Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

As soon as the official story collapses, the credibility of the official story falls apart.

A freefalling building means all the steel and concrete are gone. There's no resistance to slow it down. 

NIST model of progressive collapse shows half the building was still providing resistance during the freefall ( unless you're completely blind and think that blue shaded area is cauliflower)  At this point, the full collapse is well underway, so the resistance highlighted in the NIST model is a big problem. 

As a result of failing to understand Freefall originally happened, NIST then split the failure into three stages to hide the collapse implications. They had to slow the fall or else they would have be open with everyone was a controlled demolition. 

With no stage 1 it was a controlled demolition and they know that.

Model shows they're lying about everything since the west section of building is still slowing the fall at stage 2

None of debunkers will ever explainn how the freefall occurred here in this screenshot since so convinced of the official narrative. Did the steel and concrete part ways like Moses did with the Red Sea?

For about 5 years. Same old shite.

I like how when Cheerful comes into a thread, all the other conspiracy theorists slowly back away and go silent. Not even they want to be associated with that level of fruitcakery.

The plot thickens.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-wondered-aloud-aides-ghislaine-https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-wondered-aloud-aides-ghislaine-https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-wondered-aloud-aides-ghislaine-https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-wondered-aloud-aides-ghislaine-034858364.html

I have received a number of PMs from posters over the years stating they were not interested in 9/11 stuff to debate it , but wanted to know more about the problems. There are many complaints in PMs about how you derail threads and silly attacks. The truth is, some people are too afraid of confronting your bullshit openly in public. 

I am hearing this from the same individual who was exposed in JFK conspiracy threads and lied. 'Single bullet theory' is a lie based on a bullet tumbling on its side hitting Connally in the back. Nal's lie was obviously based on an after-surgery wound that was not apparent to him. As a result, you went after Doctor Shaw Connally and accused him of lying, saying that the bullet wound was 3cm before surgery and again exposed.. The Kennedy debunkers betrayed you and what you read was a lie. 

Historically, Kennedy debunkers have claimed that Connally's back wound was 3cm, which explains the Carcano thumbling claims that it exited Kennedy's throat. Reality is that wound was only 1.5cm confirmed by DR shaw numerous times. 

This is an image that you uploaded to prove the official version of the story.

An important part of the image is the entry wound.

Nal and Kennedy debunkers claimed for decades that the Connally wound was 3cm ( 1.25 inches)

As a result, you were caught unaware that the bullet caused a 1.5cm wound, and that the 3cm wound was an enlargement of that wound by DR Shaw during surgery.

The length of the Carcano bullet is 3cm, so how can it be the same bullet? What you can't comprehend here is that the hole in the right shoulder was only 1.5cm in length, not 3cm.

In order to fit with the official theory, the wound had to be 3 cm. Many people fail to look at all the reports and notice that DR Shaw said it was 1.5 cm before he touched it.

It all fit nicely into the cover-up since Debunkers had a wound of 3cm and Carcano 3cm in length. Debunkers of course lying about that wound for long time. 

Shaw: The wound on his back –- yes, it was long enough so that there might have been some tumbling.

Case closed Cheerful. Case closed.

There is a clear discrepancy between the official report and what I am pointing out. DR Shaw never claimed the Connally wound on his right shoulder was 3cm.. DR Shaw pointed out numerous times in different testimony was 1.5cm.

Debunkers have over decades and seen with the image Nal uploaded claimed the bullet wound matched the length of Carcano bullet. Case closed.

No, that's a lie, and Dr Shaw always said he enlarged the 1.5cm wound to 3cm when he operated on him. What does lying about the trajectory of the bullet tell you?

Address the evidence here. Why do you think the debunkers lied here?

Would we be more inclined to trust a highly respected surgeon at Parkland Hospital than people who lied about what he said?

A bullet caused a 1.5cm wound on the right shoulder. Debunkers lied about that and used the wound after surgery to claim something else, but that's the official story. 

There is nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in official stories. We lost a lot of ourselves over Covid, yes, but it was a small thing. Personally, I am not anti-vaccine or anything like that, so stay out of medical threads. As far as I am concerned, Covid is a real disease, not made up to make you believe its existence.

There is no doubt that UFOS, 9/11, and JFK were genuine conspiracies, but UFOs are less fringe today due to the US government's involvement in these events, so debunkers have a hard time now going against authority. It's just in their nature to try. If you've been around long enough, you might remember the same debunker logic for UFOS that persists in these forums to this day. While 9/11 disbelief was bad, UFOS disbelief was worse in the past, amazing how 3 years of government involvement in admitting there may be some strange unknowns flying about can change the narrative.

What dont understand about building seven and debunker objections. Essentially, freefall is just dropping something from an airplane or a building and allowing gravity to do the rest.

In my opinion, the truthers' questions regarding freefall are not irrelevant and unimportant. Even if the underlying structure is weak or in a state of collapse, must be some pushback if a building collapses. Truther arguments are not weak because NIST had no understanding of the nature of the collapse from the beginning. Denying freefall is not an umimportant thing. In the revision of the draft paper, it was claimed there was a stage of freefall between two collapse points. Since most people are unware what NIST says believe falsely claimed freefall.

In their argument, they claim the underlying structure provided negligible resistance. There must be a definition of resistance in a report otherwise people will think you're hiding something. The west side of the building has a lot of resistance that makes freefall impossible in their finite models. NIST's modeling of the final collapse shows no freefall, which makes me think things are made up as they go along. 

You really fail to grasp anything.

You also have cowardly dodged dozens of questions on the subject including Dohnjoes above. Have a look at all the questions you ignored in the last few pages of the JFK thread. Pathetic.

It's why you get banned from every thread you frequent. You're a time waster.

Did you quote me by accident because the ranting waffle had practically nothing to do with what I said?

A 9/11 debunker from Metabunk says truthers have done a thorough job addressing column 79 failure. What does that tell you? All their objections are valid.

Mick fails on the idea that the collapse in NIST report was triggered by the connection at column 79. In his own mind, he is making claims about other failures that are out of the scope of NIST's work. According to NIST, the failure of the connection at 79 triggered the failure of the other girders and not the other way around, which confused Mick.

The connection does not fail, there is no progressive collapse as NIST claims. Mick's admission that all findings at column 79 are valid raises questions about the collapse itself. 

This is one of the fatal questions about the conspiracy. It's one of the ones conspiracy theorists are terrified of and will do everything in their power to avoid answering or knowledging. Simply because it exposes how silly and pointless their argument is.

They need the notion of X+1 seconds to be true so that there's shocking and attention getting clues and claims.

But it doesn't make any sense for the conspiracy to work that way. If the American government wanted to fake a terrorist attack, the simplest way for them to do so would have been to fly planes into buildings. There's no need for them to add super secret magic explosives to go off in perfect timing to make the building fall to look like a controlled demolition.

But if the conspiracy theory is that boring, then it's not as fun or attention getting to suggest it. So they have to bend over backwards to invent new aspects to the conspiracy to justify all of the silly ****.

AFAIR, cheerful's contention was that they needed to demolish the buildings with thermite so the CIA or whoever could destroy secret paper documents at the buildings. Cause you know, there was no other way for them to get rid of documents.

There is a reasonable, rational and I dare say credible version of the 9/11 conspiracy theory, but no conspiracy theorists are actually interested in it.