Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Are there any credible conspiracy theories?
Options
Comments
-
This is an argument often used by creationists and flat earthers.I can fully understand why someone would think that this was the alternative conspiracy (not the official conspiracy theory with hijackers with boxcutters). You have to remember that both are theories after all. None of us were involved first hand to say otherwise.
Not all theories are created equal or are equally valid.
But the thing is, the official "theory" has mountains of evidence and support. There's viable theories for how everything happened with good scientific reasoning behind it. This is all dismissed as false out of hand without any evidence for this claim.It was indeed a very strange and tragic day for a very long list of reasons, contradictions and coincidences. It's mind blowing stuff for those who are honest with themselves and have taken the time to really look at this.
And because of the above, I wouldn't call someone crazy for having doubts or questions. It's perfectly natural.
For those asking for proof, names involved etc or making claims for either 'side' are being silly and disingenuous. As I said, none of us here on the internet/message boards have any real proof for either theory.
Logically, everyone should look at the events before, during and afterwards and then see which theory stacks higher.
But when you look at the conspiracy theory, we have nothing at all.
Conspiracy theorists can't even agree how the towers fell, some claiming that it was explosives, others claiming it was special secret silent explosives, others claiming it was a space laser.
In nearly 20 years, and despite all of the people who believe it, not one single solid theory has been presented.
All conspiracy theorists have been producing is terrible, false arguments like the ones presented in this thread.
"Here's an anomaly in the official story. Therefore it's a conspiracy."
And just like the examples presented in the thread, we see that these things never stand up to any scrutiny on any level. They are very rarely true and they never actually make sense in context of a conspiracy.
Do you think that the two pieces of evidence presented for a 9/11 conspiracy are convincing?
And there's plenty of conspiracy theory cranks who benefit plenty from spreading bull****.Also don't forget the old adage - Qui Bono (Who Benefits) and still does to this day.0 -
well, good job that I'm not a creationist, flat earther or a crank then!
From the get-go, anyone reading your post would think that you are trying to imply that I am. Not very civil. I haven't given my personal opinion on the matter.
As I said, there's two sides and data for both. Which is why, in these 19 years, I wouldn't be a **** and insinuate that they are crazy; no matter what theory they believe or questioned.
For the 'who benefits' at the end, its a reasonable point to highlight. Otherwise nothing in this world would happen - good, bad or otherwise.0 -
But the thing is, the official "theory" has mountains of evidence and support. There's viable theories for how everything happened with good scientific reasoning behind it.
For those who dont believe in the official theory, can you spend time providing links to the 'mountains of evidence'. Maybe this would put this tread to bed somewhat. I would guess you are tired of replying to so many of them. I know I would be.0 -
I never said you were. Nothing I said could be taken to mean that, so you conclusion is very odd.well, good job that I'm not a creationist, flat earther or a crank then!
From the get-go, anyone reading your post would think that you are trying to imply that I am. Not very civil. I haven't given my personal opinion on the matter.
I just stated that you use an argument that is very similar to yours.
They also claim that they are "presenting a theory" and claim that the official story is "just another theory".
You understand that this is a false argument in their case, right?
I assumed that this was the case since you were obviously not a creationist or a flat earther.
So why is your use of the argument more valid then theirs?
But there isn't "data" for the 9/11 conspiracy side.As I said, there's two sides and data for both. Which is why, in these 19 years, I wouldn't be a **** and insinuate that they are crazy; no matter what theory they believe or questioned.
As I pointed out, there's only poor arguments and false statements.
I asked if you found the examples presented here were convincing to you.
Could you please answer this question?
It's not very civil to ignore simple direct questions posed to you.0 -
Again, all of this evidence is easy to find in any reputable source.But the thing is, the official "theory" has mountains of evidence and support. There's viable theories for how everything happened with good scientific reasoning behind it.
For those who dont believe in the official theory, can you spend time providing links to the 'mountains of evidence'. Maybe this would put this tread to bed somewhat. I would guess you are tired of replying to so many of them. I know I would be.
It's often just rejected out of hand as all fake or manipulated or incorrect without cause or reason or evidence.
As a perfect example, we've posted literal piles of items that survived the plane crashes on 9/11.
Yet the conspiracy theorists have just ignored all of that and still persist in claiming/implying that nothing could have survived.
We've asked repeated how these items could have come to be, but we've not heard any alternative explanation for them.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry, I missed that question because it did indeed seem like you were insinuating that I was a member of the group that were were referring to. It seems a catch all used by subscribers to the official theory.
To answer, yes. Yes I would agree that there are subscribers to the alternative theory that are all over the place. Like lasers from space... Jesus.
Simply, I am not making any claims for either.
But also encourage everyone not be fooled or bullied into either aswell.0 -
Again, all of this evidence is easy to find in any reputable source.
It's often just rejected out of hand as all fake or manipulated or incorrect without cause or reason or evidence.
As a perfect example, we've posted literal piles of items that survived the plane crashes on 9/11.
Yet the conspiracy theorists have just ignored all of that and still persist in claiming/implying that nothing could have survived.
We've asked repeated how these items could have come to be, but we've not heard any alternative explanation for them.
Can you point to this evidence though? It would help them.
I agree with your example - that nothing would survive - of course items would survive.
From your point of view, say about the pentagon plane crash. What can you say to those who think it was it was incredible for a jumbo jet to bank around 270 degree and hit the only section (as we know, pentagon has 5 sides) that was worked on prior to that date. And the only camera evidence is a couple of hazy pic frames from one angle. Also, why risk banking around that low to the ground, at that speed and that level of degrees when the plane was dead on to one side. Why risk it?
You see, there are many many questions like this that the subscribers to the alternative theory would have. I dont have an answer for it. Would you?0 -
Again, nothing I said could have been taken as that kind of accusation.Sorry, I missed that question because it did indeed seem like you were insinuating that I was a member of the group that were were referring to. It seems a catch all used by subscribers to the official theory.
To me, that seems more like you were quick to take offense so you don't have to deal with the point.
You haven't dealt with the point as you've again ignored a question.They also claim that they are "presenting a theory" and claim that the official story is "just another theory".
You understand that this is a false argument in their case, right?
I assumed that this was the case since you were obviously not a creationist or a flat earther.
So why is your use of the argument more valid then theirs?
But this is not the question I asked.To answer, yes. Yes I would agree that there are subscribers to the alternative theory that are all over the place. Like lasers from space... Jesus.
I asked if you found the arguments presented in this thread were convincing.
Specifically, do you believe that the existence of one of the hijackers passports indicates a conspiracy?
Do you believe that the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 early indicates a conspiracy?
If you don't believe these claims, do you believe that they are good and/or rational arguments?0 -
As I said, none of us here on the internet/message boards have any real proof for either theory.
There are the facts, as established by thousands of investigators/experts and multiple investigations, and then there are baseless conspiracy theories, which no one can detail let alone support.
Just because an internet conspiracy theory exists surrounding an event doesn't mean the event is disputed. Just because people believe the world is flat, or that a plane flew over the Pentagon doesn't actually mean they have a case. It's not like "it could be either theory".0 -
But we have done repeatedly.Can you point to this evidence though? It would help them.
It gets ignored every time.
Yes.You see, there are many many questions like this that the subscribers to the alternative theory would have. I dont have an answer for it. Would you?
On the flip side I have many questions for each that no conspiracy theorist has ever been able to answer.
For one, it wasn't a jumbo jet.From your point of view, say about the pentagon plane crash. What can you say to those who think it was it was incredible for a jumbo jet to bank around 270 degree and
It was a Boeing 757.
The chances were 1 in 5.hit the only section (as we know, pentagon has 5 sides) that was worked on prior to that date.
What's the conspiracy explanation for this? Why do it when it exposes the conspiracy?
Because the plane was moving very fast. Security cameras of the day used low frame rates as that was all that was required for car and foot traffic.And the only camera evidence is a couple of hazy pic frames from one angle.
Also, because the cameras were to monitor foot and road traffic, they were pointed to the ground, not potential flight paths of planes.
And again, what's the conspiracy explanation? Why wouldn't they release video of the plane if they had it? The only reason they wouldn't do so is if didn't show a plane. This particular factoid only supports the idea the pentagon was struck by a missile. So unless you believe that's a viable explanation...
****ty piloting? You're assuming that that was the side being aimed for, but that's not the case. Their goal was to hit the pentagon wherever they could.Also, why risk banking around that low to the ground, at that speed and that level of degrees when the plane was dead on to one side. Why risk it?
And again what's the conspiracy explanation?
Why make them fly this flightpath that exposes the conspiracy? If they had to hit a specific side for some reason, why not start the plane off from a more direct path?
And how did they get the plane to do it? Did they tell the guy to make this flight path? Was the plane taken over by remote control?
Again, for every anomaly that conspiracy theorists can point out and it actually turns out to be true, there's probably an explanation for it, and about 5 more questions for how it come possibly fit into the conspiracy narrative.
Again, to be very clear, I don't expect you to answer any of those questions I posed, they were for illustrative purposes. Likewise I think going into the explanations I provided would be taking the thread further off topic.0 -
Advertisement
-
Again, nothing I said could have been taken as that kind of accusation.
To me, that seems more like you were quick to take offense so you don't have to deal with the point.
You haven't dealt with the point as you've again ignored a question.
But this is not the question I asked.
I asked if you found the arguments presented in this thread were convincing.
Specifically, do you believe that the existence of one of the hijackers passports indicates a conspiracy?
Do you believe that the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 early indicates a conspiracy?
If you don't believe these claims, do you believe that they are good and/or rational arguments?
Sorry again, I haven't had the time to go through this thread.
Specifically, do you believe that the existence of one of the hijackers passports indicates a conspiracy?
Do I believe? TBH, god I dont know.
Swings and roundabouts - you see, the others would ask you, that out >50 passengers on both of those two planes and 100s of items of luggage, two buildings with millions of pieces of debris, fire, smoke and rubble, what are the odds that a passport of one (of 5) would be found? So it would be which is more likely? I couldnt tell you, neither can you - that is the point they make.
Do you believe that the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 early indicates a conspiracy?
I dont know what to believe. It could surely indicate it was a part of a conspiracy. But none of us on this thread knows, obviously.
But I do remember watching that on the day - I know building 7 well as I worked very close to it for 6 months and to see the reporter saying what was said, in such detail while it was over her shoulder was quite remarkable. Is there a chance that it was just another coincidence that the subscribers of the official theory say it is? Sure, of course. Its possible.0 -
Sorry again, I haven't had the time to go through this thread.
I'll keep it simpler. When you look up a reputable source of information about 9/11 does it claim the event is disputed or a mystery? Or does it give details of who the hijackers were and exactly what happened..
Secondly, if conspiracy theories exist about an event does that automatically what we know about the event is up in the air?0 -
But you agree that the passport could have survived and could have been found.Sorry again, I haven't had the time to go through this thread.
Specifically, do you believe that the existence of one of the hijackers passports indicates a conspiracy?
Do I believe? TBH, god I dont know.
Swings and roundabouts - you see, the others would ask you, that out >50 passengers on both of those two planes and 100s of items of luggage, two buildings with millions of pieces of debris, fire, smoke and rubble, what are the odds that a passport of one (of 5) would be found? So it would be which is more likely? I couldnt tell you, neither can you - that is the point they make.
So what is the more likely explanation?
What's the conspiracy explanation for it?
So far, conspiracy theorists have been very quiet on the alternative explanation.
And again, what's the alternative explanation?Do you believe that the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 early indicates a conspiracy?
I dont know what to believe. It could surely indicate it was a part of a conspiracy. But none of us on this thread knows, obviously.
But I do remember watching that on the day - I know building 7 well as I worked very close to it for 6 months and to see the reporter saying what was said, in such detail while it was over her shoulder was quite remarkable. Is there a chance that it was just another coincidence that the subscribers of the official theory say it is? Sure, of course. Its possible.
How does it indicate that is was part of conspiracy?
What about the "level of detail" was remarkable to you?
AFAIR conspiracy theorists just point to a reporter that says along the lines of "WTC 7 has collapsed" and gives no other information.
So I'm not sure what detail you're talking about exactly.0 -
I'm dont have time, like you I'd imagine, to draw this out.But we have done repeatedly.
It gets ignored every time.
Can you show it though, it will help.
Yes.
On the flip side I have many questions for each that no conspiracy theorist has ever been able to answer.
I would say so. Theres no one here that can answer for certain.
For one, it wasn't a jumbo jet.
It was a Boeing 757.
Fair enough - Does that mean an untrained pilot can make a 757 perform that same manourver? Whats your expert opinion here?
The chances were 1 in 5.
Exactly. This is what people would question, why risk making a 270 degree maneuver when you could just stay the course.
What's the conspiracy explanation for this? Why do it when it exposes the conspiracy?
Like I said from my first post, people who subscribe to the alternative theory wonder about all these strange things. It doesnt prove one way or another.
Because the plane was moving very fast. Security cameras of the day used low frame rates as that was all that was required for car and foot traffic.
Also, because the cameras were to monitor foot and road traffic, they were pointed to the ground, not potential flight paths of planes.
And again, what's the conspiracy explanation? Why wouldn't they release video of the plane if they had it? The only reason they wouldn't do so is if didn't show a plane. This particular factoid only supports the idea the pentagon was struck by a missile. So unless you believe that's a viable explanation...
Do we know the speed that the plane was going during its decent and the frame rate of that single camera?
Again, there are those that would question why only one camera? On the most secure building on earth, or so it was thought.
****ty piloting? You're assuming that that was the side being aimed for, but that's not the case. Their goal was to hit the pentagon wherever they could.
Yes, the building itself was what they were aiming for, no? If so, why risk that maneuver?
And again what's the conspiracy explanation?
Why make them fly this flightpath that exposes the conspiracy? If they had to hit a specific side for some reason, why not start the plane off from a more direct path?
And how did they get the plane to do it? Did they tell the guy to make this flight path? Was the plane taken over by remote control?
No, I'm agreeing with you. No of that makes any sense. The point people make is, why risk it?
Again, for every anomaly that conspiracy theorists can point out and it actually turns out to be true, there's probably an explanation for it, and about 5 more questions for how it come possibly fit into the conspiracy narrative.
The point that they make is that alot anomalies exist for that day. And each one of them work in favor of the official narrative. Suggestions can be given for all of them. That's the problem for these people. The fact that there are so many and only assumptions to what the explanation is.
Again, to be very clear, I don't expect you to answer any of those questions I posed, they were for illustrative purposes. Likewise I think going into the explanations I provided would be taking the thread further off topic.
I'll be killed if I stay online on a weekend! : )0 -
From your point of view, say about the pentagon plane crash. What can you say to those who think it was it was incredible for a jumbo jet to bank around 270 degree and hit the only section (as we know, pentagon has 5 sides) that was worked on prior to that date. And the only camera evidence is a couple of hazy pic frames from one angle. Also, why risk banking around that low to the ground, at that speed and that level of degrees when the plane was dead on to one side. Why risk it?
This is a nice example of conspiracy theorist claims based on limited understanding. The practical maximum angle of bank for any aircraft is 90 degrees and it's easy to spot because one wing will be pointed straight down and the other straight up. For an aircraft to bank even just 180 degrees would effectively be to roll inverted. So they're more likely to be referring to a course change. Any aircraft can change course by 270 or even 360 degrees (which just means turning a full circle), so again the claim is probably that is did this big wide sweeping turn (and at high speed it would have to be a wide turning circle) while at almost ground level, which indeed would have taken a mind-boggling amount of skill and/or luck.
But that's never been claimed, apart from indirectly when "truthers" claim it was claimed in other to "debunk" it. The information from the NTSB was that the turn started at 8,000 feet and finished at around 2,000 feet. For comparison, if you're landing at Dublin airport and approaching from the Irish Sea for runway 28, you're at 2,500 ft when you pass level with Howth.
As for hitting a particular side of the Pentagon, even if the hijacker picked whichever side he happened to be pointing at when he leveled out of his turn, he had a one in five chance of hitting any given side. Not exactly what you'd call astronomical odds. You might as well claim a die was loaded because somebody actually managed to throw a six.0 -
I recall the fact that it was on fire in small bits.But you agree that the passport could have survived and could have been found.
Sure. Does that mean its true? Who knows. Incredible, to say the least that it was. Even I would say that.
So what is the more likely explanation?
How can anyone answer that? We are not Actuaries.
What's the conspiracy explanation for it?
Which one? The official theory or the alternative one?
So far, conspiracy theorists have been very quiet on the alternative explanation.
I think that the alternative one is that it was put there. I've read that one many times. Which, as you would agree, then opens the floor to who (again who knows), how (again who knows) etc etc etc.
But in all seriousness, If someone could calculate the odds of this, and I could only hazard a guess of it being many 1000s to 1 (maybe multiples of that), which would you believe? This incredible chance of survival and someone even finding it then pushes the overall oddity of a day into unimaginable odds number. ^^ That would be the point they would make.
And again, what's the alternative explanation?
How does it indicate that is was part of conspiracy?
What about the "level of detail" was remarkable to you?
AFAIR conspiracy theorists just point to a reporter that says along the lines of "WTC 7 has collapsed" and gives no other information.
So I'm not sure what detail you're talking about exactly.
She went on to say what the building was called offically, how many floors it had etc. I was pointing at the TV saying to my GF and mate at the time, WTF, its still there. As I said, I worked close to there. Knew the building and area well.0 -
But when we do point to them, they are ignored. We repeatedly show them.Can you show it though, it will help.
I assure you, they don't help. The issue is that conspiracy theorists aren't aware of the official explanation for things.
They can't answer because there isn't an answer. This is because the conspiracy theories aren't true and don't make sense.I would say so. Theres no one here that can answer for certain.
I'm not an expert and never claimed to be.Fair enough - Does that mean an untrained pilot can make a 757 perform that same manourver? Whats your expert opinion here?
And yes, it has been shown that the maneuver is possible and can be completely by amateurs.
I point out the fact you didn't know what type of plane was because that's an example of how some conspiracy claims are based on simple falsehoods like that.
This has been answered. Notice the lack of a conspiracy answer though.Exactly. This is what people would question, why risk making a 270 degree maneuver when you could just stay the course.
But why can't conspiracy theorists answer the question?Like I said from my first post, people who subscribe to the alternative theory wonder about all these strange things. It doesnt prove one way or another.
Yes.Do we know the speed that the plane was going during its decent and the frame rate of that single camera?
Because only one camera was pointed in the right direction to see the plane as most other cameras would be pointed at the ground near doors and foot paths, would be further away and wouldn't necessarily catch any images.Again, there are those that would question why only one camera? On the most secure building on earth, or so it was thought.
And again, this can only fit a conspiracy if you believe that it was a missile, not a plane that hit the pentagon.
Do you believe this is a viable conspirate?
Tell you what. We'll get into that more once we argee that there's no viable conspiracy explanation for it.No, I'm agreeing with you. No of that makes any sense. The point people make is, why risk it?
If you agree that this is the case, I can take more time and explain the real answer in more detail.
But many of these "anomalies" aren't anomalies.
The point that they make is that alot anomalies exist for that day. And each one of them work in favor of the official narrative. Suggestions can be given for all of them. That's the problem for these people. The fact that there are so many and only assumptions to what the explanation is.
And none of them require any kind of massive assumptions.
Conversely, the assumptions you have to make to accept the conspiracy version of events are insane, like for instance, believing that it was a missile, not a plane.
And again, many people find "anomalies" during the French terrorist attacks a few years ago and all those school shootings.0 -
Listen man, you need to learn how to use the quote function.
I can't distinguish quickly between my own post and what you are replying.
And I'm honestly not that bothered to keep doing it.
I was referring the theory presented by people who believe there was a government conspiracy behind 9/11.Which one? The official theory or the alternative one?
That was very clear in my post.
