Which Conspiracy Theories Do You Believe In and Why?

[Lordsteve666]

5 minutes ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

I've always had this impression from conspiracy theorists that somehow they think  they're "special", meaning that they believe they now have "forbidden knowledge" from watching Info Wars, YouTube videos, and other forms of media. Is it just me?

It's absolutely true. They think that a conspiracy has been hidden from the whole world by the most sneaky, dastardly and cunning governments or plotters imaginable but yet they have stumbled across evidence by watching YouTube videos.
They act as if people who study and work in these fields for decades are idiot sheep who are probably in on it all, but yet watching Infowars makes them experts.
My friend at work will argue with me until he's blue in the face about evolution or similar subjects, yet even though i have a degree in zoology and he has no higher education to speak of i'm still considered to be close minded and a sheep following the flock.

[Darth Richard II]

I don't know if I believe in any but the one I will argue against to an almost violent level is those 9/11 truther asshats. I actually used to get into on the internet back in oh 2005ish A LOT to the point that I know way more about 9/11 then any sane person should.

[Maltaran]

I note no one has mentioned any of the Princess Diana theories about her being murdered on Prince Philip’s orders

[Isalie]

Bring it then!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

I don't know if I believe in any but the one I will argue against to an almost violent level is those 9/11 truther asshats. I actually used to get into on the internet back in oh 2005ish A LOT to the point that I know way more about 9/11 then any sane person should.

I still remember Rosie O’Donnell’s statement that 9/11 was “the first time in history fire had melted steel”.

She’s never seen a blacksmith work, has she?

[TrueMetis]

22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I still remember Rosie O’Donnell’s statement that 9/11 was “the first time in history fire had melted steel”.

She’s never seen a blacksmith work, has she?

Has anyone ever asked her where she thinks steel comes from?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Has anyone ever asked her where she thinks steel comes from?

I so wish they would.

[TrueMetis]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I so wish they would.

Maybe she thinks steel is Adamantium.

[Spockydog]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I still remember Rosie O’Donnell’s statement that 9/11 was “the first time in history fire had melted steel”.

She’s never seen a blacksmith work, has she?

What she should have said was "the first time in history that a steel-framed skyscraper has collapsed due to fire."

The only thing that troubles me about 911 is WTC7. As far as I'm aware, it wasn't hit by a fully-loaded jetplane, nor was kerosene burning within its walls for hours. Yet it still came down in an almost freefall collapse, just like the other two towers.

Doesn't anyone find that odd?

[Spockydog]

On 11/30/2017 at 2:05 PM, Werthead said:

Later on, of course, the whole thing was found to be bullshit.

Ah, man. That's so disappointing. I'm not sure the presence of a lighthouse is enough to debunk it, but all the faking of notebooks and bullshit telepathic binary code just calls everything else into question.

I'm almost as gutted as I was when The NASA Tether Incident was debunked.

 

[Werthead]

38 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

What she should have said was "the first time in history that a steel-framed skyscraper has collapsed due to fire."

The only thing that troubles me about 911 is WTC7. As far as I'm aware, it wasn't hit by a fully-loaded jetplane, nor was kerosene burning within its walls for hours. Yet it still came down in an almost freefall collapse, just like the other two towers.

Doesn't anyone find that odd?

No. The official report was pretty thorough.

Quote

 

After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure...A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads." According to Sunder: "For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse."

 

The most interesting bit is the noise factor: the detonation of explosives to trigger a collapse of the building would be easily audible to people in the area and also on recording equipment, but no such noise is audible either from the Twin Towers or WTC7. It's more important for WTC7 as to collapse the much shorter building would have required the explosives to be much closer to the ground, plus there were many more professional people in the area by that point and they would definitely have heard and recognised demolition charges going off.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Spocky,

Wert is exactly right.  What 9-11 Truthers fundamentally fail to grasp is that intense heat doesn’t necessarily melt steel, but the heat will always soften it making it less able to bear weight.  It is the heat from the ongoing uncontrolled fires that caused the three buildings to collapse.

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

No. The official report was pretty thorough.

The most interesting bit is the noise factor: the detonation of explosives to trigger a collapse of the building would be easily audible to people in the area and also on recording equipment, but no such noise is audible either from the Twin Towers or WTC7. It's more important for WTC7 as to collapse the much shorter building would have required the explosives to be much closer to the ground, plus there were many more professional people in the area by that point and they would definitely have heard and recognised demolition charges going off.

Before we go any further, I do not subscribe to the inside job theory. I've just always found the WTC7 story a little odd. There was certainly motive to destroy the building, and the fact the BBC reported its collapse, before it had actually collapsed, just adds to the allure.

What do you think of this? Is it fake? I've never seen it before today. Just googled 'WTC7 explosives' after reading your comment, and this is the first video that came up. I mean, it sure looks and sounds like explosives going off.  

ETA: Now pretty sure the video's a fake.

[Darth Richard II]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

What she should have said was "the first time in history that a steel-framed skyscraper has collapsed due to fire."

The only thing that troubles me about 911 is WTC7. As far as I'm aware, it wasn't hit by a fully-loaded jetplane, nor was kerosene burning within its walls for hours. Yet it still came down in an almost freefall collapse, just like the other two towers.

Doesn't anyone find that odd?

No, because you can find hours and hours of video in which the collapse of, i want to say the south, tower pummel the absoulte shit out of it, then it pretty much is completely on fire for 16 hours or so.

