favorite conspiracy theory

Here you can chat about anything that's not Warriors related.

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1104
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:17 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:23 pm
What is ur guys favorite conspiracy theory, you dont have to believe in it you can just think its funny, interesting, or semi plausible.

I have a few favorites, the aliens from nibiru (annunaki) is probably my top fav.

lol im really bored :mrgreen:
Basketball would be depressing without the warriors
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:58 pm
Location: the nickel and dime
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:30 pm
Its not really a conspiracy theory but, Ive always found the theory that the world is going to end on December 21, 2012 really interesting. It would be really crazy if it came true.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21218
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 25
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:19 pm
Both of those theories you two bring up are interesting. I was much more into conspiracies than I am now, but both of those you guys bring up are probably up there in all conspiracies to me, so I'll say those two
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 5850
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 5:05 am
Location: Brisbane
Poster Credit: 31
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:45 pm
Let me smoke some weed and then i'll get back to "MY FAVORITE"

:mrgreen:
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:14 am
PaWnOgRaFfItI wrote:Let me smoke some weed and then i'll get back to "MY FAVORITE"

:mrgreen:


That's "hardly" a conspiracy. :mrgreen:

Moderator
Posts: 5314
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:21 pm
Poster Credit: 20
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:53 am
well I am absolutely fascinated by the assassination of JFK and the conspiricy involved in that. I've done extended research on in, written numerous papers on it. My conclusion? I think Lyndon B. Johnson was a (if not the main) culprit on his death.

All Star
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:49 am
Location: Sunnyvale
Poster Credit: 1
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:48 am
9/11 was a result of the American Government :wink:
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21218
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 25
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:00 am
saintdee wrote:9/11 was a result of the American Government :wink:



There's overwhelming evidence that it was, along with other atrocities that have happened
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 7512
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:44 pm
Location: Brighton, England.
Poster Credit: -5
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:44 am
saintdee wrote:9/11 was a result of the American Government :wink:


Ohh dear...............dont get me started on that.

That ISNT a conspiracy, because as Mig says, there is too much pure, scientific, in-disputable evidence (which I have spent years collating into a 4 gig file I have on my PC) for it to be a conspiracy.

If you guys want, I shall post a summary of this I made some time. :wink:
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21218
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 25
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:04 am
bigstrads wrote:
saintdee wrote:9/11 was a result of the American Government :wink:


Ohh dear...............dont get me started on that.

That ISNT a conspiracy, because as Mig says, there is too much pure, scientific, in-disputable evidence (which I have spent years collating into a 4 gig file I have on my PC) for it to be a conspiracy.

If you guys want, I shall post a summary of this I made some time. :wink:



Oi Bigs, copy it to DVD :mrgreen:
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Role Player
Posts: 418
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:16 am
Poster Credit: 2
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:10 am
There is really not much evidence to suggest such a "theory" is even worth considering to be honest . . . There is some coincidental / circumstantial stuff that is extremely iffy. That's about it. I've yet to see anyone put together a decent argument to show why the US Government would destroy their own land, or how any supposed evidence suggests that they did so. And I've read a fair bit about it.

That is one of the theories that really annoys me, along with the Lunar landing. A good conspiracy theory (what an oxymoron :-k) requires some legitimate factual support. Neither of those theories have anything -- at least, nothing that hasn't been disproved or rebutted sufficiently in any discussion I've seen.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any conspiracy theory that I really find interesting or believable. I'm sure if I spent enough time thinking/caring about them I could come up with something though...
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 7512
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:44 pm
Location: Brighton, England.
Poster Credit: -5
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:30 am
D4rk 0ne wrote:There is really not much evidence to suggest such a "theory" is even worth considering to be honest . . . There is some coincidental / circumstantial stuff that is extremely iffy. That's about it. I've yet to see anyone put together a decent argument to show why the US Government would destroy their own land, or how any supposed evidence suggests that they did so. And I've read a fair bit about it.

