Are conspiracy theorists wrong about almost everything?

Et tu Lone Shaman?....sigh...plam to forehead, etc

That's not what a thermite burn looks like. Who know where that steel is from.

Bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that conspiracy theorists are like those religious people that say they cam mathematically prove that god exists. They never seem to pause to think that if such a math formula was real - meaning it was mathematically sound - that it would be the most famous and talked about equation ever. When real mathematicians are impressed, the religious guys just make excuses for why the real guys don't recognize their infallible genius. Round and round it goes. Like I said, conspiracy theories are a matter of faith and there's no point arguing them.

Sorry mate we have to agree to disagree on this one. There's nothing wrong with that. Forget about the conspiracy angle, the official story is also a conspiracy theory. It is about evidence.

The steel is from tower 7, thermite or not, fire simply cannot do that! The metallurgic analysis is a scientific and structural engineering issue not a conspiratorial one and represents one of the greatest enigmas to occur on that day. It is evidence that cannot just be ignored.

I am not trying to convince you. I am just going to post some more relevant information that is new and not too well known. So it is for general consumption not you personally and not intended to be argumentative.

A more recent extensive study spanning 4 years by Dr.J. Leroy Hulsey on building seven scientifically refutes the NIST report. It was only released early 2020.

Contrary to the conclusions of NIST, the UAF research team found that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was caused not by fires but by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

The team sought to explain exactly how the building fell the way it did. Put simply it is just not possible as NIST describes, it fell at freefall speeds symmetrically into its own footprint. The professor is adamant, the answer is a resounding NO. He is not a conspiracy theorist.

The inner columns failed first simultaneously followed about 1.4 seconds later by the outer columns simultaneously , covering about 8 floors below the 16th floor. That is the general gist and the only way the acceleration, the speed profiles and symmetry can be explained.

Abstract.
This report presents the findings and conclusions of a four-year study of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) — a 47-story building that suffered a total collapse at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001, following the horrible events of that morning. The objective of the study was threefold: (1) Examine the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001; (2) Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse; and (3) Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed. The UAF research team utilized three approaches for examining the structural response of WTC 7 to the conditions that may have occurred on September 11, 2001. First, we simulated the local structural response to fire loading that may have occurred below Floor 13, where most of the fires in WTC 7 are reported to have occurred. Second, we supplemented our own simulation by examining the collapse initiation hypothesis developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Third, we simulated several scenarios within the overall structural system in order to determine what types of local failures and their locations may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed. The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building. All input data, results data, and simulations that were used or generated during this study are available at http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7.

A new documentary on the research has been produced.


"Fires couldn't cause that, there were other chemicals involved." A quote from the trailer below. BTW I had not seen this until after I posted above.



Watch from the 17:00 min mark for more info. They also discuss the FEMA report I posted above. Also the 39:30 mark is interesting as well, answers to questions from Dr Halsey.

 
Last edited:
Sorry mate we have to agree to disagree on this one. There's nothing wrong with that. Forget about the conspiracy angle, the official story is also a conspiracy theory. It is about evidence.

The steel is from tower 7, thermite or not, fire simply cannot do that! The metallurgic analysis is a scientific and structural engineering issue not a conspiratorial one and represents one of the greatest enigmas to occur on that day. It is evidence that cannot just be ignored.

I am not trying to convince you. I am just going to post some more relevant information that is new and not too well known. So it is for general consumption not you personally and not intended to be argumentative.

A more recent extensive study spanning 4 years by Dr.J. Leroy Hulsey on building seven scientifically refutes the NIST report. It was only released early 2020.

Contrary to the conclusions of NIST, the UAF research team found that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was caused not by fires but by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

The team sought to explain exactly how the building fell the way it did. Put simply it is just not possible as NIST describes, it fell at freefall speeds symmetrically into its own footprint. The professor is adamant, the answer is a resounding NO. He is not a conspiracy theorist.

The inner columns failed first simultaneously followed about 1.4 seconds later by the outer columns simultaneously , covering about 8 floors below the 16th floor. That is the general gist and the only way the acceleration, the speed profiles and symmetry can be explained.

Abstract.
This report presents the findings and conclusions of a four-year study of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) — a 47-story building that suffered a total collapse at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001, following the horrible events of that morning. The objective of the study was threefold: (1) Examine the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001; (2) Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse; and (3) Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed. The UAF research team utilized three approaches for examining the structural response of WTC 7 to the conditions that may have occurred on September 11, 2001. First, we simulated the local structural response to fire loading that may have occurred below Floor 13, where most of the fires in WTC 7 are reported to have occurred. Second, we supplemented our own simulation by examining the collapse initiation hypothesis developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Third, we simulated several scenarios within the overall structural system in order to determine what types of local failures and their locations may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed. The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building. All input data, results data, and simulations that were used or generated during this study are available at http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7.

A new documentary on the research has been produced.


"Fires couldn't cause that, there were other chemicals involved." A quote from the trailer below. BTW I had not seen this until after I posted above.



Watch from the 17:00 min mark for more info. They also discuss the FEMA report I posted above. Also the 39:30 mark is interesting as well, answers to questions from Dr Halsey.


LS,
Yes, we will agree to disagree.

What I meant about the steel in your pic isn't what building is it from, but what role in the building?

Of course Bin Laden and terrorists are a true conspiracy and, to a point I made upthread somewhere, like most all conspiracies, they were found out. Actually, they even bragged about it, which is common among members of a conspiracy, sooner or later - also a point I made upthread.

Any time you have a group of three people and two meet to do something the third isn't "in" on, it's a conspiracy. Obviously a "conspiracy theory" in common parlance connotes an incorrect and/or unsubstantiated belief that some secret cabal has done something nefarious. Bin Laden was hardly secret. His organization had already blown up embassies and attacked the USS Cole. He had made many speeches prior to 9/11 about attacking America and why he wanted to.
 
LS,
Yes, we will agree to disagree.

What I meant about the steel in your pic isn't what building is it from, but what role in the building?

I can't tell you that. But fire does not cause rapid oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting. The other picture I posted is not the same piece but shows the same corrosive effect. Unfortunately the evidence was removed before more extensive analysis could be done.
 
I can't tell you that. But fire does not cause rapid oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting. The other picture I posted is not the same piece but shows the same corrosive effect. Unfortunately the evidence was removed before more extensive analysis could be done.

Right. That might highlight yet another issue with conspiracy theories. They tend to make unexamined assumptions about about "evidence" that are not warranted, though somewhat understandable. Then they develop logic based on that original [erroneous] assumption. For example, there was long an assumption that the Zapruder film captured the entire Kennedy assassination. It didn't. The event actually started (i.e. the first shot) before Z started rolling the film). Here you are assuming that the steel in your pic was structural. Everything you say after that flows from that primary assumption. Maybe it wasn't and maybe what you think is evidence of thermite is just normal corrosion over a long time (witch is what it looks like to me). The one pic definitely does not look like a structural beam and the other one is hard to say what it is.

Something else I find interesting about conspiracy theory believers is that they claim to question all assumptions and not follow the herd, but then, in practice, they become die hard married to certain assumptions. It's kind of funny in a very human mind of way. We all do it, but often don't recognize it.
 
Last edited:
Right. That might highlight yet another issue with conspiracy theories. They tend to make unexamined assumptions about about "evidence" that are not warranted, though somewhat understandable. Then they develop logic based on that original [erroneous] assumption. For example, there was long an assumption that the Zapruder film captured the entire Kennedy assassination. It didn't. The event actually started (i.e. the first shot) before Z started rolling the film). Here you are assuming that the steel in your pic was structural. Everything you say after that flows from that primary assumption. Maybe it wasn't and maybe what you think is evidence of thermite is just normal corrosion over a long time (witch is what it looks like to me). The one pic definitely does not look like a structural beam and the other one is hard to say what it is.

Except it is a scientifically examined piece of evidence. No I am not assuming it was structural. As for structural integrity Dr Halsey spent four years on that and irregardless of the metallurgy study. Also It was not a long time. Many years of exposure would be need to produce anything remotely like that.

Note the NIST statement... regardless of structural damage the fires, which were limited would have brought the building down.

At freefall speeds symmetrically into it's footprint? That I think qualifies for many of the issues you outline above.
 
Last edited:
BTW Eric, I think they are good points you list. But I wonder why you don't apply the same scrutiny to the other conspiracy theory?
 
Except it is a scientifically examined piece of evidence. No I am not assuming it was structural. As for structural integrity Dr Halsey four years on that and irregardless of the metallurgy study. Also It was not a long time. Many years of exposure would be need to produce anything remotely like that.

Note the NIST statement... regardless of structural damage the fires, which were limited would have brought the building down.

At freefall speeds symmetrically into it's footprint? That I think qualifies for many of the issues you outline above.

Actually, the "free fall" assertion is not entirely accurate. But once the "pancaking" began, yes, free fall speed. Why wouldn't it obey the laws of gravity?

BTW - I am not just saying "no way. I refuse to look".I have read/viewed all of the conspiracy theory material. I went it to it with an open mind. It's just that none it stands close inspection, IMO.

But I'll ask you the same questions that Charlie refuses to answer.
1. Who destroyed the buildings?
2. Why did they destroy the buildings and kill all of those people?
3. How did they wire the buildings to explode without being caught? That would be a massive job taking a long time.
4. Why indulge in the complicated and risky process of wiring the buildings when airplanes are going to hit them?
5. Why even have the airplanes involved if you're going to use explosives? Just use explosives and blame that on terrorists. It's not like terrorists don't use explosives.
6. What about the Pentagon and Shanksville? No airplanes involved in those events?
7. What about all of the witnesses? from the NYC firefighters I linked to who testified that WTC-7 was massively structurally damaged and burning out of control and they knew it would collapse to people who say an airplane hit the Pentagon? All liars? All co-conspirators? Why have none come out and broken the conspiracy pact?
 
BTW Eric, I think they are good points you list. But I wonder why you don't apply the same scrutiny to the other conspiracy theory?
Which one? Bin Laden?

I have examined that thoroughly and an immediate family member was on the counter terrorism task force in the intelligence community in the early 2000s; actually two of them (the second is extended family through marriage). They have no issue with Bin Laden's complicity. Bin Laden would have no trouble leading such an operation. He was not a sick old man hiding in a cave. That is just a meme MSM started (one of those erroneous assumptions that I talked about). He was a sophisticated guy heading a horizontal (as opposed to vertical) terrorist org. He supplies some money and some general guidance. Then other leaders formalize the details the plan. The cells carry it out; just like the embassies and the USS Cole and the US barracks bombings. The plan to hijack the aircraft is very simple. Terrorists have been hijacking planes for a long time. There is nothing remarkable in the least about it beyond the Ts making the decision to use the planes as guided missiles.

Again, "sick old cave dwelling Bin Laden" had distributed numerous videos to his T associates calling for jihad against the US and explaining why and, in some instances, high level "how's". I don't see how anyhow can call AQ's involvement in 9/11 a "conspiracy theory". The guy actually declared war on the US in a video.
 
Last edited:
It would be stupid of us to waste our time answering your questions when you don't believe WTC -7 was a controlled demolition.

How come? It's got to be part of your theory.

Here's something else to think about. Presumably there'd at least be overlap between your 9/11 conspirators and the people that architected the invasion of Iraq in 2003. That invasion was a classic conspiracy. Intelligence personnel doubted that Iraq had WMD. There were inspectors on the ground and they weren't finding anything. Yet the Bush admin with the help of the stupid and scurrilous media pushed the idea that Iraqis had WMD and were in league with AQ. Craven congress people on both sides of the aisle went along with it. There were some lone voices speaking out against the whole thing, but they were shouted down. The invasion happened and great cost and loss of life for nothing resulted; worse than nothing the whole stupid thing led to ISIS.

Years after the invasion, no WMD were found and the whole episode, to the extent that it is discussed at all, officially gets chalked up to an "intelligence failure", which it wasn't, being, in reality, a deliberate plot to leverage 9/11 to jump off a crazy scheme to re-organize the MENA. The plot was exposed (again, my point!) and no one really believes the excuse. A sad day for America and, for many patriots like me, a major erosion of trust in the federal establishment representing the beginning of a trend that has increased to this very day. However, the kind of tight large group of people that would be necessary to pull off what you think happened on 9/11 without ever being exposed couldn't manage to simply plant some WMD in Iraq to be "discovered" by special units looking for such stuff?

That would be so much more simple and less evil than your vision of 9/11 - and yet, they couldn't/didn't do it.My guess is because the risk of being caught greatly exceeds the gain. The same would be true of 9/11 to orders of magnitude greater extent - especially when there are already airplanes involved. Think Iran/Contra. Think MK-Ultra. So many failures to maintain the conspiracy's secrecy. The mafia - pain of death for violating "omertà", yet members still talk.

That's why you need to answer about motive, opportunity, etc. All you have right now are some statements by a few people who say there is evidence of bombs and that the official narrative can't be true. You have many times that number explaining why the official narrative is true and why the alternative/conspiracy explanations are not. You and I have no expertise in the relevant fields of knowledge (metallurgy, etc). What we think is possible or not is irrelevant. However, we can assess the feasibility of the conspiracy theory from a motive and opportunity standpoint. It totally fails - as in ridiculous - on those grounds in my estimation.
 
