[Closed] Conspiracy theorys......does anyone believe them?

Oddly enough, the "London Times" website has no such article in its archives

Here is a link to the original Times article (doesn't work but I'm not sure if that's just because I'm not a Times subcriber ):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,63-132939,00.html

Here is page purporting to be a copy of the article:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/timesonline_gold.html

Here is a PBS story about them [b]successfully recovering[/b] the gold and silver from WTC 4:
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_property_01.html

Along with pictures of them doing just that:
[img] [/img]

Here is a New York Times story about the same thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-vault-below-ground-zero-silver-and-gold.html

kaesae - Well, why don't you offer us the benefit of your research. Independently verifiable info from sources that people might trust. So far, in all your threads, you've not managed to do this. Please, just this time, for us. Pretty please?

Kaesae- you need to chill a bit, go for a ride or two, all this angst about the world will only make you ill

When you research something you gather facts, the place that each fact relative to what you are researching comes from, is called a source. Once you identify information relative to what you are researching you then need to verify it and incorporate it into the picture you are building of the events or circumstances, of what has occurred.

I think you mean you gather 'evidence based opinions' for a start off.

Now now... Can everyone be respectful and pleasant when debating paranoid, delusional, crackpot conspiracy theories please?
No personal abuse or insults - no matter how bonkers the opinion you are addressing is.

The idea is they won't collapse. With all sorts of torsion loads and even with some of the structure removed.

Quite obviously the torsional load capacity of the TTs was not exceeded (designed for massive windshear ) or they would have toppled immediately on impact. The "redundant structure" design was able to withstand the removal of large structural components, ie load shifting, because they stood for quite some time after with gaping holes in the side. The remaining structure was quickly weakened by the large fire and eventually something gave, with all the structure now in play and nothing redundant down it comes as a structural failure..

The only direction all that mass could go is strait down. As the upper floors fell through the rest of the building pulverised debris flew out in all directions damaging buildings and killing people 100s of meets away. A neat and tidy demolition style collapse it was not.

Did anyone else see the planes too? Or were my eyes laser hologramed by "them"?

nealglover, common sense? I do not think that means what you think that means!

Oh I'm pretty sure it does.

When you research something you gather facts, the place that each fact relative to what you are researching comes from, is called a source. Once you identify information relative to what you are researching you then need to verify it and incorporate it into the picture you are building of the events or circumstances, of what has occurred.

Yes.

And [b] common sense[/b] tells me that YouTube videos, posted by random people on the Internet are not a Credible Source of Information.

You may think differently, that's up to you.

But if you try and prove a point by posting a YouTube video, you will more than likely find that I am not alone in thinking that all it proves is that there are some very misinformed people with YouTube accounts, and some others who are willing to believe the shit they post on YouTube.

Not sure about a lot of that, amv, but there's been reams and reams written about it, some reasonable some not, we're not going to replicate it all here.

A neat and tidy demolition style collapse it was not.

WCT7 was. Incredibly tidy, incredibly neat and incredibly quick. No planes either.

 

Hello

This 9/11 thing is something i have to deal with on a profesional level on an almost daily basis and has become something of a joke amongst the designers and engineers i work with.

If you consider in designing a tall steel frame building you will have to make considerations that under certain circumstances it will remain standing, then the considerations should have changed following the publication of the NIST report into why the WTC towers fell over. That is. A combination of impact trauma and office fires given the right set of circumstances can weaken steel structures to such and extent that they will fail.

NO.

This is not a consideration. Wasnt before. Wasnt immediately after. Wasnt now.

If 1 of the largest steel frame buildings on the planet collapse through impact and fire then this deserves to be forensically investigated because that then informs future design. If 2 of the largest steel frame buildings collapse on the same day within hours of each other then that surely warrents forensic examination of the steel structure. If a third building then collapses from fire alone (WTC 7 no great impact trauma)on the same day this really should be properly investigated so that the lessons learned are incorporated into future designs. Nope.

Results of the NIST report are ignored in US building codes. None of the Tall structure engineers I have worked with consider the events of 9/11 to impinge on future design as they dont believe that impact and (office) fires can cause structural failures of the magnitude and (this is quite important) symmetry witnessed on 9/11.

Im a safety engineer by the way working on tall buildings (design, construction and consulting on demolition)

Incredibly quick - it took 7 hours from the initial damage [damage from impact then 7 hours of fire damage] before it collapsed.
It hard to collapse under gravity by any method other than quickly or at the speed of gravity but it took a long long time to reach that point. perhaps they lost the trigger for the demolition in all the dust?

nealglover, a source of information cannot be discredited simply by where it comes from or it's source.

To suggest that information is unreliable without first attempting to verify it or that researchers can be discredited because they own and post up their finding on you tube is simply not logical.

Information is being presented and should then be examined and either be verified thus becoming facts or discredited thus being removed from the investigation and any further consideration, unless new information is provided that means this information must be reevaluated.

To say that information provided by the media that cannot be confirmed or verified is more prevalent than information that can be independently verified, is to adhere to a belief that the truth is that which the mass corporate media report and that which is held by the majority of a society as the facts of an event, is not too be challenged. Unless you are prepared to become the target of social ridicule.

There are a great many questions to be answered if someone wants to grow in understanding and comprehension of the world we live in and also our place in it, why is it wrong to even ask these questions or challenge that which is commonly held to be true?

To suggest that information is unreliable without first attempting to verify it [...] is simply not logical.

Fair enough I suppose.

...or that researchers can be discredited because they own and post up their finding on you tube is simply not logical.

Nor fair enough.

A combination of impact trauma and office fires

"Office fire"?

Those are normally furniture, paper, plastics, that kind of thing. Not thousands of gallons of jet fuel... Not sure of the logic of spending god knows how much to protect against that. How would it even be possible? If the middle of the building is entirely on fire, what're you going to do? Emergency zipwires from the top of every building?

Actually.. that could work!

JY, I don't understand you.

gottopickapenny, that's very interesting, thank you.

Changes in building codes as a result of the investigations into the collapses is something that I would have expected and haven't seen.

Unless anyone can point me towards anything stating that they have?

Of course, who really knows who this guy is? He probably puts things on youtube.

Of course, his arguments are well constructed with logic that's hard to argue with, so I imagine people won't.

mol, no fuel in building 7. Office fire, plus impact from debris.

a source of information cannot be discredited simply by where it comes from or it's source

Given your inabilty to formulate questions, adequately research or listen to advice [ you only want confirmation of your views] and the conclusions you reach I would be surprised if anyone GAS about your "research methods". These seem to consist of listening to you tube, making outlandish claims supported with waffle about the path to true knowledge and ignoring everything else in particular the actual EVIDENCE. Personally I would describe your research methods as non existent or if i was feeling kind ill concieved.

There are a great many questions to be answered if someone wants to grow in understanding and comprehension

So those frames then

When you research something you gather facts, the place that each fact relative to what you are researching comes from, is called a source.

Okay, so what is the source for your [i]"300 billion dollars in gold goes missing"[/i] [i]fact[/i]?

It doesn't agree with what was reported.

It doesn't even agree with the YouTube video you posted, which despite it's title actually states [i]"[b]rumour has it[/b] over 160 billion dollars of gold was stored in the World Trade Centre. So where did all the gold go?"[/i] ("rumour", nice source there).

Silverstein's insurance claim was 7 billion? Wouldn't there have been a claim for the 300 billion of gold??

Unless things have changed I am pretty sure offices are designed for 3 hours of uncontrolled burning, no sprinklers and no fire service. When I left the UK I was working on a big new build on Canary warf. All the talk was aboutnew evacuation regs, not sure about structure but even 6 years after 911 none could agree on how to move fwd with numbers and widths of evacuation routes.

Kaesae, I have a question for you. Yes, a question. I know, take your time.

Aside from doing a really REALLY bad job of debating them on STW. All these horrible things you keep fretting about. What exactly are you doing about them?

Some of the issues you discussed are very very serious, some are almost certainly total boII*cks. But some have the potential to be deadly serious.

So.... what are you doing?

He mentioned on the climate thread that he has an [i]"escape plan"[/i] and [i]"I plan on going camping and climbing and hiking and canoeing as well as lots of other survival activities if I can"[/i]

I believe the next stage is usually building a bunker and buying lot of weapons. 😀

[img] [/img]

Brilliant

Has anybody noticed how Kaesae NEVER repsponds to my questions about those frames he was flogging. Now that is a conspiricy

Which probably explains his belief in conspiracies. Himself being the architect of one!

for those who are unenlightened, what is with the 'frames' ?

i think it is this thread
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/whats-this-joker-on-about

Basically,iirc, he was able to source a number of frames - he never said where and a number of folk were not convinced about the legitimacy of the frames/sources

He answered the question in much the same way he does here - lots of words but no actual answer

My talent my skill and my passion went into this frame

Drys eyes

Ahh, that threads going to provide some amusement

I realise its going to take some time to read that, but i get the gist, i feel a bit sorry for the guy in some ways, but not that much....

Holy Crap, that thread is bonkers

That thread has been bookmarked

face like a shaved gerbils ass

It just keeps on giving.

Sorry, I'll stop posting now

a classic insult , it brings strange images to my mind !

I remember watching a programme a while back, possibly C4 or the Beeb, not sure really, but it went into an enormous amount of forensic analysis about why the WTT's fell, with computer diagrams of the internal structure, and details of what fire retardant materials were used to protect the internal structure. As I recall it, while there was protection given to the steel against fire, it was inadequate when asked to protect against an impact from a passenger jet travelling at 500mph, with a full fuel load; the immense heat generated severely weakened the main steel core, and because the impacts were some way down the towers, the sheer weight of building above the fires just collapsed straight down, accelerating and crushing everything below. Modern buildings have a completely different structure now, from what I understand, using a concrete core with all services contained inside, rather than steel, as with the Towers.
This gives more detail about the most likely cause of collapse:
http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/civil/wtc.shtml
And WTC7? It wa apparently severely damaged by debris to approximately half it's height, 20 floors out of 47, and was burning pretty fiercely. It housed an electricity sub-station and generators, but no people, and because water pressure was inadequate for fire hoses to fight the main tower fires, at was decided to let it burn. Fire fighters reported creaking from the building structure some time before it fell.

That is not the full version of the insult, face like a shaved gerbils ass half way through a shit, after six months of constipation!

Good too see you lot are in your usual charming, tolerant, don't you dare criticize the media or government as they wouldn't lie to us mood.

There are no conspiracy theories, there are however a great deal of facts and a huge amount of evidence that is being ignored because it doesn't fit what you believe.

Tell me something, in your opinion what exactly constitutes actual verifiable evidence for your perspective and opinion on a subject to change?

Also when you look at a situation do you apply your mind to the situation or do you alter the situation to fit your mind or perspective on things?

Also when you look at a situation do you apply your mind to the situation or do you alter the situation to fit your mind or perspective on things?

It's dealing with unknowns. We apply Occam Razor, that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely - a form of reductive reasoning.

Conspiracy theories can arise when we forget this, or find the simplest explanation a bit boring for our febrile imagination.

A converse danger is that having "made up our mind" we refuse to re-evaluate when a new fact appears. Or are just too unimaginative to see equally viable alternative explanations.

Yes I know there is some emphasis/showmanship 😆 and because your brain cannot process the information it must be false, but some of the evidence presented and the questions being asked are quite cool!

kaesae - You'd get less abuse if you'd answer the questions asked of you.

buzz-lightyear If there are still unanswered questions, then do you think it is fair to say that we have the truth of the matter?

Atlaz, when I was younger I would go to the zoo, many times when passing the monkey enclosure. I would see them having a go at people, making noise, throwing insults the usual conduct from primitive beings, that don't know any better or are not civilized.

However their antics never got to me, at the end of the day what do they know? they are after all, only monkeys!

If there are still unanswered questions, then do you think it is fair to say that we have the truth of the matter?

What we mainly discover, is new limits to our knowledge. It's fair to say what is truth based on current knowledge. But who is in posession of [u]all[/u] the facts? Truth tomorrow may be somewhat different.

For example, consider the following timeline of scientific facts:

1976: Mars is dead planet
2012: Mars was once wet and may still be geologically active
2020: Mars once harboured indigenous life forms
2025: Mars harbours indigenous life forms

The SciFi author Arther C Clarke commented once: "If an older and respected scientist says something is Possible, he is almost certainly correct; if he says that something is Impossible, he is very likely mistaken"

For example, consider the following timeline of scientific facts:

1976: Mars is dead planet
2012: Mars was once wet and may still be geologically active
2020: Mars once harboured indigenous life forms
2025: Mars harbours indigenous life forms
2028: Mars holds inaugural Mountain bike Championship
2029: SingletrackMarsWorld forum argues about Helmets, Razors, Tyres, and Coffee...

Very funny!

Those cannot be scientific facts as two of the periods have not yet occurred.

Since a fact must be verifiable how can an event that has not yet occurred be verifiable.

Who wants to do some actual research and studying? we could look into and debate anything 😯 I just got some new books and I don't have much hope of many people wanting to actually learn something.

So do I go off and read my books or do we want to start a research club?

Atlaz, when I was younger I would go to the zoo, many times when passing the monkey enclosure. I would see them having a go at people, making noise, throwing insults the usual conduct from primitive beings, that don't know any better or are not civilized.
However their antics never got to me, at the end of the day what do they know? they are after all, only monkeys!

You are Eric Cantona, and I claim my 5€

Tell me something, in your opinion what exactly constitutes actual verifiable evidence for your perspective and opinion on a subject to change?

A Peer Reviewed paper stating a Hypothesis that has never yet been disproved by any professional ?

Would that be suitable for you ?

Here you go then.

[url] http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf [/url]

kaesae, I asked you a direct and simple question. Would you please answer it.

Since a fact must be verifiable how can an event that has not yet occurred be verifiable.

Brilliant, just brilliant.

there are however a great deal of facts and a huge amount of evidence that is being ignored because it doesn't fit what you believe

The way you then claimed it was intensity [even though the graph had intensity on it DOH and you then flew off on a tangent about extreme weather

Could it be the "fact" you said about all the missing gold, where we gave you some facts and then you ignored them?

Every thread you say something ridiculous, give "evdence" from dubious sources that rarely even support your view never mind prove it. People refute it with evidence and you just carry on or fly off on another ill defined tangent and then you have the temerity to say we cling to illusions in the face of evidence.
I cant work out which is greater your lack of self awareness or your blinding lack of any form of reasoning.

Its has to be an elaborate troll.

You are Eric Cantona, and I claim my 5€

paranoid, delusional, crackpot conspiracy theories please?
No personal abuse or insults - no matter how bonkers the opinion you are addressing is.

Do you wish us to address you the way you keep speaking to us

TBH the reason we have not is frankly we are actually genuinely worried about your well being that is how out there your views appear to folk. I am leaving your threada and I am not returning
I wish you luck

Didappointed you dont get this kaesae: When my predictions for Mars become indisputable scientific facts the truth will be very different from current truth. Just as truth in 2012 is very different from truth in 1976.

What you find is that disputable evidence of martian life which exists today is dismissed by venerable scientists as impossible because they made up their minds in 1976 that Mars is dead. I have seen this evidence and find it compelling enough to make my predictions of proof by 2020. Then the truth will shake and shift like the ground in an earthquake.

As a slight diversion from the Kaesae conversation (I expressed sincerely-meant concerns about him in the original frame and bearing threads he joined STW with).

I'll return with my own 9/11 conspiracy theory: it is quite possible that Flight 93 was shot down, rather than brought down by the actions of the passenger fighting back against the hijackers.

TBH I always thought this was far more likely than the accepted version of events. Given what had already happened how would intercepting jets have justified [i]not[/i] shooting it down? Not looked into it sufficiently to see how much evidence (phone messages from passengers etc) would discount this but the heroic retaliation seemed too perfect. Sad that I can think that, on reflection.

and getting way back to a response to a post of mine about Maxwell

But what would be the point? His death precipitated the corporate collapse, not the other way around

the missing £450million from the pension fund had come to light [i]before[/i] his death IIRC, which is why at the time I thought "how convenient", rather than forming that 'theory' after the event.

Looks like this thread has been killed.

Maybe Keasea doesn't like the way that Proper Evidence, from Credible Professional sources, that's peer reviewed and factual comes in Black and White, with loads of words, and not with pretty pictures on YouTube ?

Conspiracy makes the world go round but governments couldn't organize a b*mming in a barracks

What have 3 Para mortars got to do with this?

i think it is this thread
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/whats-this-joker-on-about

Basically,iirc, he was able to source a number of frames - he never said where and a number of folk were not convinced about the legitimacy of the frames/sources

He answered the question in much the same way he does here - lots of words but no actual answer

Thanks for that one Junkyard. I wasn't aware of kaesae's [i]interesting[/i] back story (or indeed the story about his back).

On a conspiracy theme, that thread seems to end with [url= http://www.descent-world.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2440.0 ]kaesae being banned for 82 years, 1 month[/url].

It's pretty clear he used his contacts at the Bilderberg Group to force Mark to reinstate him. 😆

The 2nd post on the DS world thread is quality and, in my case accurate.

Just as truth in 2012 is very different from truth in 1976.

Not really.. scientists don't really deal in truth.

[quote=molgrips ]Not really.. scientists don't really deal in truth.

Molly lets not get into a technical scientist debate about reducing infinite error rather than finding truth

Science is certainly looking for the truth and has a theory that is best fit and in some cases has nothing to refute it

Is evolution true ? Does DNA not actually define what species we are?

I know your point but it confuses lay people

For a moment Molly reminded me of someone else.....

I think lay people very much need to understand this principle. How many times have people cited "scientists" saying one thing then later another as proof that science is all rubbish?

If people understood that scientists are just trying to find stuff out and sharing it with the world, then it'd make much more sense. When scientists say 'we found X' it doens't mean 'X is definitely true' it means 'X is simply what we found when we did Y, make of that what you will'.

That is a fair point about scientists. Although I think it actually goes a little deep for what we are currently trying to achieve 😉

Pointing out to someone that a random YouTube clip proves nothing at all.

And that a peer reviewed paper is worth reading and understanding.

(Unless YouTube comments count as some sort of illiterate sweary Peer Review system 🙂 )

neal - well for the average foil-hatter, youtube commenters ARE their peers so I suppose it does. We next need to define a new standard for peer reviews.

Molly is right of course. But I'm aware that laypeople, unfamiliar with the concepts of science, think in-terms of absolute "truths". So I used that language to challenge that mode of thinking. With conspiracy theories, what interests us is deception.

I've experienced varying degrees of deception going on in business and politics. But the conspiracy theories tend to be elaborate. While the reality is more often rather simple.

While we are on the topic, can someone clarify what happened to The Pentagon on "9/11"?

we all know molly is right but if we say scientists [ or engineers in this case] think that the most likely scnario is that ..then the lay person goes so you cannot be sure, you dont know for definite etc

It really depends who you are speaking to whether you say truth or not IMHO

TBH conspiracist are confused enough without compounding it

conspiracist are confused enough without compounding it

It was my intention to hijack this thread so the forum's conspiracist-in-chief ran away. It seems to have worked too. Either that or he got bored, or banned 😉

then the lay person goes so you cannot be sure, you dont know for definite etc

Well of course, but that's how it is. If you start saying 'x is definitely true' then when they eventually hear y from somewhere else they either get confused or give up with the whole concept of science.

Evidence gathered by me suggests the latter is prevalent 🙂

has that evidence been reviewed by your peers and published 😉

I don't have any peers, silly.