That is one of the theories that really annoys me, along with the Lunar landing. A good conspiracy theory (what an oxymoron :-k) requires some legitimate factual support. Neither of those theories have anything -- at least, nothing that hasn't been disproved or rebutted sufficiently in any discussion I've seen.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any conspiracy theory that I really find interesting or believable. I'm sure if I spent enough time thinking/caring about them I could come up with something though...


Ahh, a challenge...............ok dude, all I ask is that you dont take this as a conspiracy theory, and try to think of it as a presentation of scientific fact, with no suggestion as to what I am implying by it but just simple questioning via looking at the official statements of what happend and what is physically possible in the know universe.............heres one Ive used before =

The melting point of steel is 1510C..........fact.

The melting point of iron is 1535C...........fact.


For both towers to collapse, the official explanation is that the jet fuel and other combustables like paper/wood/plastics etc, reached such a temperature that it melted the steel structure and caused the crash (as evident by the pools of molten steel/melted steel found in the ruins)

So, more facts...........the maximum temperature achievable by a fully oxygenated jet fuel induced fire is 825C........fact............see a problem?..........and given that black smoke was pouring from the building, this means that the fires were oxygen starved and as such were not able to even reach there max temp of 835C.............just under half the temperature needed to melt the steel structure.

Finally..........the maximum temperature achievable of C4 explosives is around 1800C..........also, as is widely suggested, thermite was most likely used as it is the quickest and easiest way to melt steel...........it has a low temp of around 1230C and a high temp of 4556C

In conclusions, it is IMPOSSIBLE!!! and never before happend in human/steel/fire history that a steel can be melted by jet fuel and other available combustables in the building...........simply not possible...........so what does that mean?


One final one, in case you talk about damage to the stucture from the impact............the fact that the building fell at the same rate as gravity (proven and timed), meaning that from the beginning of the collapse, the rest of buildings structure was pulverised and there was no resistance (the official explanation was that the crash area collapsed onto the other un-affected floors and the weight caused the rest of the collapse)............is IMPOSSIBLE, as it would not have fallen without resistance, and at the same rate as gravity, as each floor hitting the other would have expelled energy and slowed it down, possibly causing it to fall to the side.............the only way this IS POSSIBLE is with explosives/thermite planted through the structure.

One more little one on the impact of the plane causing structural damage..............there are numerous records of wind sheer being equal to and in many case, far greater than the impact created by the planes hitting the towers.
.
.
.
.
I have many more but I hope you read that for what it is...........not a mud sling at anyone, just simple questioning of the official explanation and how easy they are to dis-prove with a few simple scientific facts.

I have more.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21218
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 25
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:50 am
bigstrads wrote:
D4rk 0ne wrote:There is really not much evidence to suggest such a "theory" is even worth considering to be honest . . . There is some coincidental / circumstantial stuff that is extremely iffy. That's about it. I've yet to see anyone put together a decent argument to show why the US Government would destroy their own land, or how any supposed evidence suggests that they did so. And I've read a fair bit about it.

That is one of the theories that really annoys me, along with the Lunar landing. A good conspiracy theory (what an oxymoron :-k) requires some legitimate factual support. Neither of those theories have anything -- at least, nothing that hasn't been disproved or rebutted sufficiently in any discussion I've seen.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any conspiracy theory that I really find interesting or believable. I'm sure if I spent enough time thinking/caring about them I could come up with something though...


Ahh, a challenge...............ok dude, all I ask is that you dont take this as a conspiracy theory, and try to think of it as a presentation of scientific fact, with no suggestion as to what I am implying by it but just simple questioning via looking at the official statements of what happend and what is physically possible in the know universe.............heres one Ive used before =

The melting point of steel is 1510C..........fact.

The melting point of iron is 1535C...........fact.


For both towers to collapse, the official explanation is that the jet fuel and other combustables like paper/wood/plastics etc, reached such a temperature that it melted the steel structure and caused the crash (as evident by the pools of molten steel/melted steel found in the ruins)

So, more facts...........the maximum temperature achievable by a fully oxygenated jet fuel induced fire is 825C........fact............see a problem?..........and given that black smoke was pouring from the building, this means that the fires were oxygen starved and as such were not able to even reach there max temp of 835C.............just under half the temperature needed to melt the steel structure.

