Conspiracy Theories for Cynics
Discussion
Loudy McFatass said:
jmorgan said:
RizzoTheRat said:
There's plenty of evidence that the complete collapse wasn't at free fall speeds, while some elements of the collapse came close to it. What's the conspiracy supposed to be?
That has all been ignored for some reason.RizzoTheRat said:
Given the amount of discussion and changes between drafts and final version of technical reports I write, which are a lot shorter and simpler than that one, that doesn't surprise me at all.
I am well aware of what these papers go through. RizzoTheRat said:
There's plenty of evidence that the complete collapse wasn't at free fall speeds, while some elements of the collapse came close to it. What's the conspiracy supposed to be?
It was never stated that any of the 3 collapses were in full free-fall from start to finish. They don't need to have been; rather, it is the presence of free-fall and near free-fall speeds that have put the NIST report into question. I find the challenges compelling. I am not in a position to comment further. Do you not find it ironic that you (and others) aren't familiar with the research against your position, but are here calling it nonsense? Why don't you complete step 1 before moving on to step 2?
Has anyone ever read the theory that George Bush killed JFK? I think it's the most tenuous one I've ever read.
The one that Titanic was sunk for the insurance money and in actual fact it was Olympic is one that's interesting to read (I read a well-written and argued account). Ultimately though it's probably b
ks.
The one that Titanic was sunk for the insurance money and in actual fact it was Olympic is one that's interesting to read (I read a well-written and argued account). Ultimately though it's probably b
ks. Edited by RobinBanks on Wednesday 18th March 14:51
scherzkeks said:
It was never stated that any of the 3 collapses were in full free-fall from start to finish. They don't need to have been; rather, it is the presence of free-fall and near free-fall speeds that have put the NIST report into question.
I find the challenges compelling. I am not in a position to comment further. Do you not find it ironic that you (and others) aren't familiar with the research against your position, but are here calling it nonsense? Why don't you complete step 1 before moving on to step 2?
We'd be a lot more familiar with it if you'd state which particular aspects you think there is evidence against. Are you able to link to any competing theories other than a youtube video?I find the challenges compelling. I am not in a position to comment further. Do you not find it ironic that you (and others) aren't familiar with the research against your position, but are here calling it nonsense? Why don't you complete step 1 before moving on to step 2?
The NIST report says there was a period of slow collapse, then a period of near free fall speed, and then a slowing up again, and there is a mass of evidence showing that the total collapse time was more than if it was in freefall, completely in keeping with the NIST report.
I still haven't worked out if the conspiracy theorists say it should have fallen at free fall all the way down, or more slowly.
RobinBanks said:
The one that Titanic was sunk for the insurance money and in actual fact it was Olympic is one that's interesting to read (I read a well-written and argued account). Ultimately though it's probably bks.
As I understand it the main issue there is as the Titanic was a new ship there weren't many pictures of it, so lots of people used pictures of its sister ship in it's place after it sank.ks. scherzkeks said:
It was never stated that any of the 3 collapses were in full free-fall from start to finish. They don't need to have been; rather, it is the presence of free-fall and near free-fall speeds that have put the NIST report into question.
I find the challenges compelling. I am not in a position to comment further. Do you not find it ironic that you (and others) aren't familiar with the research against your position, but are here calling it nonsense? Why don't you complete step 1 before moving on to step 2?
What exactly are you arguing?I find the challenges compelling. I am not in a position to comment further. Do you not find it ironic that you (and others) aren't familiar with the research against your position, but are here calling it nonsense? Why don't you complete step 1 before moving on to step 2?
That the buildings didn't collapse as a result of being hit by the planes?
If so, what caused them to collapse?
RizzoTheRat said:
RobinBanks said:
The one that Titanic was sunk for the insurance money and in actual fact it was Olympic is one that's interesting to read (I read a well-written and argued account). Ultimately though it's probably bks.
As I understand it the main issue there is as the Titanic was a new ship there weren't many pictures of it, so lots of people used pictures of its sister ship in it's place after it sank.ks. The plot thickens....
scherzkeks said:
I find the challenges compelling. I am not in a position to comment further. Do you not find it ironic that you (and others) aren't familiar with the research against your position, but are here calling it nonsense? Why don't you complete step 1 before moving on to step 2?
No, what I find ironic is the concept that we human beings are the apparent pinnacle of intelligence and civilization on this planet, and yet we are still managing to produce people like Gage and yourself.A&E have conducted absolutely ZERO independent research about the destruction of the towers. Instead, the main board members (all architects, none of them engineers) are all people who decided immediately that there was some conspiracy behind the destruction, and then set out to cherry pick whichever bits of the ACTUAL research that ACTUAL engineers have conducted they felt they could counter.
When their counters are shown to be far-fetched, or even outright falsehood, they simply accuse and deflect.
Here are excerpts from their bios on the A&E site:
Dan Barnum - Secretary
Dan “knew” at the outset that something was fishy about 9/11, because both of the buildings collapsed suddenly, and in the same manner.
Tom Spellman - Treasurer
An Internet discussion about 9/11 in late 2002 convinced him that the official story was a fraud. Upon hearing Dr. Steven Jones state that random fires and damage could not produce a symmetrical collapse, he understood that explosives had to be involved.
As you can see, their methods are completely scientific.
This is their 'official' position on what happened:
We do not know who the perpetrators of this crime are. Identifying the culprits is the purpose of a real criminal investigation. However, we are able to provide overwhelming evidence of a cover-up of this crime. In addition, scientific forensic evidence indicates that only individuals who could gain long-term access inside the highly secure WTC skyscrapers and obtain advanced thermitic materials could have orchestrated the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
The thermite explosive scenario has been comprehensively debunked, even by other 9/11 truthers, and yet A&E continue to offer it as their headline reason. Their website is shiny and looks expensive, no doubt due to the prominent Donate and Store buttons all over the place. They state in numerous places that the 'full truth' will be revealed just as soon as you buy their latest DVD.