If the explanation is not that the passport etc simply survived, then how does it and all the other items exist? And how does this indicate a conspiracy?
Why is this remarkable and how do those details indicate a conspiracy?I recall the fact that it was on fire in small bits.
She went on to say what the building was called offically, how many floors it had etc. I was pointing at the TV saying to my GF and mate at the time, WTF, its still there. As I said, I worked close to there. Knew the building and area well.
And again, what's the alternative?0 -
King Mob - can you tone down the aggressive stance. There is no need for rapid fire questions in every post
Bunderoon is engaging in good faith here.0 -
Why do people have to be called "truthers" or "tin-foilers" or "holocaust deniers" or <insert slur here>?
Can you not discuss without such digs?0 -
Advertisement
-
Sure. Maybe you can start by actually engaging with points and questions rather than avoiding them.ShatterAlan wrote: »Can you not discuss without such digs?0 -
And with that, a finger can be immolated, inside a tube of fire of death......the tube of death melts a building, obliterates aluminium and steel, paper can survive it, however, and a gold ring can just be found in the dust.
:pac:0 -
And again, you're repeating a silly dishonest straw man that's been explained to you many times.ShatterAlan wrote: »And with that, a finger can be immolated, inside a tube of fire of death......the tube of death melts a building, obliterates aluminium and steel, paper can survive it, however, and a gold ring can just be found in the dust.
:pac:
At the same time, you've failed completely to show how any of this can possibly support the idea of a conspiracy.
You've done a great job showing the type of thinking behind conspiracy theories.0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »And with that, a finger can be immolated, inside a tube of fire of death......the tube of death melts a building, obliterates aluminium and steel, paper can survive it, however, and a gold ring can just be found in the dust.
:pac:
Yes, as mentioned over 200 Claddagh rings were found at ground zero. As well as perishables like the passport. Those are the facts. Apart from your incredulity, what is your basis to challenge those facts?0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »Why do people have to be called "truthers" or "tin-foilers" or "holocaust deniers" or <insert slur here>?
Can you not discuss without such digs?
I believe Truthers is a term used by 9/11 conspiracy theorists themselves. I put quotes around it without any compunction because of the outright lies I've seen them engage in. The term "<xxx> denier" was used by you in what looked awfully like an attempt to lump 9/11 conspiracy sceptics in with climate change deniers and holocaust deniers, so your hand-wringing is not terribly convincing.0 -
Yes, as mentioned over 200 Claddagh rings were found at ground zero. As well as perishables like the passport. Those are the facts. Apart from your incredulity, what is your basis to challenge those facts?
The facts, are they?
So now we have over 200 fingers that were obliterated, not just the one. How many were found actually attached to a corpse or was it a tidy little treasure trove?
:pac:0 -
Yes. This is a fact. Do you have anything to show that these rings were not in fact found or that they are somehow falsified?ShatterAlan wrote: »The facts, are they?
Do you have any answer to any of the points out to you?
Cause now it seems like you're engaging in what Dohnjoe predicted, blanket denial based on pure incredulity and ignorance.
And even then I don't think it's incredulity. I think you now understand perfectly well that items can and do survive plane crashed. I think you just weren't aware of the wealth of items recovered from WTC.
But now, you're stuck in a corner.
You can't admit it's possible for the passport to survive cause then you know your best argument for the conspiracy is gone.
But you know you can't argue that all of those items were faked or planted because you know you've no evidence or support for that and you know suggesting such a thing would put you on the level of the guys who argue for the space laser theory.
So instead, you're regressing to a tactic of denial, denial, denial.
That's fine. That's just how you have to defend you belief.
If you aren't willing to progress the discussion perhaps you can explain why you are using this tactic?
Why do you think it's effective or convincing?
Does it not cause you to doubt your position even a little bit?0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »The facts, are they?
Yes, do you have any basis to claim that they aren't?
Simple question, 4th or 5th time asking by this stage0 -
Thinking about the logistics of launching a missile at the Pentagon and making it look like a plane crash...my head hurts. It would be far easier just to fly the plane at it.0
-
Advertisement
-
That Santa doesn’t exist.0
Advertisement