9/11 conspiracy theories with evidence, 2020 edition

Dohnjoe

Let's try this again..

Provide your conspiracy theory for 9/11. Since the last thread turned into a bit of a train-wreck, some simple rules to avoid that (if mod permits)

1. Be able to provide basic details/timeline for the theory
2. Supporting evidence only
3. Avoid "proof by denial"
4. No mentions of the NIST/Hulsey (for everyone's sanity or else it just turns into a NIST-denial-fest or Hulsey sideshow)

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Let's try this again..

Provide your conspiracy theory for 9/11. Since the last thread turned into a bit of a train-wreck, some simple rules to avoid that (if mod permits)

1. Be able to provide basic details/timeline for the theory
2. Supporting evidence only
3. Avoid "proof by denial"
4. No mentions of the NIST/Hulsey (for everyone's sanity or else it just turns into a NIST-denial-fest or Hulsey sideshow)

You don't understand the evidence so far, explaining in depth for you is a waste of time. You deny it anyway

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You don't understand the evidence so far, explaining in depth for you is a waste of time. You deny it anyway

This is not a private forum, if someone wants to provide a theory for everyone, go ahead. If not, fine.

Overheal

Off topic post moved

NackJapier

If you have evidence of something it's not really a conspiracy theory.

Cheerful Spring2

NackJapier wrote: »

If you have evidence of something it's not really a conspiracy theory.

For decades UFOs was a conspiracy. And supporters were attacked for it worse than 9/11.

Now the US navy and Pentagon openly admits there is advanced craft in the sky they can't identify.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Kingmob gaslights every poster who disagrees with him. He is allowed to do it and not warned to cut it out. This is a conspiracy forum. Is there a moderator who actually believes conspiracies are real?

Ufos, jfk and 9/11 example?

Gaslighting is completely ubiquitous to the nature of Conspiracy Theories. I would need a more detailed argument than this to conclude gaslighting is an infraction. The very nature of the 9/11 conspiracy or family of conspiracies in particular is to thrust upon the public the idea that they are mistaken in their “memory, perception, or judgment” of the events of 9/11. If I had to infract a skeptic for gaslighting I’d have to infract every truther for expressing their viewpoint about 9/11. Heck, I’d have to card you in particular a lot.

You also haven’t been reporting any posts. So, I have no idea where to examine posts for specific instances of gaslighting which you find objectionable.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Gaslighting is completely ubiquitous to the nature of Conspiracy Theories. I would need a more detailed argument than this to conclude gaslighting is an infraction. The very nature of the 9/11 conspiracy or family of conspiracies in particular is to thrust upon the public the idea that they are mistaken in their “memory, perception, or judgment” of the events of 9/11. If I had to infract a skeptic for gaslighting I’d have to infract every truther for expressing their viewpoint about 9/11. Heck, I’d have to card you in particular a lot.

You also haven’t been reporting any posts. So, I have no idea where to examine posts for specific instances of gaslighting which you find objectionable.

This is a typical Kingsmob response. This is a guy who thinks he has superior intellect and nobody understands 9/11 like he does. Refuses to watch a 10 minute video that supports Weiss posts:)

Dohnjoe

Just theories thanks

The Nal

NackJapier wrote: »

If you have evidence of something it's not really a conspiracy theory.

Not really. Look at Chappaquiddick. I dont think Ted Kennedy was in the car. Thats not the official story but my theory is that there was a conspiracy to protect him and his career over the truth. And theres lots of evidence to support that theory and more importantly nothing that can debunk the theory.

Overheal

The Nal wrote: »

Not really. Look at Chappaquiddick. I dont think Ted Kennedy was in the car. Thats not the official story but my theory is that there was a conspiracy to protect him and his career over the truth. And theres lots of evidence to support that theory and more importantly nothing that can debunk the theory.

I’d not mind a thread about this since that incident is not something I’m really read up on. It only ever comes up as an abusive talking point during partisan sh!tposting

The Nal

Overheal wrote: »

I’d not mind a thread about this since that incident is not something I’m really read up on. It only ever comes up as an abusive talking point during partisan sh!tposting

Dunno if a thread is needed but here are my thoughts on it. And a link to an excellent if dated documentary.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showpost.php?p=111590162&postcount=3333

weisses

Lets try it this way

Free fall is impossible ...NIST is lying

my supporting evidence is the animation below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc

Nowhere is freefall discussed ... models showed display a progressive collapse .... where is the evidence of freefall ??

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Lets try it this way

Free fall is impossible ...NIST is lying

my supporting evidence is the animation below



Nowhere is freefall discussed ... models showed display a progressive collapse .... where is the evidence of freefall ??

