Conspiracy Theories for Cynics
Discussion
mko9 said:
Similarly, I recall the people who claim the Pentagon was actually hit by a missile, not an airplane. I had to laugh at all the people who claimed "it sounded like a missile", when 99.99999% of the general public and the VAST majority of even the military have never been anywhere near an actual missile being fired. Their knowledge of what a missile sounds like is based upon Hollywood movies and TV shows.
Nobody heard the sound it made, so I agree that would be a bit of a stretch.Eta: unless you mean eye witness reports, but they would have seen whether it was a missile or a plane. I hadn't heard of those reports. I did see people saying that the images released looked more like a missile than a plane but from what I saw, it was just a smoke trail.
Edited by Shuvi McTupya on Thursday 22 June 18:15
Nanook said:
'Yeah, he was friends with Bush. Well, with the family, they probably never even met.
But he was in the country, in the US, getting treatment. Maybe, I mean, there's no proof, but if you google it you'll find someone saying it's true.'
Conclusive. I'm convinced.
I don't believe you. But he was in the country, in the US, getting treatment. Maybe, I mean, there's no proof, but if you google it you'll find someone saying it's true.'
Conclusive. I'm convinced.
Shuvi McTupya said:
jmorgan said:
7 can also be said to be the result of events on the day. That cannot be denied.
Seeing ad I have not seen any text book demolitions on that scale, I am a bit skeptical of that claim. What are the comparisons?
Wireless explosives, lets see. What can possibly go wrong, there had been enough commentary over the years by actual real experts, that would exclude those AE for truth, and the undertaking would not go in noticed.
Even ninja demo experts I think would have a problem.
You haven't seen buildings being demolished ? Try putting the search term 'building demolition' or 'highrise demolition' into the search bar of a popular video hosting website, there is one called 'you tube' you could try.Seeing ad I have not seen any text book demolitions on that scale, I am a bit skeptical of that claim. What are the comparisons?
Wireless explosives, lets see. What can possibly go wrong, there had been enough commentary over the years by actual real experts, that would exclude those AE for truth, and the undertaking would not go in noticed.
Even ninja demo experts I think would have a problem.
Then you can compare it to the footage of a video on the same website that will be called something like 'WTC7 collapse' and see if they look similar.
Jeez.
And I can't help with your ninja's , sorry.
(Edited to add the 7 after WTC)
Edited by Shuvi McTupya on Wednesday 21st June 22:24
Thing is, your premise that is looks exactly like a demolition, well, the building did collapse, gravity does what it does when support is removed. The method was different and unless you can show me that the set of circumstances that are proposed cannot ever do this, then there is more than one way to bring a building down.
Wow, who'd have thunked it.
Not being an expert, I listened to those that are. There has been enough commentary from them over the years.
And I stand by Ninja's. Well, I would but you can never see the clever buggers so I might not be standing by them.
DanL said:
ou're not going to like it as it was built a couple of decades earlier than WTC 7, but this will have to do from a quick Google. A tower block that was on fire, and collapsed - I expect it will have been a concrete and steel building, as that's pretty much the way you build tall things.
It's a link that's been shown elsewhere in the thread, but having watched it, it saves me some typing - you may want to watch this video which covers the collapse of WTC 7. This asserts that fire had been burning unchecked for many hours.
This document here gives some of the UK fire resistance requirements for buildings. As you can see in table A2, these days in the UK you'd need to design a tall building to withstand 120 minutes of fire, and it would have to have a sprinkler system installed. Given this, a building remaining standing and on fire for many hours before it collapses with no sprinkler system in operation is actually quite good going.
I'll stop at this point - I'm on holiday from tomorrow, and I'm sure you can do further Googling yourself and make your mind up one way or another. Just consider that your conspirators are supposed to be very powerful people who can sway opinion and arrange for people to be vanished. Given that, would it not be easier to sway public opinion by any number of other means? In point of fact, if they're that powerful why do they need to sway public opinion at all?
I didn't want to be all picky about the building but a steel framed building is kind of a pre-requisite. otherwise we are comparing apples to lemons.It's a link that's been shown elsewhere in the thread, but having watched it, it saves me some typing - you may want to watch this video which covers the collapse of WTC 7. This asserts that fire had been burning unchecked for many hours.
