Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

9/11 conspiracy theories with evidence, 2020 edition

  • 25-05-2020 12:32PM
    #1
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,296 ✭✭✭✭


    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)


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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 :)


  • #3
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    HugePossibleBarasingha-small.gif


  • #4
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,296 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #5
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Off topic post moved


  • #6
    NackJapier
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 14 ✭NackJapier


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


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • #8
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #9
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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:)

    514268.png


  • #10
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,296 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Just theories thanks


  • #11
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,030 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #13
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,030 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #14
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭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 ??


  • #15
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #16
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,296 ✭✭✭✭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..


  • #17
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭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


  • #18
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭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


  • #19
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #20
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • #21
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭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]


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #23
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭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.


  • #24
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭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


  • #25
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #26
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭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


  • #27
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭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


  • #28
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #29
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #30
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


Advertisement
Advertisement