Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

No one has ever coherently detailed anything else happening on 9/11. If you have another explanation, what is it?

The US was warning that Russia might stage a false flag attack in relation to Ukraine.

The Kremlin does produce a lot of propaganda, it's no secret they are engaged in an information war with other countries, the media there is highly controlled by Moscow, there's few free press outlets remaining, they have all sorts of shady laws to punish/jail journalists. They've dismantled most legitimate opposition parties (via intimidation, house arrest, even murder). From poisoning people with polonium and nerve agents to annexing territory to meddling in elections, Putin's administration is ruthless. A man who, on a state salary, has a $100 million superyacht, a one billion dollar holiday house (guarded by the FSB) and untold wealth, his childhood friends and judo partners are miraculously wealthy also. The global press are misrepresenting this?

The Putin administration is the antithesis of everything conspiracy theorists revile. Corrupt, media-controlling, state sanctioned murder, propaganda, the whole 9 yards. But conspiracy theorists always defend Putin. That makes no sense, why is that? Because conspiracy theorists are individuals who loathe the US/West so much that they support anyone or anything who opposes the West. Ergo, they always leap to the defense of Putin, who they feel is "misrepresented" by the press, a guy who runs troll factories to spread disinformation. It's hilarious.

Same thing.

"And where is this information coming from?" - Intelligence most likely. Militaries plan for all sorts of eventualities. This is what they do. Just because a plan exists doesn't mean it's going to happen.

No one is taking it as "gospel". It's simply a warning from the US that such an attack may happen. It's a smart move to announce it rather than keep it secret, because if nothing happens then no repercussions, if it does happen, then the world will be highly skeptical of Russia.

You claimed plenty of credible conspiracy theories out there at the moment, okay, what are they?

So far I haven't seen any correct user conspiracy theory on this forum, and I've been here for years. If there are plenty circulating, okay, please share

? I'm not denying anything.

The US is claiming that the Russians are planning a false flag attack. Okay. They've given some details of it. Okay. Does that automatically mean it's 100% true? No. Doesn't mean it's untrue either. They don't need to provide "concrete" evidence to convince people on the internet and expose sources, the warning is sufficient, especially given the context.

"But the IRaQ WaR" - yes, we know, I protested the Iraq war, intelligence was abused under the Bush admin. It doesn't magically mean all intelligence by the US is wrong forever because of a cherry-picked case. On the contrary, they've repeatedly and systematically produced a lot of information that has turned out to be correct, and continues to be correct.

"The USA is no more believable than Russia" - according to your personal opinion. I don't trust anyone implicitly, especially nations under complex situations, but on the scale of credibility, depending on administration, the US is generally far higher on the scale than anything from the Kremlin. We know this from past experience.

"Next you'll be trying to tell us that declaring that an invasion is imminent is the same thing as saying that an invasion might happen" - What? No one is officially saying that Russia is 100% going to invade Ukraine.

You claimed lots of conspiracy are happening, are you going to give details of any of these?

They've threatened a butterfly farm because they believed it was some front to smuggle immigrants. These are mental dangerous people.

Okay, but it doesn't address the question fully. You gave one conspiracy (potential Russian false flag). If there are others, feel free to share.

We do have a difference of opinion, but that doesn't negate the facts. I don't particularly have a fondness for US press but they are significantly more credible than e.g. Russian outlets, most of which have considerably less press freedom than their US counterparts. Pretending they are the same is lazy false equivalence.

Oh right I thought you were referring specifically to the Russia thing.

Yup conspiracies, collusion, etc happen all the time, only have to open a newspaper. We rarely read about them here though. This forum is typically for the more fantastical and tenuous stuff.

They'll find new ones. Plenty of grifters out there who'll sweep in and give them something new to believe.

Not many of them will stop and think about why their previous beliefs failed. Fewer still will ever ask questions about the grifters feeding them shite.

Well lets just ignore the fact that Larry did not actually say that on the day or on live tv. (It was a year later in a documentary).

Could you explain why he did say this? Why do you think he admitted it? Why would he do so on the day?

What part of this conspiracy idea is "reasonable".

It sounds very impressive and like you've special secret knowledge right up until you actually think about it with any depth.

Then it becomes pretty clear that what you claim isn't actually true and doesn't actually make sense.

It collapsed due to fire. Larry Silverstein was referring to pulling the firefighters surrounding the building, which was recommended by the fire chiefs.

Of course, if you think it was a "controlled demolition", okay, care to provide details of that?

In which case, you needn't concern yourself with my thoughts (thoughts as opposed to proven facts).

Ideas tend, by their very nature, to be the forerunners of experiential verification.

I was extolling the virtues of having an imagination (on a collective human scale of course).

I doubt that my linguistic ability exceeds yours.

Lol more big words to make no actual point and to avoid a very simple question.

You prove my point.

You can't answer my questions because you haven't actually thought about your conspiracy theory. You can't provide a reasonable explanation for why Larry Silverstien would say what he said. You can't provide one because it makes no sense. Because the conspiracy theory is very dumb when you think about it for more than five seconds.

You, on top of simply being wrong about factual things like when and where the quote was made, did not think about it.

According to you, there was a giant conspiracy to secretly plant explosives throughout building 7 and on the day, the guy in charge of the building decided to randomly and for no reason tell the world that he did this.

That doesn't make any sense my dude. That's a really silly thing to claim.

Why are you holding up as a "reasonable" conspiracy theory. It's the opposite.

Again, with the big words and zero actual content.

What do you think is going to happen when people do look into building 7 and see that first of all, your initial claim was false?

What happens when they realise that the conspiracy doesn't make any sense and see that you've not actually provided any answers. In fact, you've done nothing but dodge very simple questions about your theory? (A very common thread for conspiracy theorists).

Do you expect people will be convinced that there's something to your claims by all of this?

Do you really think people are that stupid?

Honestly, if anyone is actually convinced Curious's posts, please speak up. Would love to hear the thought process there.

Lots of buildings fell down in the Great Fire of London

That's why all modern buildings are built by "The Three Little Pigs Ltd."

Right, back to the question, you have suggested "controlled demolition", what are the details of that controlled demolition?

As mentioned the investigations concluded fire, what do you know that they don't?

Because you more than hint at it in the below post

If the clues lie outside of your comfort zone, you are unlikely to notice them.

The only really serious conspiracy that I bough into was that Bush Senior arranged the hit on JFK and was rewarded with the Presidency. Quite a bit to this CT and this little snipit was what convinced me in the end

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft3eGWZd7LE

I watched a documentary once (YouTube) which put forward the theory that one of the agents in the car behind, stood up after the first shot and drew a rifle. The car accelerated and he accidentally discharged the gun. The presentation was very compelling. The evidence seemed to tie-in the agent's shot with the other shots.

And just a reminder, you've dodged several questions all because they make you uncomfortable.

We are all aware of the "clues" you presented and got wrong. You haven't presented anything outside of anyone's comfort zone.

So you think it was secretly rigged for a controlled demolition prior to Sep 11 and nobody noticed?

A person here says that Larry Silverstein did not say "a decision was made to pull it" on the day of 9/11

The same person concedes though, that Larry Silverstein himself said he said it

I apologise for there being 3 syllables in "Silverstein" and 4 in "apologise" - dats languidge 4 ya King Mob !!!!