They have a section debunking the Popular Mechanics debunking article, written by 21 year old truther Adam Taylor, who A&E put forward as a prominent 9/11 researcher despite him having absolutely no qualifications on the matter.
Edited by mattmurdock on Wednesday 18th March 15:39 - Multi Quotes don't appear to be working!
Edited by mattmurdock on Wednesday 18th March 15:40
scherzkeks said:
Do you not find it ironic that you (and others) aren't familiar with the research against your position, but are here calling it nonsense? Why don't you complete step 1 before moving on to step 2?
To be fair I've not called anything nonsense and had no position at the start of this thread. I looked up the NIST report as it was mentioned on the thread, like probably many others I'd assumed the fire caused structural elements to weaken which caused the collapse. So I've learned something from this thread. As it's a publicly available document that has been widely peer reviewed it seems like a good starting point.I think a lot of conspiracy theories start due to poor communication, but the conspiracy theory here also seems to be poorly communicated. I'm happy to be pointed in the direction of contradictory evidence but from Matt's post above some of that evidence might be lacking in some areas.
How about this one? The 'truthers' and conspiracy nuts are actually working for the government and are 'out there' to try and find out if anyone is actually getting close to the truth? The idea being that someone knowing the truth will contact these people, believing them to be looking for the truth and like them. Once the 'threat' is quantified as real or not that person is then 'dissuaded'.
RDJ said:
In the 19th century, the famous horror writer, Egdar Allan Poe, wrote a book called ‘The narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym’.
It was about four survivors of a shipwreck who were in an open boat for many days before they decided to kill and eat the cabin boy whose name was Richard Parker.
Some years later, in 1884, the yawl, Mignonette, foundered, with only four survivors, who were in an open boat for many days. Eventually the three senior members of the crew, killed and ate the cabin boy.
The name of the cabin boy was Richard Parker.
See the 2012 documentary "Life of Pi" for further proof. Survivors of a shipwreck in an open boat for days, cannibalism, the "tiger" was called...It was about four survivors of a shipwreck who were in an open boat for many days before they decided to kill and eat the cabin boy whose name was Richard Parker.
Some years later, in 1884, the yawl, Mignonette, foundered, with only four survivors, who were in an open boat for many days. Eventually the three senior members of the crew, killed and ate the cabin boy.
The name of the cabin boy was Richard Parker.
A similar curious incident of foreshadowing occurred with the Titanic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futility,_or_the_Wrec...
RobinBanks said:
I've just remembered one. I've heard from many Russians that the Russian government controls the weather.
It's not a secret or a conspiracy that the Russians have used cloud seeding.From Wikipedia -
The Soviet Union created a specifically designed version of the Antonov An-30 aerial survey aircraft, the An-30M Sky Cleaner, with eight containers of solid carbon dioxide in the cargo area plus external pods containing meteorological cartridges that could be fired into clouds. Soviet military pilots seeded clouds over the Belorussian SSR after the Chernobyl disaster to remove radioactive particles from clouds heading toward Moscow. At the July 2006 G8 Summit, President Putin commented that air force jets had been deployed to seed incoming clouds so they rained over Finland. Rain drenched the summit anyway. In Moscow, the Russian Airforce tried seeding clouds with bags of cement on June 17, 2008. One of the bags did not pulverize and went through the roof of a house. In October 2009, the Mayor of Moscow promised a "winter without snow" for the city after revealing efforts by the Russian Air Force to seed the clouds upwind from Moscow throughout the winter.
rohrl said:
It's not a secret or a conspiracy that the Russians have used cloud seeding.
From Wikipedia -
The Soviet Union created a specifically designed version of the Antonov An-30 aerial survey aircraft, the An-30M Sky Cleaner, with eight containers of solid carbon dioxide in the cargo area plus external pods containing meteorological cartridges that could be fired into clouds. Soviet military pilots seeded clouds over the Belorussian SSR after the Chernobyl disaster to remove radioactive particles from clouds heading toward Moscow. At the July 2006 G8 Summit, President Putin commented that air force jets had been deployed to seed incoming clouds so they rained over Finland. Rain drenched the summit anyway. In Moscow, the Russian Airforce tried seeding clouds with bags of cement on June 17, 2008. One of the bags did not pulverize and went through the roof of a house. In October 2009, the Mayor of Moscow promised a "winter without snow" for the city after revealing efforts by the Russian Air Force to seed the clouds upwind from Moscow throughout the winter.
That's not quite controlling the weather though. That's lightly modifying the chances of rain at best.From Wikipedia -
The Soviet Union created a specifically designed version of the Antonov An-30 aerial survey aircraft, the An-30M Sky Cleaner, with eight containers of solid carbon dioxide in the cargo area plus external pods containing meteorological cartridges that could be fired into clouds. Soviet military pilots seeded clouds over the Belorussian SSR after the Chernobyl disaster to remove radioactive particles from clouds heading toward Moscow. At the July 2006 G8 Summit, President Putin commented that air force jets had been deployed to seed incoming clouds so they rained over Finland. Rain drenched the summit anyway. In Moscow, the Russian Airforce tried seeding clouds with bags of cement on June 17, 2008. One of the bags did not pulverize and went through the roof of a house. In October 2009, the Mayor of Moscow promised a "winter without snow" for the city after revealing efforts by the Russian Air Force to seed the clouds upwind from Moscow throughout the winter.
JPJPJP said:
98elise said:
You know the pentagon is near a major airport don't you?
indeed and I know that the plane wasn't responding to ATC or supposed to be heading to any nearby airport at that pointGassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff