Conspiracy theorys……does anyone believe them?

perhaps demolition by Jumbo jet is less predictable and a touch OTT when we have other methods?

My summary: Fishy. No idea what, how or why, but there’s plenty that doesn’t add up.

That could be because you (or I) know somewhere between very little and nothing about Structural Engineering or Demolition ?

And also the fact that you seem to have been reading websites about how it was an “inside job” (and believing some of it) ?

Maybe.

From where I was sitting the WTC did not collapse into its own footprint in a controlled nature.

From where I was sitting the WTC did not collapse into its own footprint in a controlled nature.

Where were you sitting ?

perhaps demolition by Jumbo jet is less predictable and a touch OTT when we have other methods?

Fred dibnah would have agreed with you on that one

neal, I’ve read a fair bit, because some people close to me are convinced it was an inside job, and they’ve asked questions that have piqued my interest. As I said there’s a lot of rubbish spouted as fact, lots of unbelievable stuff from every angle, some of it more easily dismissed than others.

But let’s face it, the very facts in plain view (airliners flying into skyscrapers in New York City, buildings collapsing) if they’d been a movie script a few years previously, would have been pretty far fetched, so any explanation of how it actually happened in real life needs a deep breath and a step back.

Having said all that, there’s one main thing for me. I’ve seen a few telly programmes over the years (yup, that’s the extent of my knowledge) about demolition and how incredibly complex it is and how skilled and experienced you have to be even to bring down a 10 story block of flats in London in a controlled, contained manner. Then we have 3 buildings, 2 of them 100+ stories high with planes and fires in the top, another off to one side with fires and some debris, which all collapse into their own basement in a fashion I understand to be incredibly complex and difficult to achieve. By chance. One after another.

Fishy. Doesn’t quite add up.

That’s all.

Don’t like where it ends up, but that doesn’t change that it doesn’t seem quite right.

“So you’re an expert on physics and demolition, are you?” No.

“So you’re saying George Bush did it, despite all that other stuff he got wrong?” No.

“So you’re saying…” No.

Not saying anything other than the buildings coming down in the way they did, and the official explanations of why they came down don’t add up. The uncomfortable questions that follow on from that are uncomfortable and I don’t know the answers, but that doesn’t help the fishy feeling about the initial explanations.

“tin hat”

whatever. lazy.

Not saying anything other than the buildings coming down in the way they did, and the official explanations of why they came down don’t add up

What do you disagree with in the Official Explanation of why and how the buildings came down ?

Just saying “it seems unlikely based in the small amount I think I might know” isn’t much to go on really is it.

Based on the small amount I know about riding bikes, the stuff Danny MacAskill does seems impossible.

But it still happens.

Can’t quite believe I’m doing this. Yes: ‘it seems unlikely based in the small amount I know’ .. that fire over a few floors and damage from falling debris caused this:

IN all honesty if you asked me I would say it was unlikely that planes flown into the sky scraper would cause it to collapse into its own footprint. I would have leaded to have no idea re WTC7 and what would happen

Then again
1. I know nothing about crashing planes into buildings
2. I know very little about demolition

Mm who to believe, my own ignorance or what happened?

It also took about 7 hours from the damaged caused from the fall of the North tower till that building collapsed. Any ideas as to why they waited so long to detonate the demolition job?

Yes: ‘it seems unlikely based in the small amount I know’ .. that fire over a few floors and damage from falling debris caused this:

As Junkyard said. Yes it does seem unlikely.

But then again, non of us know anything about the technicalities of the subject matter do we.

So what we see as “unlikely” doesn’t really factor very highly in what is actually possible or likely in reality.

I like to think that modern buildings are built in a way that means localised impact damage and small fires of burning plastic and paper can’t (not “are unlikely to”, but “can’t”) lead to total and complete structural failure and collapse of a large office building.

I understand that buildings are designed to withstand this, and have done (bomb attacks in CBD’s in London, USA, wherever else). I’d like to think that if it was found that building methods were found to be insufficient to withstand localised fires and impact damage without collapsing, we’d see some remedial action taking place in a great many other buildings around the world.

There’s some stuff that isn’t explained, and the stuff that could explain it better (eg: ‘buildings collapse all the time’, ‘WTC7 was terribly designed and constructed and the builders/architects have all been imprisoned following investigation’, ‘demolition “experts” are a bunch of charlatans and it’s actually a piece of piss’…) hasn’t been presented. We just get “impact damage from falling debris and fires”.

Which doesn’t seem likely to me on it’s own. And neither does it to JY or NG by the sounds of things. The absence of other explanations when there could easily be some, leaves me with a sense of unease and unanswered questions.

If it is wrong to question, then why is it wrong to question? if all that we know comes from unverifiable sources, then how do we verify that what we know is real?

If to ask questions is wrong and anyone that does ask is a fool, what exactly do you hope to learn and who prey tell will teach you it?

Nedrapier, you cannot challenge the held view on 9/11, everyone has already been told what happened in 9/11 and if the facts contradict what the media is saying, who you gonna call? CONSPIRACY BUSTERS!!!

BEHOLD YOU FOOLS FOR I SHALL ILLUMINATE THEE!!!

shit I’ve forgotten what I was going to say, something important something central to this conspiracy theory!

I like to think that modern buildings are built in a way that means localised impact damage and small fires of burning plastic and paper can’t (not “are unlikely to”, but “can’t”) lead to total and complete structural failure and collapse of a large office building.

You may be slightly misrepresenting what happened when a sky scrapper collapsed and dropped debris on the building.

I understand that buildings are designed to withstand this,

What other burning building throwing debris on them or planes crashing in to them. Why would they test for this or design them to withstand this pre it happening?

I’d like to think that if it was found that building methods were found to be insufficient to withstand localised fires and impact damage without collapsing,

You are under egging the pudding somewhat.

And neither does it to JY or NG by the sounds of things.

As i note I know nothing about buildings, structures or demolition so what I think is unlikely is because i dont know anything about it. It does make me then ignore what experts say and trust my mates interpretation.

The absence of other explanations when there could easily be some, leaves me with a sense of unease and unanswered questions.

there are other explanations there is not an absence.

Let us begin at the beggining of 9/11 anyway!

2.3 trillion dollars vanishes, the next day 9/11 happens and a shit load of computers and hard drives get taken out well thousands of computers and loads of paper records anyway, between 180 and 300 billion dollars in gold goes missing from the basement vaults. 130 million is recovered due to a van being caught in one of the explosions.

At the pentagon a plane crashes and several thousand documents go missing from an unaffected area, let me repeat that in an area not affected by the plane crash thousands of files simply vanish, the files relating to the missing trillions 😯

the facts contradict what the media is saying

“So here are two videos from the media that prove my case…” 🙂

Incidentally I reckon you CAN see the plane in that second video, about 0:09 you can see what appears to be the tail fin. Only very briefly mind you, as you might expect with a plane travelling at 500mph+ being recorded by a crappy slow frame rate CCTV camera.

Here is a clip from the you tube that provides extra info on the subject of 911, I’m not so insecure or deluded that I feel the need to prove anything.

There are countless unanswered questions and anomalies from 911, considering we went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq over this event, might not be a bad idea to look into it.

I’m not so insecure or deluded that I feel the need to prove anything.

Probably just as well 😆

Here’s a conspiracy theory for you to discuss, you can’t of course deny it!

Nice to see Kaesae joining in with his ‘evidence.’

Whilst we talk about conspiricies, I think there may have been a cover up that Kaesae could shed some light on.

Kaesae, where did you get those frames from that you were selling?

2.3 trillion dollars vanishes, the next day 9/11 happens and a shit load of computers and hard drives get taken out well thousands of computers and loads of paper records anyway, between 180 and 300 billion dollars in gold goes missing from the basement vaults.

oooh.. I like this one

international robbery and espionage.. yes please

between 180 and 300 billion dollars in gold goes missing from the basement vaults.

And isn’t it amazing that the World Trade Centre would apparently contain more gold than the purpose-built, fortified US Bullion Depository at Fort Knox.

And that nearly 5,000 metric tons of gold could go missing without anyone noticing.
It’s not like you could stuff it up your jumper.

Buildings are designed to withstand a certain amount of structural damage. Its called “load shifting”. The idea us that if one side of a building fails it doesn’t topple over like a giant game of jenga,the rest of the structure supports it. If/when the remaining structure fails the building drops vertically like a sack of spuds Which is what I saw on 911.

What happened to those buildings was well outside the design parameters.

And that nearly 5,000 metric tons of gold could go missing without anyone noticing.
It’s not like you could stuff it up your jumper.

14 Dump trucks?

can we have a comp for the most outlandish conspiracy theory -Kaesae can be judge – and can then promote it on all the sites available….

14 Dump trucks?

Which came first the Die hard Movie or the conspiracy?

allmountainventure: so you can chuck all sorts of asymmetric loads at modern buildings, and they’ll “load shift” then neatly collapse?

So you’re going for c) ‘demolition “experts” are a bunch of charlatans and it’s actually a piece of piss’ then? 🙂

Who was it who said “If there’s one thing we learn from history, it’s that we don’t learn from history.”

Does the fact that you can’t remember prove their point or show that it wasn’t worth remembering?

32 computer hardrives and $100,000,000 million missing due to illegal transfers.

Grahams the world trade center was one of the largest gold depositories in the world, true or false?

Before I forget, when you research something you look into it get facts them attempt to verify or eliminate them. I shouldn’t have to tell you this basic fact, but it’s best not to take any chances!

Anything you want to verify write down the details and then do more research!

Nice one Kaesae, more evidence in the form of a you tube video.

You may have missed my post above. The frames?

So according to the general logic on STW, youtube documentary clips with clear references to facts that can be independently verified are not in fact valid sources 😯

Grahams the world trade center was one of the largest gold depositories in the world, true or false?

Well you said it, so I guess it must be true.

I mean, obviously that doesn’t tally with what was reported, but we know the world media are all in on it, so I trust your undisclosed sources.

I was just surprised they’d keep it all there, rather than say Fort Knox or the nearby Federal Reserve Bank.

Konabunny, not sure. Possibly both, or neither! I heard it in a piece on radio 4 by an American military advisor and historian talking about the repition of mistakes in warfare, Vietnam, Afghanistan through the ages etc. Can’t remember if he was quoting someone else, though.

2.3 trillion dollars vanishes, the next day 9/11 happens

So they rigged the entire thing in one day? Pretty good work really. I’m glad that the US has such an efficient body to carry out atrocities like this. Perhaps they could teach their government (and ours) some lessons as I think it would be beneficial.

Could you, perhaps, find some non-“truther” corroboration for those videos? Or is the absence of them just proof that the truthers are right?

So according to the general logic on STW, youtube documentary clips with clear references to facts that can be independently verified are not in fact valid sources

YouTube has never been considered a valid source of evidence.

It’s not an STW thing.

It’s just common sense.

And that nearly 5,000 metric tons of gold could go missing without anyone noticing.
It’s not like you could stuff it up your jumper.

I was bought a rather baggy jumper and am strong enough to carry 5000 metric tons. Does that put me in the frame for the theft?

So according to the general logic on STW, youtube documentary clips with clear references to facts that can be independently verified are not in fact valid sources

Everyone knows that this where anyone sensible goes for actual facts and information..i mean it is not like any old tom, dick or harry can just post up any old shit now is it.
It is all verifiable facts by simply looking at other Youtubes vides or just using google as other folk have also said this.
As your posts consistently show the Internet is a veritable cornucopia of facts given out with excellent sources
Furthermore posting on Youtube or appearing on a google search is amongst the most scientifically rigorous ways to publish actual data and shames other pathetic scientific journals that just print LIES to FOOLS via the media you cannot trust

Thanks for leading us to the light

So anyone those frames and the earthquake research?

According to a Nov. 1, 2001 article in The London Times: “The Comex metals trading division of the New York Mercantile Exchange kept 3,800 gold bars—weighing 12 tons and worth more than $100 million—in vaults in the building’s [apparently Building 5—Ed.] basement. Comex also held almost 800,000 ounces of gold there on behalf of others with a value of about $220 million. It also held more than 102 million ounces of silver, worth [an estimated] $430 million.”

Oddly enough, the “London Times” 🙄 website has no such article in its archives but they definitely shouldn’t let actual facts get in the way of conspiracy facts!!!!

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

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.