This document here gives some of the UK fire resistance requirements for buildings. As you can see in table A2, these days in the UK you'd need to design a tall building to withstand 120 minutes of fire, and it would have to have a sprinkler system installed. Given this, a building remaining standing and on fire for many hours before it collapses with no sprinkler system in operation is actually quite good going.
I'll stop at this point - I'm on holiday from tomorrow, and I'm sure you can do further Googling yourself and make your mind up one way or another. Just consider that your conspirators are supposed to be very powerful people who can sway opinion and arrange for people to be vanished. Given that, would it not be easier to sway public opinion by any number of other means? In point of fact, if they're that powerful why do they need to sway public opinion at all?
Re the video. I have not seen that explanation before and it is quite convincing. But, they state it as a fact when the official report does not agree with it, so I guess that makes it just another theory
Have a good holiday, and thanks for not resorting to name calling !
jmorgan said:
Re demolishing buildings. Yep, seen them. Me an expert? Nope. Are you? This your perceived opinion or expert opinion?
Thing is, your premise that is looks exactly like a demolition, well, the building did collapse, gravity does what it does when support is removed. The method was different and unless you can show me that the set of circumstances that are proposed cannot ever do this, then there is more than one way to bring a building down.
Wow, who'd have thunked it.
Not being an expert, I listened to those that are. There has been enough commentary from them over the years.
And I stand by Ninja's. Well, I would but you can never see the clever buggers so I might not be standing by them.
I understand that the ninjas had their annual convention last week, and as usual, no ninjas were seen.Thing is, your premise that is looks exactly like a demolition, well, the building did collapse, gravity does what it does when support is removed. The method was different and unless you can show me that the set of circumstances that are proposed cannot ever do this, then there is more than one way to bring a building down.
Wow, who'd have thunked it.
Not being an expert, I listened to those that are. There has been enough commentary from them over the years.
And I stand by Ninja's. Well, I would but you can never see the clever buggers so I might not be standing by them.
I am definitely not an expert in demolition and never said I was so I too have to base my opinions on what experts gave to say and thousands of them do not agree with each other so where do we go from here?
Shuvi McTupya said:
I am not a demolition expert,
You are clearly correct!Shuvi McTupya said:
but I suspect that If 'special ops' wanted to demolish something they could do it much more quickly and discretely than a normal contractor that has to keep the mess and noise to a minimum,
Special Ops eh? Why would any any military "special ops" organisation, have this type of demolition in their capability scope? Of course you could never answer that question from an informed POV, so allow me. They would not! Deploying boots on the ground to conduct demolitions on skyscrapers is not a military objective.Shuvi McTupya said:
and they quite probably (definitely) can operate explosives wirelessly.
Yes they can, but to negate the use of det cord between charges, every charge would need it's own receiver and electrical detonator. Can you imagine how many points of failure there could be when using 100s if not 1000s of charges? Not practical.Shuvi McTupya said:
Still quite an undertaking, but that Doesn't make it impossible.
WTC7 looked like a textbook implosion/demolition , that can not be denied.
While I have my doubts about some of the things we were told, I don't have an alternative theory.
The whole conspiratory falls due to a lack of motive which could not be easily achieved without the need to go to such lengths.WTC7 looked like a textbook implosion/demolition , that can not be denied.
While I have my doubts about some of the things we were told, I don't have an alternative theory.
stevesingo said:
The whole conspiratory falls due to a lack of motive which could not be easily achieved without the need to go to such lengths.
I can't argue with a lot of what you are saying but I suppose I could address the motive part.What would the benefit be of demolishing WTC7, surely the twin towers would have been all the justification required to go to war. ( we probably should have gone to war with the country the attackers came from though)
I seem to remember at the time there were quite a number of high level financial/banking fraud investigations going on at the SEC, may have been stuff like Enron involved and the evidence was lost on 9/11 as it was stored in WTC7. I seem to remember a figure of $2 Trillion dollars was mentioned. Those investigations haulted abruptly as all the evidence was lost.