While we are on the topic, can someone clarify what happened to The Pentagon on "9/11"?

A plane crashed into it.

A 757 I think.

Was there something more specific you were wanting ?

Trouble with that paper is that it's not evidence. It's an explanation, a theory as to what happened. Like any theory, it's backed up with some facts (eg planes, fire, collapse) and some assumptions (heat of the fire, behaviour of the steel and the concrete etc.)

And like a lot of theories, it has its supporters, but also its detractors, who question the validity of the assumptions and offer alternative assumptions, which lead to different conclusions.

The difference with the theories in this case is the arguments have become polarised into the "establishment", "sheeples" on one side and "tin hat wierdos" on the other. There's so much emotion and prejudice surrounding it that it's very difficult to discuss coldly (witness this thread) or to offer any reasoned argument to the other side without it being dismissed due to the source, rather than the content.

"Show me an article that has some persuasive arguments that isn't on a 911 truth site" (where else is it gong to be?)/ "Well they would say that wouldn't they? they're the government."

"huh, youtube"/ "huh, global media corporation"

etc. ad finitum, as per my first post!

[quote=buzz-lightyear ]
It was my intention to hijack this thread so the forum's conspiracist-in-chief ran away. It seems to have worked too. Either that or he got bored, or banned The latter. He says he "[i]can no longer enjoy the comforting, loving support I normally receive![/i]"

Trouble with that paper is that it's not evidence. It's an explanation, a theory as to what happened

The fact that its a Theory that has been agreed by the authors peers as an acceptable possibility basically means that the "truthers" who always claim that ......

"There is no way those buildings can have fallen like that unless it was controlled demolition"

Are talking crap.

And like a lot of theories, it has its supporters, but also its detractors

Does it have any Detractors that say it couldnt have happened like that ?
(that are from a relevant professional background, and have the required knowledge and access to the relevant information? )

I've not seen any.

Yes there are. Quite a few, one on this thread, apparently.

And obviously, plenty on "truth" sites, because that's where they'd be.

But that makes them inadmissable, because it's only loonies on there and you can't be a proper scientist and a loony, can you? And who are you going to find who agrees with them? Only more bloody loonies!

basically means that the "truthers" who always claim that ......

"There is no way those buildings can have fallen like that unless it was controlled demolition"

Are talking crap.

Can we stop being so absolutist, rude and and sweary? Never helps.

There are people who look at some of the assumptions which underpin the theory and point out areas where they disagree with them.

Can we stop being so absolutist, rude and and sweary? Never helps.

"Crap" is hardly rude and sweary.

This isn't a primary school is it ?

it's not evidence. It's an explanation, a theory

The theory of evolution is not evidence but that does not make it untrue or mean it isnot supported by the evidence

TBH it is hardly surprising there is some debate about what happens when we fly planes into building given how infrequently it happens

I see little reason to argue about the consequences in this case and to cite another cause with limited evidence - ie evidence of the charges, when they were placed, how,who was responsible,why etc

Fine, you're happy with the official explanation, given what you've read/been presented with.

Others aren't. Hardly surprising, given the circumstances, but no need for getting aggro about it, on either side.

I think the problem is , as this thread demonstrates, is that many conspiracists are some way form rational and therefore any conspiracist has a mountain to climb to gain respect]]
Look at the doctor and how long it took him to convince folk that stomach ulcers were an infection- still that is science if you get enough evidence you will convince them. No amount of evidence will get a conspiracist to alter their view IME- look at moon landings denier for example

Hardly surprising, given the circumstances

It is hardly surprising some folk will see a conspiracy in anything but I think there accoung is surprising

i think it is quite surprising tbh.

Isn't it time someone mentioned religion

I don't believe in an interventionist god,
But I know, darling, that you do.

You know me so well sweetheart

Sorry, got a bit over friendly there, ahem

Ahh, quality quote btw. Do like and over sulky self obsessed musician grumbling there way through life with silly floppy hair

(Unless YouTube comments count as some sort of illiterate sweary Peer Review system )