Also, the Towers were not built like traditional steel framed buildings. While most skyscrapers are a steel skeleton with a concrete body, the towers were just steel. And it doesn't need to melt., it just has to soften it up a bit. Combine softened metal with the giant hole the impacts left and it's actually more surpising they held up as long as they did.

[Darth Richard II]

32 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Before we go any further, I do not subscribe to the inside job theory. I've just always found the WTC7 story a little odd. There was certainly motive to destroy the building, and the fact the BBC reported its collapse, before it had actually collapsed, just adds to the allure.

What do you think of this? Is it fake? I've never seen it before today. Just googled 'WTC7 explosives' after reading your comment, and this is the first video that came up. I mean, it sure looks and sounds like explosives going off.  

 

I believe the BBC thing was debunked a while ago. Basically truthers not understanding how time zones work. And honestly, it may sound like explosives to someone who wasn't obsessed with this shit for a few years but those aren't explosives, thats just the inside of the building collapsing.

55 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Spocky,

Wert is exactly right.  What 9-11 Truthers fundamentally fail to grasp is that intense heat doesn’t necessarily melt steel, but the heat will always soften it making it less able to bear weight.  It is the heat from the ongoing uncontrolled fires that caused the three buildings to collapse.

Yeah this. The jet fuel doesn't melt steel excuse drives me insane, it's so easy to debunk,

Speaking of, there is a Nat Geo special that pretty much is Nat Geo going mythbusters on all the 9/11 stuff that goes into way more detail than I ever could.

[Werthead]

23 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Before we go any further, I do not subscribe to the inside job theory. I've just always found the WTC7 story a little odd. There was certainly motive to destroy the building, and the fact the BBC reported its collapse, before it had actually collapsed, just adds to the allure.

What do you think of this? Is it fake? I've never seen it before today. Just googled 'WTC7 explosives' after reading your comment, and this is the first video that came up. I mean, it sure looks and sounds like explosives going off.  

It isn't. Demolition charges have a very distinct sound. That cracks heard in that video are the support columns buckling. When you see the windows blowing out, that's from the columns collapsing and the internal structure compressing, which causes the air inside the building to evacuate at high speed. Also, the interior structure started buckling quite a few seconds before the collapse started (you can see it sag before it goes), which journalists would have recognised. It also appears one of the supports may have given way at 2pm, when firefighters saw a bulge in the corner of the building consistent with an internal structural failure: that's when they evacuated the area and let people know the building was in danger of collapse (as it did three hours later). Finally, the building was ablaze, you could see the fire from outside and the emergency services were keeping journalists and rescue teams heading to the WTC site back from the building for quite a while before it went, on the basis of what happened to the Twin Towers.

The problem with the WTC7 conspiracy theory is that it requires the conspirators to have known ahead of time where the debris from the Twin Towers was going to land (some of the debris scoured off the side of WTC7, which is what started the fires, and just happened to knock out the sprinklers, which is what allowed the fire to rage out of control). If they successfully predicted that WTC7 would take the hit, they have blast modelling software which is light-years ahead of what we have now, let alone in 2001. If the debris hadn't landed on WTC7 and they'd rigged it to blow, the building would have collapsed for absolutely no discernible reason which would have been a bit of a giveaway.

In addition, why rig WTC7 to explode and not 4, 5 or 6, which all survived the atrocity intact (although they were all damaged to some degree and were demolished when it was decided to completely remodel the site)?

[Spockydog]

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

It isn't. Demolition charges have a very distinct sound. That cracks heard in that video are the support columns buckling. When you see the windows blowing out, that's from the columns collapsing and the internal structure compressing, which causes the air inside the building to evacuate at high speed. Also, the interior structure started buckling quite a few seconds before the collapse started (you can see it sag before it goes), which journalists would have recognised. It also appears one of the supports may have given way at 2pm, when firefighters saw a bulge in the corner of the building consistent with an internal structural failure: that's when they evacuated the area and let people know the building was in danger of collapse (as it did three hours later). Finally, the building was ablaze, you could see the fire from outside and the emergency services were keeping journalists and rescue teams heading to the WTC site back from the building for quite a while before it went, on the basis of what happened to the Twin Towers.

The problem with the WTC7 conspiracy theory is that it requires the conspirators to have known ahead of time where the debris from the Twin Towers was going to land (some of the debris scoured off the side of WTC7, which is what started the fires, and just happened to knock out the sprinklers, which is what allowed the fire to rage out of control). If they successfully predicted that WTC7 would take the hit, they have blast modelling software which is light-years ahead of what we have now, let alone in 2001. If the debris hadn't landed on WTC7 and they'd rigged it to blow, the building would have collapsed for absolutely no discernible reason which would have been a bit of a giveaway.

In addition, why rig WTC7 to explode and not 4, 5 or 6, which all survived the atrocity intact (although they were all damaged to some degree and were demolished when it was decided to completely remodel the site)?

Can't really argue with any of that.

[Darth Richard II]

7 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Can't really argue with any of that.

See, that's why you are great and the 9/11 truth people are not so great AKA stupid.

[Ghjhero]

This seems pretty relevant to this thread- http://www.dailywire.com/news/24188/vegas-matt-walsh 

Any thoughts on this?

[Darth Richard II]

Pretty sure we know the how.