Last edited:
How come? Because your inability or unwillingness to verify the simple fact that 9/11 was a False False proves you wouldn't understand the more complicated geo-political aspects of it.
Try me. It's been a while, but I actually have some real experience in these matters, albeit pre- 9/11.

Also, did I not essentially mention the PNAC and all that scheming in my previous post? I know a lot about that. Am I not the one that keeps harping on China's plan to become the dominant economic and military power in the world and what that means for the corruption of our domestic politics? But I can't comprehend your secret knowledge?
 
Actually, the "free fall" assertion is not entirely accurate. But once the "pancaking" began, yes, free fall speed. Why wouldn't it obey the laws of gravity?

Sorry but no, pancaking is actually not what NIST is saying for building 7, still that implies resistance, so not possible for freefall. It did obey the laws of gravity, what it did not do was obey it's structural components. Tons of steel. They claim failure of columns 76 to 81. That fire was responsible.

NIST denied freefall and then acknowledged it but still did not change their model to include it.

The exact amount of freefall has been calculated.


Also in regards to my other question, I was referring directly to this issue only. That is, why not the same scrutiny for NIST's report about WTC 7?
It is... quite frankly, stretching the limits of credulity to say the least. It does not stand close inspection as you say. You can't just say no freefall then admit to it and still not change the model! You can't have symmetrical collapse without symmetrical failure! It's simply absurd.


Sorry I am not going to address all those questions, That would take months and a massive amount of research I would have to once again dig up. I have done all that years ago. I wished only to address this one topic. It is however the lynch pin for the entire event. There are 632 GB of data available from the recent study!

While those questions may be relevant, they are secondary, as the nature of the collapse has priority because the story rests on that. It also shifts the conversation away from this core issue and everything that has been provided. It is a issue that is backed by hard science and does not require the tentative theory many of those questions do. Although once opened up, even more absurd coincidences, facts and failures begin to surface. Watch Corbert's 5 min sarcastic summary I posted. It really is quite telling.
 
Last edited:
A layman's ponderings. . Maybe it could be seen that the 3 buildings were about to buckle after jihadi terrorists flew the planes in and started the whole calamity. Rather than risk the lives of emergency services, citizens in the vicinity, the surrounding buildings doing a domino fall/firespread which could have turned the whole of central New York into one big disaster zone, a tough call could have been made to bring the buildings down
 
You forgot to include an itemised list of drawbacks.

I think Rambutan covered some big one in this part of his post - he just didn't number them -

To me the conspiratorial mindset is overwhelmingly gloomy, tends to breed cynicism, paranoia and extreme mistrust of others, an “us vs. them” attitude...definitely not a fun way to live life. Obviously conspiracy theories shouldn’t be discarded just because we don’t like the world they describe, I’d just like to see more skepticism and diligence employed in their assessment, here and on the podcast.
 
I think the main drawback to the conspiratorial mindset is the cynicism and distrust it tends to engender in the individual and in society as a whole, leading in part to the extreme polarization we're experiencing now. I would think anxiety and depression could be another side-effect of such a worldview

I found out in 2019 that a partner in a business I sunk 2 years and significant funds into had conspired with some local mafiosos to "get me out of the picture." I abandoned everything before it went to a level I could not reverse (if you get the drift). I experienced a big let down emotionally as well - you could say I went through a depression.

Sometimes there's an underlying truth to things like this. Does one wait until the world decides its true before accepting, yourself, something is true?

I have no answer for anyone to that question and find that I change my answer as time goes on. Live a life where you are always "watching your back?" Or live more towards an overall trust in the goodness of mankind? The bottom line (IMO) is... no one knows for sure, well, except those on the inside of an actual conspiracy.
 
This could also be called a "A Century of Conspiracy Theories That Led to War".

It also should serve as a lesson, one we have learned time and time again, that lumping everything that is not a sanctioned and official narrative in the realms of the weaponized term that is "conspiracy theory" is extremely dangerous. Millions have lost there lives because of that narrow mindedness.

Generalizations are paradoxically generally wrong. Even after the lies of 2020 some still fall victim to the weaponized term. It is a tool of propaganda used to great effect to keep people asleep inside their normalcy bias. How very sad.

More and more the term is plaguing the global society, not because of dangerous theories but because of it's use to hide dangerous lies.

From James Corbertt a actual conspiracy theorist, intelligent and always with impeccable research.

Debunking A Century of War Lies
 
Last edited:
Back
Top