Even if all that was true, and it's not, it's not evidence of an inside job. It's only evidence of the NIST getting something wrong.

Also, if it's freefall it shows that the most common conspiracy explanations are impossible.

So the explanation can't be that they were covering up some kind of funny business with the collapse.

Also it doesn't make internal sense as there's no reason for why the NIST would first deny the existence of free fall or then confirm it's existence after denying it.
There's also no reason for how the NIST's mistake would be ignored by the other organisations of enginneers and architects or the people who peer reviewed and published the NIST's work or cited it in further publications.
And since we know that NIST can't have been covering something up, any or all of those people would have called them on it.

So the explanation can't be that they were just wrong and made a mistake.

What other explanation is there?
Is it possible that you are just misinterpreting things about a topic you don't understand?

Again, as Dohnjoe points out, poking holes in the NIST's report doesn't actually help support a conspiracy theory.
Poking holes in the NIST's report is not supporting evidence for a conspiracy.
It's just denialism.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Free fall is impossible ...NIST is lying

According to you.

If you personally can't grasp something, that isn't evidence against it.

On 9/11 buildings fell down

All the evidence and (proper) investigations form a definitive conclusion: fire. This consensus is overwhelmingly accepted by experts worldwide, taught in universities, incorporated into building codes, etc.

If these buildings didn't collapse due to fire, the only possible alternative (unless you start to believe in magic or aliens) is that these buildings were somehow destroyed by some energy weapon or demolition.

Maybe it was blown up..

But that must be demonstrated.

Engaging in repeated denial of the event or "I don't get it, therefore something else happened" is illogical and meaningless. If you continue to engage in that sideshow it means you literally don't understand this.

If you can't understand a concept as basic as that..

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to you.

If you personally can't grasp something, that isn't evidence against it.

Incorrect ... It is NIST its own investigation that rules out free fall Look at the video I posted, It clearly demonstrates a progressive collapse .... They state it was a progressive collapse ... Their thermal imaging only showed significant fires on one side of the building, their computer model on which they base their hypothesis on doesn't allow for free fall

So no ..not my opinon ...Its what NIST stated

So yes NIST is lying and I provided evidence as to why

Back to you

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Even if all that was true, and it's not, it's not evidence of an inside job. It's only evidence of the NIST getting something wrong.

Right now I am not arguing it was an inside job I am indeed arguing NIST got it wrong, and you seem to agree with me.

What do you believe NIST got wrong and what are the consequences of that error ?

King Mob wrote: »

Also, if it's freefall it shows that the most common conspiracy explanations are impossible.

It makes NIST hypothesis less credible also

And if its freefall NIST was pointed out to that fact by an in your eyes conspiracy theorist.. Just the Irony of that alone

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Incorrect ... It is NIST its own investigation that rules out free fall Look at the video I posted, It clearly demonstrates a progressive collapse .... They state it was a progressive collapse ... Their thermal imaging only showed significant fires on one side of the building, their computer model on which they base their hypothesis on doesn't allow for free fall

So no ..not my opinon ...Its what NIST stated

So yes NIST is lying and I provided evidence as to why

Back to you

But none of what you report is accurate.

Even if we pretend it was, it doesn't make any sense.
There's no reason for the NIST to lie in their own report. It's been proven that there was no demolition, so there's nothing for them to hide.
If they did lie, they would be exposed easily when the NIST report was peer reviewed and/or cited in the dozens of following peer reviewed papers.
It doesn't make sense for why they would rule out free fall or why they would then also confirm it after ruling it out.

Can you explain any of those issues?

If not, then we can exclude the possibility that the NIST lied.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Right now I am not arguing it was an inside job I am indeed arguing NIST got it wrong, and you seem to agree with me.

What do you believe NIST got wrong and what are the consequences of that error ?

No, I don't agree with you. I don't believe the NIST got anything wrong in this case.
I believe you are misrepresenting things because you don't understand them.

I was offering a hypothetical.
This is an imaginary situation used for the sake of argument.

weisses wrote: »

It makes NIST hypothesis less credible also

Not really.

It does however disprove all of the conspiracy theory explanations.

Do you now accept that?

weisses wrote: »

And if its freefall NIST was pointed out to that fact by an in your eyes conspiracy theorist.. Just the Irony of that alone

Sorry, this sentence doesn't make any sense. Try again?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No, I don't agree with you. I don't believe the NIST got anything wrong in this case.
I believe you are misrepresenting things because you don't understand them.

I was offering a hypothetical.
This is an imaginary situation used for the sake of argument.

But it is true ..I provided evidence as to why I believe that... Maybe you should focus on that instead of losing yourself in hypothetical,s and imaginary scenarios [/QUOTE]

weisses

weisses wrote: »

But it is true ..I provided evidence as to why I believe that...

Yes. And that evidence stems form a bizarre misrepresentation about a topic you don't understand.
The evidence comes from a group that supports a theory that you've agreed is impossible.

And even then, if we ignore all that, and assume that you've actually shown the NIST lied, it doesn't make sense.
You haven't address any of those issues and it looks like you're going to keep ignoring them.

So since you can't explain those problems, we've proven the NIST didn't lie.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But none of what you report is accurate.

It is .... Just look at the evidence

Thats why I posted in here .. And yet here you go again using an argument that obfuscated the main issue

Post here in detail as to why I am wrong in my analysis.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. And that evidence stems form a bizarre misrepresentation about a topic you don't understand.
The evidence comes from a group that supports a theory that you've agreed is impossible.

I posted a video here that comes directly from NIST, Just to prevent silly replies like the one above

Try to keep up this time

weisses

weisses wrote: »

It is .... Just look at the evidence

Yes, I have looked before.

weisses wrote: »

Post here in detail as to why I am wrong in my analysis.

Why? I've already explained this, and you are not actually addressing any of points made to you?

Bit hypocritical I think.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

And even then, if we ignore all that, and assume that you've actually shown the NIST lied, it doesn't make sense.

Stick to the facts ... stop with the airy fairy assumptions ... This thread is about evidence ...Or lack of I should say

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, I have looked before.


Why? I've already explained this, and you are not actually addressing any of points made to you?

Bit hypocritical I think.

More obfuscating

You explained nothing other then hypothetical BS and imaginary scenarios.

I try again ..baby steps this time

first point: Does the NIST collapse computer model allow for free fall yes or no? simple question which has not been answered really

weisses

weisses wrote: »

This thread is about evidence .

Yes, evidence for conspiracy theories.
Of which you've none.

And my post explains why what you have posted doesn't support you claims either as they don't make sense.

You can't explain why the NIST would lie or any of the other plot holes that result from your theory.

So we have to exclude the possibility the NIST lied.

Another explanation is that you are misrepresenting things because you don't understand them.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

More obfuscating

You explained nothing other then hypothetical BS

Yes I have explained it many times.
You just ignore when people explain things to you and they dodge points.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

You just ignore when people explain things to you and they dodge points.

Unfortunately there are no points to dodge ...

You have to make one first

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Unfortunately there are no points to dodge ...

You have to make one first

There's no reason for the NIST to lie in their own report. It's been proven that there was no demolition, so there's nothing for them to hide.
If they did lie, they would be exposed easily when the NIST report was peer reviewed and/or cited in the dozens of following peer reviewed papers.
It doesn't make sense for why they would rule out free fall or why they would then also confirm it after ruling it out.

Can you explain any of those issues?
Can you point to where you've addressed these?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, evidence for conspiracy theories.
Of which you've none.

Yes NIST lied when they produce their 3 stage collapse theory, because it conflicts with their other theory.I do not know as why they would do that other then to save face, or having to really look into CD.

The evidence is their whole investigation vs their admittance to free fall.. Because as evidence is showing the first leaves no room for the latter.

Or dont you understand the evidence ?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

There's no reason for the NIST to lie in their own report. It's been proven that there was no demolition, so there's nothing for them to hide.

That is a cop out because it was never really investigated

King Mob wrote: »

If they did lie, they would be exposed easily when the NIST report was peer reviewed and/or cited in the dozens of following peer reviewed papers.
It doesn't make sense for why they would rule out free fall or why they would then also confirm it after ruling it out.

And yet their own investigation rules that out ...

Can you explain any of those issues?

I did by referencing directly to their own investigation

weisses

Just in case you missed this one

first point: Does the NIST collapse computer model allow for free fall yes or no? simple question which has not been answered really

quickbeam

weisses wrote: »

Just in case you missed this one

first point: Does the NIST collapse computer model allow for free fall yes or no? simple question which has not been answered really

Mod: Please stay on topic.

Dohnjoe

Alternative theories only please

mr_fegelien

Here's an interesting image I saw on 4chan. True or not?

mr_fegelien

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Here's an interesting image I saw on 4chan. True or not?
]

This image is very silly and contains mostly distortions and half truths.
It presents debunked and ridiculous arguments like the "pull it" thing.
It does not present a coherent theory and neither are you.

I'm not sure what you find interesting about it or why you would believe something you found on 4chan.