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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

1242527293044

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    I have been offline for a long time. Came back a week or more ago, think.

    Rarely post never on weekdays is rare nowadays, Don't spend all my time here. That be other posters here, a couple of posters who only post here nowhere else on site. Debunkers, by the way, get away it insulting people on this space. Not last very long in main forums. Narcissism shines through all the time, but they think its normal behavior,.



  • Registered Users Posts: 665 ✭✭✭goldenmick


    I'm no expert.

    But there are enough experts out there, fully qualified in their field of structural engineering, who have given their verdict on the towers collapse - and it's in direct contradiction to yours.

    Why don't you just move on, and contribute something worthwhile to threads on here instead of beating your head against a wall with all your wild conspiracy claims. I can see a certain amount of intelligence in there... you're just not using it wisely, and instead you're leaving yourself wide open to ridicule again and again and again, on every thread and every post you make.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    I don’t believe it’s a wild conspiracy. Watch the video I posted here you see why my point is valid. Not a long video, just have a look and forget about it choose to.

    I don’t care what others think about 9/11. Be stupid to change my views based on others’ feelings about me here.

    Discussing WTC7, not the Twin Towers? Are you aware of that? Three buildings collapsed on 9/11. 




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And once again spamming the same video.

    Round and round he goes.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,013 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Oh Jesus he posted the same video again.....



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Golden. Maybe generalizing? Debunkers put in a lot of time in here to attack other individuals’ beliefs an be very insulted we don't think like them. You notice they are people who do rarely share their own feelings on topics not discussed. Only do so on a thread when there's a collective group that backs them up (hive mind thread) Behind it conveys more about them than us.

    You have a point. I do beat a dead horse about some stuff. Maybe that's a problem too, that's my issue I guess. I know what I believe and can believe what they like themselves.

    I think I take your advice to spend time off this chat. More important things currently happening are important like Ukraine. JFK and 9/11 stuff are all done for now. 



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful, other people are very direct about what they do and don't believe.

    You rarely actually ask them and instead resort to strawmen because it's more convenient to your silly arguments.


    And yes, people are attacking your beliefs because they are very silly and you aren't able to defend them in an honest and coherent way. And in the case of your holocaust denial, it's dangerous, offensive nonsense.

    We're sorry if that upsets you, but this is not a safe space for your beliefs to be protected.


    Rather than just spamming your same old shite over and over again like a drone, maybe try addressing questions?



  • Registered Users Posts: 665 ✭✭✭goldenmick



    I'm fully aware of what we're talking about. And I've seen the video before. It proves absolutely nothing as it's just a small time high school physics teacher - who is only a small time high school physics teacher because he doesn't fully understand the laws of physics.

    Senior investigative analysts and world renowned structural engineering experts have already explained away your "freefall" questioning with wholly logical explanations. So in respect of a tragedy that happened a long time ago, and the inquiry is now closed, I've no enthusiasm for responding to your conspiracy claims any further in this thread. Although it will be interesting to see what you come up with next... Noah's Ark survived the great flood because of advanced hovercraft techniques provided by the lizard people from Planet X - No-one can prove it never happened so it must be true.

    *Makes mental note*: You swore you'd never call in to the Conspiracy Theories thread ever again. Keep to your bloody word if you prefer sanity in your daily schedule.

    Edit:

    @Cheerful S - I think I take your advice to spend time off this chat. More important things currently happening are important like Ukraine. JFK and 9/11 stuff are all done for now. 

    Glad to see you're taking some good advice.

    You don't seem a bad bloke. Just confused and channeling your energies in the wrong direction. Refresh yourself, come back with a different mindset and contribute to other more important threads than nonsense like conspiracies. I'm sure you've got plenty to offer.

    Post edited by goldenmick on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    NIST changed the final report about the collapse based off what Chandler revealed to them. That’s you not knowing the full story and background. Pretty obvious see stuff like this written that you haven't looked into it at all. Base your opinion on what others tell you. Debunkers knowledge. 

    I try to stay away please do honest research. The freefall of WTC7 has never got addressed. The building can’t fall through itself at freefall. Its the falling building that crushes the bottom during a progressive collapse. Freefall building cant do any crushing, buckling, or anything if was doing these things not be in freefall

    . Ever drop a ball from a height. What would happen put a platform in the way of the ball? It slows down is that correct? What's happening inside WTC7 the building falling and interacting with nothing?



  • Registered Users Posts: 665 ✭✭✭goldenmick


    @Cheerful S - Base your opinion on what others tell you.


    I don't have no herd mentality.

    I've always been my own man. You can look at any post of mine - they are all my own thoughts. My own ideas. And I do MY OWN research... and my research tells me you're wrong. Totally wrong.

    Despite my kind words to you, it seems you just wont quit. You have to come back for more, and more, relentless on ensuring you get the last word in.

    You're a kind of sad case that seems to get some perverse pleasure from being the only wildebeest crossing a river full of crocs. You know you're going to get eaten alive but you... Just. Cant. Help. Yourself.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    How did you get to this point and believe in such nonsense a building can fall through itself at freefall, then?

    Do you not know how buildings fall?

    Show me an example of another building falling through itself at freefall and I give this up forever?

    Potential energy ( kinetic energy) from a falling building is what is destroying the rest of the building. If any of that energy from the falling building is used to destroy girders, beams floors, office stuff, that right there stops freefall. Fact that freefall occurred is undisputed evidence the falling building is not what is destroying the rest of the building.

    Something else in the building was clearing away making a path for the building to fall at freefall. 



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,013 ✭✭✭✭The Nal




  • Subscribers Posts: 41,830 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    I can confirm you are correct, what cheerful s posted isnt true.

    progressive collapse of a tall building leads it to collapse vertically, floor upon floor.

    These buildings are so highly engineered at design stage that, should one element of structure fail, the forces diverted to the other elements will invariably cause them to fail almost instantly, so they all fail together.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Watch carefully, this poster will start baiting you into "proving" to them that the building fell due to fire. They've spent thousands of post over years doing this with other posters. Naturally they'll reject whatever you write.

    Had a poster in here awhile back who was claiming the world was flat, no one could convince them it was a globe, of course not, so they "won" the debate.

    Try asking Cheerful what alternatively happened though, with evidence..



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Expert in controlled demolition was shown WTC7 . And he knew exactly what happened there. Surprised it happened on the day of 9/11, but it did.




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S





    :

     “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

    Is this NIST confirming freefall or denying it ( genuine answer on a postcard please?)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    This is the 4th or 5th time you are repeating the exact same truther talking points you brought up before.

    You are reliving a fantasy of having "special knowledge" about something, in the exact same way the other poster believes they have "special knowledge" that the space program is fake.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Hope its a good report when it's out. The fact they're doing it great. Mainstream instuition.

    Good also they are honest about some of the things I have said here.

    From the website.

    https://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/technical-activity-committee-formed-to-investigate-steel-framed-building-safety

    NIST hypothesised this “never seen before” collapse mechanism to explain the collapse thereby making WTC7 the first high rise steel building in history to collapse from fire alone.

    Like other steel framed buildings throughout the world, Building 7 was designed by professional engineers to withstand normal office fires. If the design was indeed at fault, significant changes should be made to steel building design, construction and maintenance standards. But since the NIST report was issued in 2008, NIST’s own records show that the ICC (International Code Council) has not addressed the root causes put forward.

    In March 2020 the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) published a report following a detailed four year investigation into the WTC7 collapse. The UAF study ran a multitude of static and dynamic analysis simulation cases to find a scenario that best matched the observed collapse, including those proposed by NIST. Unlike NIST the UAF study found a scenario that exactly matched the observed collapse both visually and in the time domain – a scenario and conclusion that is very different from the official narrative. In the interests of public safety we need to understand the true cause of this event, so appropriate action and evacuation philosophies can be implemented in similar buildings.  

    With this in mind the IMechE Construction and Building Services Division (CBSD) has set up a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to look into the findings of the UAF report and see if they have any merit.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    You claim nobody outside the truther movement cares and believes. That's untrue.

    They're all waiting for someone in the mainstream to come out first before jumping on board. They all know the collapse is fishy,.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    That's a story from our 911 truthers group who spammed a whole bunch of sites with it. Some actually ran it, like that construction blog, probably for filler or clicks. They even managed to sneak some of their quackery into a scientific journal (and the editor had to resign after)

    9/11 was a terrorist attack, that's taught in schools all over the world. If you believe something else involving secret Nazi's happened, okay, feel free to share it. Other people can make up their mind if it's plausible.

    Or not. Up to you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S



    The total building collapse of seven is not thought in schools and universities, very wrong.

    I and many genuine people be curious why seven collapsed when It’s never happened anytime in history before. You are disgusted people claim demolition for it. Yet have no standing or authority say people are not right here.

    Why that is matey

    Collapse mechanism never happened before anywhere due to fire! We have seen this mechanism of collapse with controlled demolition.

    Institute of mechanical engineers has 120,000 members and siad this and its fact.

    Write "NIST hypothesised this “never seen before” collapse mechanism to explain the collapse thereby making WTC7 the first high rise steel building in history to collapse from fire alone.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Isn’t there a whole sub forum for this crap?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Yup, it's pretty dead, so Cheerful tries to resurrect it all this stuff once a year elsewhere.



  • Registered Users Posts: 665 ✭✭✭goldenmick



    @Fighting Tao - Isn’t there a whole sub forum asylum for this crap?


    Fixed that for ye.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    How could you have "seen this before" when this is the first time in history a building was secretly demolished using nanothermite?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Anyone else find it funny that the only conspiracy theorists still arguing are now claiming that all space flight is fake and that 9/11 was done by 16 guys over a weekend are examples of "credible" conspiracy theories?


    Proves the point pretty good I think.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,013 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Apparently its credible that 3 or 4 guys rigged the towers with enough explosives over one weekend.

    Still my faveourite theory Ive seen on here.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Presumably there was a whole network of people who had come up with the idea and hired them to do the demolition in the first place... And had coordinated the plan with the other team of Saudis who were going to be flying the planes so that the two attacks happened at the same time.


    Strange that the team behind the explosive demolition never came forward to claim responsibility for their part of the attack, as seperate to the airborne attack. Seems like a lot of effort to do something that is highly likely to be discovered, but then to have no reason for having blown up building 7 and let others take the "credit" for your work.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    That was something @[Deleted User] claimed I believe. @Cheerful S claims it was a team of 16 guys using super secret nanothermite contained in a gel form and sprayed all over the building:

    Also, both require that Larry Silverstein must have been one of these 3 or 16 people.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yeah, planes caused them to collapse..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Yeah, secret magic silent explosives perfectly coordinated with terrorist attacks caused all those buildings to collapse..

    Oh and welcome back to the forum, what happened to all the Covid conspiracies?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yup. It's the only explanation that actually makes sense.

    Your claim that they were rigged by 3 people using secret silent explosives does not make sense and is not plausible.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob




  • Registered Users Posts: 665 ✭✭✭goldenmick



    @Cheerful S - I think I take your advice to spend time off this chat. More important things currently happening are important like Ukraine. JFK and 9/11 stuff are all done for now. 


    Always happy to help...





  • Registered Users Posts: 11,064 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    I never thought I would find a video as bad as the Westboro Baptist Church spoof of Mandy called Sandy about the hurricane but there it is



  • Registered Users Posts: 678 ✭✭✭Joe Don Dante


    The C.I.A wrote The Scorpions song "Wind of Change"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,741 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    Lol why?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    Because they were better songwriters than The Scorpions? They've been behind all the best hits


    Holland, Dulles, Holland

    Lennon & Helms

    Jagger & Bush



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,493 ✭✭✭cml387


    While on a musical theme, it turns out that those who suspected that the first live broadcast of a nightingale accompanying a musician, broadcast live on radio by the BBC in 1924 was a fake were correct:

    The Cello and the nightingale (link)



  • Registered Users Posts: 678 ✭✭✭Joe Don Dante


    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/may/15/wind-of-change-did-the-cia-write-the-cold-wars-biggest-anthem



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    That one has been top of CT’ist lists right up to 2920 when Covid knocked it down to 2nd place. There have been thousands of posts about it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,617 ✭✭✭celtic_oz


    Michio Kaku who is typically wheeled out on US TV to refute the UFO conspiracy theory, flips .. interesting




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Currently credible conspiracy theories coming from across the pond:

    Trump tried to overthrow the election

    Trump pressured the electors not to certify the results, so he could cling to power

    Trump replaced the heads of the secret service and DHS (and possibly similar staff in the pentagon) after the election, before the attempted coup, so he could prepare for the coup

    The texts which might prove / disprove any attempted coup have been erased, under orders from Trump's appointees, at his behest


    All pretty credible, with multiple avenues of interest and an orgy of evidence (bar the missing texts, of course). No vague shadowy figures, no illuminati, no second shooter, no mysterious 'they'........ Just a bunch of bad faith actors with previous for this sorta thing.

    And where are all our resident 'skeptics' when it comes to this matter? Why all the radio silence? Thought you guys questioned everything?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    Pre knowledge of 9/11

    In the days running up to 9/11 there was unusual trading activity on the two airlines with planes that were hijacked and crashed. An extraordinary amount of trading

    "Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange recorded purchases of 4,744 "put" option contracts in UAL and 396 call options. On September 10, more trading in Chicago saw the purchase of 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings, with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. No other airline companies had an unusual put to call ratio in the days leading up to the attacks"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    This was investigated by the FBI and the SEC and was found to be innocuous

    "

    The UAL trading on September 6 is a good example. On that day alone, the UAL put

    option volume was much higher than any surrounding day and exceeded the call option

    volume by more than 20 times—highly suspicious numbers on their face.170 The SEC

    quickly discovered, however, that a single U.S. investment adviser had purchased 95

    percent of the UAL put option volume for the day. The investment adviser certainly did

    not fit the profile of an al Qaeda operative: it was based in the United States, registered

    with the SEC, and managed several hedge funds with $5.3 billion under management. In

    interviews by the SEC, both the CEO of the adviser and the trader who executed the trade

    explained that they—and not any client—made the decision to buy the put as part of a

    trading strategy based on a bearish view of the airline industry. They held bearish views

    for a number of reasons, including recently released on-time departure figures, which

    suggested the airlines were carrying fewer passengers, and recently disclosed news by

    AMR reflecting poor business fundamentals. In pursuit of this strategy, the adviser sold

    short a number of airline shares between September 6 and September 10; its transactions

    included the fortunate purchase of UAL puts. The adviser, however, also bought 115,000

    shares of AMR on September 10, believing that their price already reflected the recently

    released financial information and would not fall any further. Those shares dropped

    significantly when the markets reopened after the attacks. Looking at the totality of the

    adviser’s circumstances, as opposed to just the purchase of the puts, convinced the SEC

    that it had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks or al Qaeda. Still, the SEC referred


    the trade to the FBI, which also conducted its own investigation and reached the same

    conclusion.

    The AMR put trading on September 10 further reveals how trading that looks highly

    suspicious at first blush can prove innocuous. The put volume of AMR on September 10

    was unusually high and actually exceeded the call volume by a ratio of 6:1—again,

    highly suspicious on its face. The SEC traced much of the surge in volume to a California

    investment advice newsletter, distributed by email and fax on Sunday, September 9,

    which advised its subscribers to purchase a particular type of AMR put options. The SEC

    interviewed 28 individuals who purchased these types of AMR puts on September 10,

    and found that 26 of them cited the newsletter as the reason for their transaction. Another

    27 purchasers were listed as subscribers of the newsletter. The SEC interviewed the

    author of the newsletter, a U.S. citizen, who explained his investment strategy analysis,

    which had nothing to do with foreknowledge of 9/11. Other put option volume on

    September 10 was traced to similarly innocuous trades.

    Another good example concerns a suspicious UAL put trade on September 7, 2001. A

    single trader bought more than one-third of the total puts purchased that day, establishing

    a position that proved very profitable after 9/11. Moreover, it turns out that the same

    trader had a short position in UAL calls—another strategy that would pay off if the price

    of UAL dropped. Investigation, however, identified the purchaser as a well-established

    New York hedge fund with $2 billion under management. Setting aside the unlikelihood

    of al Qaeda having a relationship with a major New York hedge fund, these trades looked

    facially suspicious. But further examination showed the fund also owned 29,000 shares of

    UAL stock at the time—all part of a complex, computer-driven trading strategy. As a

    result of these transactions, the fund actually lost $85,000 in value when the market

    reopened. Had the hedge fund wanted to profit from the attacks, it would not have

    retained the UAL shares.

    These examples were typical. The SEC and the FBI investigated all of the put option

    purchases in UAL and AMR, drawing on multiple and redundant sources of information

    to ensure complete coverage. All profitable option trading was investigated and resolved.

    There was no evidence of illicit trading and no unexplained or mysterious trading.

    Moreover, there was no evidence that profits from any profitable options trading wen uncollected.171"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Tsk, you can prove anything with facts. I bet you couldn't do it with vague nonsense shouted by a fat American in a YouTube video.



  • Registered Users Posts: 687 ✭✭✭pfurey101


    How come Russia, China, North Korea and Wikileaks know nothing about 9/11, Moon landing and flat earth conspiracies. You'd think they'd be delighted to let everyone know.

    As for 9/11 being an "inside job" you really give that dunderhead Bush and his cronies far too much credit. They couldn't organise anything....let alone keep their mouths shut.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    wait until you hear about the silent explosives that really brought down the towers on 9/11



Advertisement