We've partnered up with to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from and get an exclusive discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Are there any credible conspiracy theories?



  • Registered Users Posts: 650 ✭✭✭ Cheerful S

    The building fell down correct. The dilemma.

    The Dynamic of the collapse.

    When the building came down there was no interaction (energy transfer) between floors collapsing and floors beneath it zero no resistance this was all way across ‘ huge area of space ( 8 floors with a calculation of 100 feet). That's not a probable event by fire, can not happen, especially within a scenario there is a slow progression of failures caused by fire. The slow progress of failures would cancel out freefall.

    The building falls through itself it is just impossible that's what freefall implies. A natural building collapse would crush itself so how can there be freefall doesn't make sense unless some external energy was used to remove the resistance as it fell. 

  • Registered Users Posts: 665 ✭✭✭ goldenmick

    @Cheerful S - Freefall is proof of controlled demolition because the collapse would occur instantly. Not fire.  

    It's a well known fact that if any important supporting part of the lower structure in a tower block or skyscraper is compromised - whether by fire or otherwise - then the possibility exists for it to entirely collapse, instantly. A bit like the game, Jenga. There are numerous qualified sources online to confirm this, just Google it - or are they all wrong and just you are right?

    On a side note... I'd like to ask you if you work, sleep, eat, do bodily functions, etc... as you appear to spend the entirety of every day (and most nights) on here, pushing a completely lost cause. Do you not feel anything when stupidity stares back at you if you look in a mirror?

    Why exactly do you feel you need to come on a nondescript Irish based forum to push your ridiculous agenda? Is it because you've been run out of every other notable discussion forum?

    Post edited by goldenmick on

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,249 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob

    But cheerful. You showed that you don't know what freefall is.

    You showed that you have a less than secondary school knowledge of physics and basic math.

    It took like 10 pages for you to realise the difference between an upper case L and a lower case i.

    Your attempts to sound smart by using big technical sounding words isn't going to fool anyone.

    (For example, your statement: "8 floors with a calculation of 100 feet" is meaningless. It sounds like a young child trying to sound smart.)

    You see things that are there in pictures. You believe abject nonsense. You lie constantly.

    Why would anyone take what you believe about the "dynamics" of the collapse seriously?

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,397 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe

    "Yes, but prove to me that the building fell due to fire. If you can't, it means it was some sort of inside job I never have to detail" - the call of 9/11 conspiracy theorists everywhere

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,249 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob

    Yet when that same logic is applied a conspiracy theory they recognise is idiotic, like Markus's, they fully recognise that this type of claim is silly and unconvincing.

    Either they are so lacking in self awarness they don't understand this, or it's deliberate. They know their argument is nonsense, but they use it anyway.

    I think in the case of cheerful, it's the former.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 650 ✭✭✭ Cheerful S

    Think need some enlightenment.

    A tall building with a steel frame never collapsed fully in all human history ever. It never witnessed records dont exist.

    on 9/11 it occurred WTC7 had a few fires on a few floors,

    The falling building is not what pulverizes the girders, beams, and concrete (what causes it?). Building in freefall has not the got energy to destroy. Drop a ball off the roof where the energy stops itself or breaks something?

    Using energy for something like destroying the building you can no longer be in freefall, energy is used for different things that would slow the collapse.. 

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,249 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob

    First time in history that a skyscraper was demolished in secret using secret nanothermite silent explosives.

    Your posts are becoming less and less coherent now.

  • Registered Users Posts: 665 ✭✭✭ goldenmick

    Structural experts (not unqualified conspiracy theorists) determined:  

    ... the fires to be the main cause of the collapses, finding that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns, causing them to bow and then to buckle. Once the upper section of the building began to move downwards, a total progressive collapse was unavoidable.

    You are showing exactly how immature and ridiculous you are in your arrogance of assertion. You need to get a life. A proper one.

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,249 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob

    Yea, but according to Cheerful all of those structural experts are either part of the conspiracy or not as good at structural engineering as he is.

  • Registered Users Posts: 650 ✭✭✭ Cheerful S

    What would happen in this scenario golden would there be a crushing effect?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 650 ✭✭✭ 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: 650 ✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 23,249 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob

    And once again spamming the same video.

    Round and round he goes.

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,005 ✭✭✭✭ The Nal

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

  • Registered Users Posts: 650 ✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 23,249 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


    @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: 650 ✭✭✭ 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: 650 ✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 10,005 ✭✭✭✭ The Nal

  • Subscribers Posts: 35,964 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 14,397 ✭✭✭✭ 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: 650 ✭✭✭ 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: 650 ✭✭✭ Cheerful S


     “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis that same time it took for the structural model to come 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 Posts: 14,397 ✭✭✭✭ 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: 650 ✭✭✭ 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.

    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 Posts: 14,397 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 650 ✭✭✭ 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,.