Also the main inhabitant of the building (30 or 40 floors) was a company chaired by Donald Runsfeld and also had Dick Cheney on the board, and those two are dodgy buggers
I really can't remember what I had 'researched' ( read on God knows what web sites) at the time and to be honest I am not interested enough to start looking again.
Don't know why I got involved with this thread to be honest.. I don't have the energy anymore
Shuvi McTupya said:
I understand that the ninjas had their annual convention last week, and as usual, no ninjas were seen.
I am definitely not an expert in demolition and never said I was so I too have to base my opinions on what experts gave to say and thousands of them do not agree with each other so where do we go from here?
I understand that the pro demolition experts are not as numerous as you think, the number that do not prescribe to the few is in order of magnitudes larger than the pro gubbmint did it. Either way they have a means to prove it but they cannot, that is in a court of law or by a method that convinces the many other people that are more qualified. They rattle around on the web or at conventions where they flog DVD's and books. (I have followed their antics with interest over the years, cringing).I am definitely not an expert in demolition and never said I was so I too have to base my opinions on what experts gave to say and thousands of them do not agree with each other so where do we go from here?
One lot for example, that bunch calling themselves AE for truth (or whatever), are rather less numerous than the multitude that share their profession. The "experts" I have heard say it was controlled, can be shown to be taking out where the sun don't shine. I can follow the technical arguments. And they cannot deliver, and will not deliver.
This particular bunch like thermite for example. Again you can follow those arguments and find out they are talking out the nether regions. One claim could not provide any provenance for the sample they held up as the proof.
Same for all the rest of the arguments for a controlled. They do not pass muster, will not, and will ever be the realms of DVD and book sales.
Where do we go. Well, the pro demolition lot will continue to shuffle around web forums and going to events and wasting money on DVD's and books sold by "experts".
Makes mental note. Find those buyers and sell them insurance, second hand cars and tarmac their drives, pay now, I will be around on Monday to do it.
@Shuvi
You should watch this video. It's quite enlightening.
[url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXWhQ2cY5sE[/url]
You should watch this video. It's quite enlightening.
[url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXWhQ2cY5sE[/url]
jmorgan said:
I understand that the pro demolition experts are not as numerous as you think, the number that do not prescribe to the few is in order of magnitudes larger than the pro gubbmint did it. Either way they have a means to prove it but they cannot, that is in a court of law or by a method that convinces the many other people that are more qualified. They rattle around on the web or at conventions where they flog DVD's and books. (I have followed their antics with interest over the years, cringing).
One lot for example, that bunch calling themselves AE for truth (or whatever), are rather less numerous than the multitude that share their profession. The "experts" I have heard say it was controlled, can be shown to be taking out where the sun don't shine. I can follow the technical arguments. And they cannot deliver, and will not deliver.
This particular bunch like thermite for example. Again you can follow those arguments and find out they are talking out the nether regions. One claim could not provide any provenance for the sample they held up as the proof.
Same for all the rest of the arguments for a controlled. They do not pass muster, will not, and will ever be the realms of DVD and book sales.
Where do we go. Well, the pro demolition lot will continue to shuffle around web forums and going to events and wasting money on DVD's and books sold by "experts".
Makes mental note. Find those buyers and sell them insurance, second hand cars and tarmac their drives, pay now, I will be around on Monday to do it.
I will say that I agree with your feelings about anyone making a living from 'preaching the truth' they are generally not to be trusted. My problem is I guess I don't really trust the establishment much more, and being a bit anti establishment I am between a rock and a hard place! One lot for example, that bunch calling themselves AE for truth (or whatever), are rather less numerous than the multitude that share their profession. The "experts" I have heard say it was controlled, can be shown to be taking out where the sun don't shine. I can follow the technical arguments. And they cannot deliver, and will not deliver.
This particular bunch like thermite for example. Again you can follow those arguments and find out they are talking out the nether regions. One claim could not provide any provenance for the sample they held up as the proof.
Same for all the rest of the arguments for a controlled. They do not pass muster, will not, and will ever be the realms of DVD and book sales.
Where do we go. Well, the pro demolition lot will continue to shuffle around web forums and going to events and wasting money on DVD's and books sold by "experts".
Makes mental note. Find those buyers and sell them insurance, second hand cars and tarmac their drives, pay now, I will be around on Monday to do it.
Whatever the truth, I will always believe that the wars we are seeing are nothing to do with helping the poor down trodden in far flung countries and everything to do empire building/resource control/ the petrodollar etc. So I am coming from a standpoint of 'knowing' that we are being lied too from at least one side and quite probably the other side too
limpsfield said:
Shuivi is keeping it light but *so* wants to believe the conspiracies.....come on someone, help him out!
I think you are onto something. I need help! I went into quite a dark place a decade ago after spending way too much time looking at all this s
t and I know I don't want to revisit that place. But...gah..I just don't know
Nanook said:
'Yeah, he was friends with Bush. Well, with the family, they probably never even met.
But he was in the country, in the US, getting treatment. Maybe, I mean, there's no proof, but if you google it you'll find someone saying it's true.'
Conclusive. I'm convinced.
So let me get this right. President Bush is supposed to have framed Osama Bin Laden for a terrorist attack Bush committed, and the evidence is that Bush and Bin Laden are best mates and the attack was faked.But he was in the country, in the US, getting treatment. Maybe, I mean, there's no proof, but if you google it you'll find someone saying it's true.'
Conclusive. I'm convinced.
Shuvi McTupya said:
I will say that I agree with your feelings about anyone making a living from 'preaching the truth' they are generally not to be trusted. My problem is I guess I don't really trust the establishment much more, and being a bit anti establishment I am between a rock and a hard place!
Whatever the truth, I will always believe that the wars we are seeing are nothing to do with helping the poor down trodden in far flung countries and everything to do empire building/resource control/ the petrodollar etc. So I am coming from a standpoint of 'knowing' that we are being lied too from at least one side and quite probably the other side too
Classic conspiracy theorist.Whatever the truth, I will always believe that the wars we are seeing are nothing to do with helping the poor down trodden in far flung countries and everything to do empire building/resource control/ the petrodollar etc. So I am coming from a standpoint of 'knowing' that we are being lied too from at least one side and quite probably the other side too
Dr Jekyll said:
So let me get this right. President Bush is supposed to have framed Osama Bin Laden for a terrorist attack Bush committed, and the evidence is that Bush and Bin Laden are best mates and the attack was faked.
I suspect that the alternative theory you are grasping for would be closer too:We really need a bogey man..who can we have?
How about Osama,
Hey Os, you are about to die anyway, do you mind if we accuse you if being a terrorist and I guarantee we won't attack your country, We will just take out Iraq and secure the bits of Afghanistan we need for our pipeline.
Oh, and don't worry about repercussions on your family, we will make sure we get them all safely out of America as soon as the s
t hits the fan.HTH.
Edited by Shuvi McTupya on Thursday 22 June 20:14
Dr Jekyll said:
So let me get this right. President Bush is supposed to have framed Osama Bin Laden for a terrorist attack Bush committed, and the evidence is that Bush and Bin Laden are best mates and the attack was faked.
I suspect that the alternative theory you are grasping for would be closer too:We really need a bogey man..who can we have?
How about Osama,
Hey Os, you are about to die anyway, do you mind if we accuse you if being a terrorist and I guarantee we won't attack your country, We will just take out Iraq and secure the bits of Afghanistan we need for our pipeline.
Oh, and don't worry about repercussions on your family, we will make sure we get them all safely out of America as soon as the s
t hits the fan.HTH.
Edited by Shuvi McTupya on Thursday 22 June 20:19
Hainey said:
There are a lot of large tunnels in the area as well that are used by the military, thought to actually connect bases but who can say for sure? That would be impossible to prove but not unrealistic.
The only reason I know is because it was a UK company that built the tunneling machines for the same back in the 80's.
I worked for a UK company that built tunnelling machines in the early eighties. Not sure how many companies were doing it, but my place was called Stafford Fabrications, in, er, Stafford.The only reason I know is because it was a UK company that built the tunneling machines for the same back in the 80's.
They were pretty complex bits of kit.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff