings anything possible. If the neocons plan to take out seven Arab countries, then this terrorist attack will be used to exacerbate the situation. A week later, Anthrax attacks targeted politicians and some died. There was clearly something major going on. Later, it was discovered that the anthrax was not made in a foreign lab, but rather was made in a US military lab. This was a coordinated effort to create panic and fear. The unusual anomalies found here after the building fell clearly indicate that some people took down these buildings in order to create even more panic and fear. 



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,231 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Do you genuinely not see how one contradicts the other?

    Event A happens for the first time - therefore according to you it can't have happened

    Event B happens for the first time - according to you it can have happened

    Which is it?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 936 ✭✭✭lumphammer2


    Most conspiracies tend to be 100% untrue ... but there are a few that may have some truth in them ... let's review a few ...

    1 Dead JFK ... it is easy for this to be a conspiracy because there has been no definite proof about who had him killed and why ... the mafia the cubans the russians the Republic of Gilead all have been blamed ... simple as this ... one of these or some combination is true but the others are not ...

    2 Elvis being alive ... there is no concrete evidence of this being true ... no post 1977 recordings have surfaced on bootlegs ... nothing ... Elvis was a great singer but sadly he is dead .. but lives forever via his music ..

    3 Diana's murder ... while it is true dodgy carry on happened during the period after her death it is hard to know for sure how she died ... accident or murder ... strange that things were swapped ... no way would the Ritz have a drunk driver ... esp for Diana ... just no way ...

    4 'Islamic Republic' of Iran being an undercover ally of USA ... most definitely the case ... I believe this one 100% ... 43 years in power and Ali Khamenei was never touched ...

    5 Trump working for Putin ... defo ... and links in with 4 too ... all what we are lead to believe is fake with these corrupt individuals ...

    6 Ukraine being run by Nazis who are creating pandemics to infect Russia ... 100% false but a war was justified because some senior members of Russia's regime believe it 100% to be true ...

    7 WMD in Iraq ... 100% false but also used to justify a war ... this time by those welknown warmongers the Republicans ...

    8 The Jew/Commie plot ... 100% false but Hitler justified his wars akin to 6 and 7 and it lead to WW2 ...

    9 Pervert priests agents of the KGB ... 100% false and used to excuse corruption in the RC church ...

    10 9/11 being staged ... probably not but surely someone should have known about this plot and did not act ...

    11 Most of the Covid 19 anti vax anti mask stuff ... 100% false ... among the daftest rubbish you are likely to hear ...

    12 Alien and UFO stuff ... probably 90% false but I do believe in alien life ... but I also believe in science fiction being a genre ...

    13 Reality TV and most modern music being made to destroy people's intelligence ... could just be true !!!

    14 Trump owning the World Trade Org and its NY HQ ... and he being behind 9/11 for insurance purposes and/or to destroy evidence ... I'd love it to be true but it ain't ...

    15 Trump winning the 2020 election ... 100% lies ... stop the steal did happen ... Trump's attempt to steal that is ...



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    So the CIA destroyed one building, but did it a bit wrong so that people would notice that it fell down at a different speed to the official report. They did this in order to cover up that they destroyed a couple of other buildings with secret explosives, but to cover that they arranged for some people to fly planes into the buildings first.


    And they did this because they didn't want to invest in a shredder for destroying documents?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,231 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    Can secretly rig an entire skyscraper for demolition

    Can't destroy files in their own office



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Because that wouldn’t be convoluted enough for a conspiracy theorist.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,407 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Documents that there's no evidence for and no one would have ever known about if they didn't call attention to them by faking a terrorist attack in a way that made it look obviously fake to even uneducated people.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,231 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    "We need to destroy the secret files!"

    -"Sir, the ones we have in our office? I can just shred them right n-"

    "No! It has to be planes and secret explosives!! Get me the President, the Nazis, the Saudis, the FBI, Al Qaeda and Mossad on the line right now!!"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,407 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    "But only like one of each of those groups. We need to keep this under 16 people. Also call this 70 year old property developer with no expertise in demolition. Sure hope he can keep a secret..."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,098 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Thats the problem with the conspiraloon thinking. Starting off with a premise "EG It was an inside job" and then working backwards from there, pluckling out factoids to suit their "theory".

    A proper theory contains a beginning, a middle and an end. Not just an end and then a load of selective waffle in isolation. No critical thinking whatsoever.

    Cheerful thinks the buildings were brought down by explosives but cant even vaguely explain how the buildings wouldve been rigged. NYC police, CIA, FBI, private security, CCTV, office secretaries, security badges, sign in sheets, clock in machines, locked doors, fire and access alarms etc all bypassed.

    Bypassed by the way across 250 floors (including WTC 7), 12 million square feet of floor space and 430 different companies. Each with their own security staff and protocols, doors, locks, CCTV, staff etc. No one noticed a load of blokes walking around in no access areas with tonnes of explosives.

    John O'Neill, the head of security at the WTC would've likely have had to been involved? He died when the south tower collapsed. Seems an odd day not to call in sick.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,407 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Here's an example of how a plausible 9/11 conspiracy would go:

    Al Qaeda were planning an attack on American soil. Elements in the US government and/or CIA believed that this would be a useful evn to help gain public support for policies, specifically a more aggressive international policy. Those elements, then simply stopped intelligence reports about this planned attack from reaching the right people that could have raised the alarm about it. This was easily done because of the archaic and culture of secrecy between agencies that was well documented by the various 9/11 investigations. It would also be very easy to justify and excuse as an honest mistake.

    The elements could have ranged from a single higher up in the CIA who acted on his own. Or it could have been a directive from the president. It would have been trivial to keep something like that secret.

    This theory could be stretched a bit to include the notion that the conspirators helped the attack along, like perhaps throwing off investigators or giving the attackers visa clearance when they would have otherwise been flagged.

    They could have even given them material support.


    There's no need for them to plant secret high tech explosives that have never been used before. There's no need for them to have secret double planes to buzz the pentagon. It's simple, direct and most importantly plausible.

    But no conspiracy theorists are interested in a theory like this because it's kinda boring. There's no shocking evidence that makes for a good youtube video.


    And just to make it abundantly clear in case some one is determined to misrepresent me, I don't personally subscribe to this theory. I don't believe that it actually happened. I don't have any evidence to support it because I just plucked it out of my ass.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,231 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Conspiracy theorists also have a much lower bar for rationalising stuff to themselves

    Cheerful's response to the above would be along the lines of: "The head of security was in on it, but they probably gave him the wrong date of the attack in order to kill him with it and destroy the evidence. Work-men came in at nights and weekends to do the job, sure tall buildings always have work going on in them. There were reports of that kind of work going on prior to the attacks, probably happened then."

    Since CTers often make-up the world around them, they think everyone else does it too. They literally think a bunch of people got together in a room and made-up the 9/11 narrative, so they feel validated in doing the same.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    It has been discovered by the New York Times that seven housed a secret CIA office, which is highly unusual given what we now know about the collapse. There are many theories about the collapsed seven, but the fact remains that it wasn't a fire that brought it down.

    There is no dispute over the facts, even NIST admits nothing of WTC7 steel was kept for analysis. It is strange that no plane hits Seven and for the first time ever, a fire collapses a steel-framed tall building and nobody in authority thinks it wise to keep even a single piece of collapsed steel? A great deal of urgency seemed to envelop the authorities when it came to disposing of the steel from WTC7.

    In your attack on a theory, you ignore all evidence that points to its failure due to controlled demolition!.

    Despite the fact that a well-known 9/11 debunker finally admits that AE911 truth work on column 79 was comprehensive, it's ignored. I be physically upset after doing all that great work for it be ignored. NIST is incorrect because those connections failed first, causing the progressive collapse of the building due to fire. If NIST is wrong there, then their entire theory about how the building collapsed is wrong as well. The point don't seem to get.

    Animations of the collapse look nothing like the actual collapse on 9/11, again more proof their theory is wrong. In the case of NIST tampering with data, how much evidence is needed to warrant a new investigation? Mick West has admitted that NIST's girder with connections would have made a difference who's lying here, certainly not the truther community.

    The NIST data of the study is secret to everyone outside of this body. Have you ever heard of a university or body of engineers not being able to access the raw data of a study? Science works by repeating the same exercise, and the only thing we have here is a NIST word and some computer animations. Considering this is the first time a building has been brought down by fire, there should be urgency to see the raw data, don't you think?

    Smoking gun in all this freefall. There is no building on earth that would not provide resistance in the event of a collapse. Steel one will always have resistance. In every floor inside seven, there is concrete, girders, beams, steel columns, and office items. Even in a buckled weak state, a steel column will provide some strength.

    There is no explanation provided by NIST for the sudden lack of support. If a coin fell from a roof and something got in its way, would that be freefall? No, not at all. Nothing about the collapse is answered in the final NIST report. 



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    Nobody ever really wins football accumulators.

    It's one of the easiest ways for bookmakers to make money. Hence why they promote them so much

    Also the odds they generate are actually not the realistic mathematical chance of something happening. They are heavily adjusted in the bookmakers favour no matter the result



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    False we work on evidence that NIST changed the design of the building to fit with a fire induced collapse scenario. There's no point in removing vital elements from girders unless you're having trouble getting them to fail the way you want. In this case, NIST acted fraudulently by deciding that shear steel bolts (studs) and stiffer plates should not be used here.

    In an attempt to have the girder fail, NIST reduced the seat size.

    Took off stiffiner plates ( again fact)

    There were no lateral support beams in the NIST report, supporting column 79 and 44 but all the drawings for seven depicted them

    Increased temperatures (photographs from this point in the day) show no fires on floors 12 and 13 after 4 o clock

    There is no validity to NIST thermal expansion measurements.

    In light of the fact that the NIST column 79 and girder A2001 (missing all this stuff) collapsed first, it is of utmost importance to find that all of this construction was removed by NIST.

    What most likely happened to column 79 and adjacent column 44 was destroyed by controlled demolition. This 79 column is connected to the main core of steel in the building. 



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    According to NIST, even if column 79 was taken out by controlled demolition you would have heard a long bang on video and heard streets away. Given the ranges in the images above.

    It has been claimed by NIST in an outrageous lie that no noise has been heard on any video.

    We hear a loud bang in the CBS video of the collapse of seven. The bang was thunderous inside building seven. hear between 0 to 1 seconds of the video.

    After that bang the Penthouse collapsed down where column 79 was supporting.

    There was even a lie in the most basic of things here.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,231 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    Demolition explosives make a very loud bang. Watch any demolition anywhere. I watched it live on the day, we don't hear any explosives "bang" from the building collapsing, from many angles. Thermite material just burns and gives off a lot of smoke.

    You've invented a semi-silent explosive somewhere in between.

    Again, you see things in photos that aren't there, and you "hear" stuff in videos that isn't there. If you wanted to make the best possible argument against 9/11 trutherism, you're it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    NIST's claim there was no noise on any video whatsoever, pre-collapse, of anything inside the building, is a lie. This is an official CBS video, and you can hear that bang and it echoed out and was picked up by the reporter's microphone. Need to open your ears and listen and stop believing in crap

    To demolish towers, nanothermite was used.

    Clearly, something else was used to demolish seven as it collapsed from beneath and all 84 columns went



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Just to confirm, the conspiracy regarding 911 is that it was because the CIA couldn't get a shredder purchase order put through on their office supplies budget?

    That is essentially what the entire basis of the theory leads to in your opinion.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    How can anyone seriously say there wasn't something dodgy about the official narrative with 9/11?..

    With Rumsfeld the day before, Norad being off that day, the towers falling how they did, and building 7..not to mention what it was used to justify..

    Ye don't have the most enquiring of minds anyway..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,231 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    I don't hear explosive charges, no one does. The only thing I hear is a faint thud, probably the internals collapsing.

    Your "nano-thermite" produces your "thud" when it what, burns? How does it work?

    Show us a building or anything being destroyed like this with "nano-thermite"..

    Keep in mind your logic, if it hasn't happened before it can't be true.

    Below are buildings being demolished normally without 9/11 truther magic technology. Note how the collapse of WTC 7 is unlike any controlled demolition in the world.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,231 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    All of this stuff has been patiently explained to you over the years, you ignore all explanations, you never ask questions of the conspiracy, you can't even detail the conspiracy. You systematically demonstrate an extraordinarily closed mind, non-enquiring - then you gaslight on others that they are stupid for not "asking questions" or having your "enquiring mind". Like a carbon copy of Alex Jones who endlessly claims he's "just asking questions" about 9/11 and Sandy hook.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    In the presence of so many people in the buildings, how could people have rigged the towers up? There was a valid argument based on explosives. To do that for a 110-floor building would take a lot of time and effort.

    It was because of this that the Truthers decided to examine the dust for explosive remnants. One of the most damning pieces of evidence was found in some WTC tower dust. The evidence of a conspiracy lies in nanoscale nano-thermite chemical chips found

    Nanothermite explains why the rubble had high heat spots at ground zero, and why millions of iron molten balls were all around ground zero. It explains all the rivers of flowing red/yellow hot liquid. It explains all the reports of finding steel with holes that looked like Swiss Chess. All these things would be produced by nanothermite, not fire. We have evidence of crime, but its limited due to people's stupid denials that people would do such a thing.

    It was a clever way to conceal the operation however they did not anticipate that people would not believe the official explanation and would be able to see all these in the dust in the lab. While it's a highly sophisticated method of destroying steel, it works on fact since it melts steel connections.

    Suppose one produced nanothermite in some kind of block form, all would need to gain access to sort points, place it on columns, then move onto the next one while waiting for planes to crash into the towers.

    For building seven collapsed 8 floors and the rest of the building just came through the hole. It was not examined by an official study why the steel and dust were disposed of so quickly and none of it was given to NIST. Apparently, one flange piece from building seven was chemically eroded down by an unknown process and FEMA asked for a future study to examine it, but it never happened. 



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Nanothermite chips in the dust viewed through an electron microscope. This is the unignited form.

    There are all these iron balls on burned chips when ignited at 430c, which never occurs when using standard thermite (900c to 1000c). This is clear evidence that aluminum and Iron oxide are present in these chips. 




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,552 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Is there not a whole forum dedicated to 9/11?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    It seems like some people helped bring down the towers with nanothermite after destroying seven with some type of explosive.

    I view seven differently.

    In that building, there were banks and SEC personnel investigating financial crimes (one was the Citibank scandal) and it could be something worth getting rid of as you say it can't be destroyed by a normal shredder. It is not clear why it was brought down. In light of crazy neocon agendas of allowing torture and wiretaps and war on terror and red flashes on Fox news the people in charge were not all there when it came to morals and high values. Back then, the powers that be wanted a radically different Middle East, and a few fire-damaged buildings wouldn't work to get Americans to support them. The failure in Iraq and Afghanistan and changes in power at the White House changed the thinking of that going to war against seven countries in Africa and the Middle East was wise. 



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,231 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    It's impossible according to demolition experts. Even Danny Lowenko said it was utterly impossible.

    Truthers didn't find anything. They were sent samples by random people on the internet, which they actually accepted. If I had known at the time I would have gone down to my local building site and sent them whatever shite I picked up down there. I guarantee they would have found traces of "explosives" or "thermite" or whatever because common compounds exist everywhere

    Here's the question again.

    Your "nano-thermite" produces your "thud" when it what, burns? How does it work?

    Show us a building being destroyed like this with "nano-thermite"..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,231 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    This is false as well. International skeptics debunkers accepted that dust samples came from legitimate sources. They denied it intentionally but one of their board members conducted an investigation and discovered all dust samples came from real people who collected dust in New York.

    No one disputes the samples of dust are real, but members dispute the chips are nanothermite. Make sure you have the facts straight.

    This is a false take on it since there clearly is an ignition at very low temperatures that causes iron to be produced on the burned part.

    Mick West has a habit of producing Iron balls at high temperatures and claiming he can make Iron microspheres without thermite. What he doesn't tell his audience is that these temperatures are over 1400C. Can Mick reproduce the same effect at 430C? He hasn't tried it.

    According to my repeated explanations here, the WTC towers collapsed when nanothermite bricks or blocks were attached to steel columns or steel parts and got set off on 9/11.

    For seven. There is no evidence for nanothermite. There is no dust or steel as far as we know from the collapse examined by truthers, NIST, or anyone else. Using that video, I proved that NIST was lying again by claiming nobody heard any noise before any collapse, claiming that there was no video with noise on it, and showing you that video to prove this. In that building seven video, you can hear a loud explosion before the Penthouse came through the structure. Why did NIST lie about the sound of that collapse?

    You should check your ears if you do not hear a bang between 0 and 1 seconds.

    video




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    For a symmetrical collapse to occur, you can't have free fall in just one place. It has to happen from one corner to another in that red box.

    Reality view of seven.

    Apparently, NIST claims there has been some failure on the east side, but internal collapses continue on the west side, which isn't logical since the building is already in the process of collapsing. Clearly, NIST claims this is area of negligible support, but it is much more than negligible.As long as that area is still crumbling and breaking up, it cannot be freefall. No science serious person will believe freefall can occur in that NIST model. 




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S



    I rotated the picture myself to get a better angle along the windows.


    A great piece of work by truthers is that NIST claims that the fire simulation animations around floors 12 and 13 were red hot. Having a fire that is red hot would have a temperature above 600 C. Fires occur in this area. Photos taken later in the day show that the fires burned out probably because there were not enough burning materials. It is evident from visual evidence that there were no fires on 12, never mind 13 by 4pm. There is no doubt that NIST's claim of red hot temperatures is one of many false claims made by the organization. 



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    So which theory are you backing as the motivation for the CIA blowing up a building then?


    The office shredder budgeting theory?

    The other government department investigating Bank fraud theory?

    The start a war in the middle east theory?


    Or are you claiming that all these reasons were behind the CIA wanting to blow up the building, and they just got lucky with all those reasons starting from a link to this one building. Was this still just a small team of a couple of guys over a weekend who rigged it all up? Why were this small group of agents involved in both wanting to stop the bank fraud investigation, starting a war in the middle east and also the office supplies budget for shredders? Seems a bit of a wide range of topics for one handful of agents to be working on in isolation without anyone else knowing about it or authorising the actions.

    Did this same small group of agents also handle the hijackers, which presumably took years to get everything in place with them, and then synchronise the hijacking to happen at just the right time for them to blow up the other building?


    Your ideas for supper secret explosives could work their way into some spy novel, but the rest of your reasoning behind the various plots would just get laughed out as being too bonkers. Pick one theory and try to work on that to be actually sensible, rather than trying to have 10 different unrelated plots going on at the same time. You're fantasy writing ideas need significant work.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,552 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,231 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    WTC towers collapsed when nanothermite bricks or blocks were attached to steel columns or steel parts and got set off on 9/11.

    You wrote that it was boxes or containers of "nano-thermite" chips before, why have you changed that?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,407 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Previously he claimed that it was sprayed on the steel columns in a gel form.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,407 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Because not a single conspiracy theorist has been able to explain rationally and consistently what was dodgy.

    You guys claim many things that usually end up being false or nonsensical. When you are caught out you dodge and avoid and ignore.

    And as Dohnjoe points you, you never question anything about the conspiracy theory even when you fail to support it like this. So maybe you shouldn't project like that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Rather than examining the evidence, you get hung up on what conspirators are trying to accomplish. There's never been any claim that I had the exact right explanation for why it was destroyed. I had a few ideas, but only those involved knew why they did it. I suspect that there are only a few groups in the world with the finances and power to accomplish a job such as this. I speculated on that based on what possible.

    Based on what I found after the building was destroyed and lies, misrepresentations, and omissions by NIST, I made the assumption that we would should not accept findings based on flawed analysis. When the design of a building is altered to fit a preconceived notion of what occurred, it is impossible for a fire study to be accepted as accurate. You seem incapable of explaining why NIST deliberately lied about what people saw and witnessed, as shown in my videos and screenshots. If you cannot see the lies, you are stuck in this world you think you know.

    Videos and screenshots show the reality of the situation. A fire burned out on floor 12 where NIST claimed hot fires were heating up girders. They lied about noises during collapse events, claimed nobody saw molten steel, despite numerous cleaning up workers and fire workers reporting molten steel in debris fields after 9/11. NIST live in an alternate universe where there was no evidence, mainstream and debunkers just ignored it. You will find plenty of evidence of cover-up if you open your eyes.

    Why those government agencies hired to find the reasons for collapse went out of their way to lie about the events on day? It sounds like something out of a movie agreed, but all the evidence indicates men entered the building and placed some military-grade nanothermite materials on steel to bring it down. Motivations are only known to them, but left traces of their attack behind.

    Based on speculation, I believe that there was a high upper group that instructed these men to carry out this operation. It wouldn't take a lot of men to transport nanothermite to site and plant it on steel. This doesn't require knocking down walls. You just have to place it near the steel and let the fire do the rest. For towers, they only had to plant nanothermite and wait for planes to strike.

    There is no definitive proof that CIA handled the hijacker situation. All we know is that they prevented their capture before 9/11 by concealing their movements and whereabouts. As early as 1998, CIA was tracking two of the alleged 9/111 ringleaders hijackers in Maylasia. The CIA had about three years of tracking 9/11 suspects and tracked them when came through Los Angeles airport in 2000. Much of what CIA did here is still protected by national security and is not subject to congressional oversight or public scrutiny. 



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    We have evidence of nanothermite in dust samples. How it looked before being transported is a guessing game. Probably in block or brick form to attach to the steel, but who knows open to ideas.

    The truther community found evidence that matches with other evidence found in the rubble pile later on. It looks like the steel was chemically attacked.

    The nanoscale chips contain iron oxide and aluminum as well as other stuff that may increase their power. There was some kind of odd gas release in the burning test Harrit not sure what that was. Further testing would be needed. 



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,407 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But they didn't find any aluminium oxide, which proved there was no thermite.

    Also, it was shown by a study you posted that the iron found couldn't have been formed by a thermite reaction.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,552 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    What happened to the silent explosives theory?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,407 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    They're only silent when they need to explain why there's no explosions. But when they think that they can use explosion sounds to support the theory, the explosives become noisy again.

    Like how when it's convenient the thermite behaves totally different from explosives and when it's not, it behaves the exact same as explosives.


    And remember this is supposed to be the most credible conspiracy theory they can present.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Seems that there is one. The one which was called chemtrails or something like that. Like when people claimed something is being sprayed from the planes. Anyone who said that was branded crazy and lunatic only that it seems that there was some truth in what they were claiming.

    At least according to CNBC. I am curious how that will affect green party great push for solar panels now that even though we receive miserable amount of the sun, there may be less of it shining on us if US will go forward with their fantastic "dimming" idea.

    https://archive.ph/HRXol



Advertisement