Finally..........the maximum temperature achievable of C4 explosives is around 1800C..........also, as is widely suggested, thermite was most likely used as it is the quickest and easiest way to melt steel...........it has a low temp of around 1230C and a high temp of 4556C

In conclusions, it is IMPOSSIBLE!!! and never before happend in human/steel/fire history that a steel can be melted by jet fuel and other available combustables in the building...........simply not possible...........so what does that mean?


One final one, in case you talk about damage to the stucture from the impact............the fact that the building fell at the same rate as gravity (proven and timed), meaning that from the beginning of the collapse, the rest of buildings structure was pulverised and there was no resistance (the official explanation was that the crash area collapsed onto the other un-affected floors and the weight caused the rest of the collapse)............is IMPOSSIBLE, as it would not have fallen without resistance, and at the same rate as gravity, as each floor hitting the other would have expelled energy and slowed it down, possibly causing it to fall to the side.............the only way this IS POSSIBLE is with explosives/thermite planted through the structure.

One more little one on the impact of the plane causing structural damage..............there are numerous records of wind sheer being equal to and in many case, far greater than the impact created by the planes hitting the towers.
.
.
.
.
I have many more but I hope you read that for what it is...........not a mud sling at anyone, just simple questioning of the official explanation and how easy they are to dis-prove with a few simple scientific facts.

I have more.



And a simple one - The two planes that crashed into the towers don't even look like the planes made by the company they were said to be from. They were dark grey and they also had something hanging out near the front, like something that had been added on, not an official type plane.

From the statements by the coroner that went to the crash site of the plane that fell in the fields near the tree area (I'm not going to search up the place right now, think you guys will remember), saying that he stopped being a coroner the moment he got there, as there were no bodies, not one. To the arabs that were the so called hijackers and killed in the plane crashes, calling their families to say they were alright and were not even in the U.S.A but had been somewhere else the whole time. To the phone calls made by from passengers from one of the planes that supposedly never landed, where they talk strangely, like using their full name when calling their mother, something you don't do, especially in time of distress. It all doesn't add up
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Role Player
Posts: 418
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:16 am
Poster Credit: 2
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:56 am
Here is a rebuttal to your strongest argument, as stated by researches for popularmechanics.com:

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


Regarding the notion that WTC 7 was "demolished" (i.e. explosives were used to blow it up hours after the impact) -- this is what you're getting at with that big paragraph, right? How some people claim that the debris suggests that the collapse was the result of a controlled demolition?

Here is popularmechanics' response to that claim:
Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.



Sorry for simply quoting the source rather than rewriting things in my own words . . . it's just far more efficient this way, and now you know where I'm getting my info. And just so you know where they got their info: here is their list of sources

You'll notice that that is page nine of a nine page article. The report addresses most other popular theories including most (all?) of the ones you mentioned, migya.
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 7512
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:44 pm
Location: Brighton, England.
Poster Credit: -5
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:23 am
Yup, I to have read those reports and got all the rebuttals on file too (please note, that I research both sides of the argument and not just the one I am trying to see)

But the problem is that in those "explanations" they still dont actually account for the MOLTEN steel that was witnessed/found..............and also, all the temperatures they quote dont add to the melting point of steel, and also dont account for the steel that was UN-AFFECTED and UN-BURNT underneath the crash areas..............why did the steel in the below areas of the building not give any resistance to falling "melted" crash area?

That is more the point, not only has it never been recorded that jet fuel plus combustables melting a steel structure, in the history of steel based engineering but why was the un-affected steel pulverised by the demolition wave so easily? it shouldnt have been, it should have resisted and caused it slow down, as per the law of energy expulsion, and probably caused it to collapse off to the side, and not bring down the whole building.

There is so much more after this though.................like these =

This is one that Ive said a few times............if you research it, you will see that the remains were never "officially" inspected, and the law was actually broken by the way that it was all taken to a landfill and destroyed/made into tar mac/cement (something NY residents were not happy about as they reslised that they were walking on streets made out of there remains of the building and as such there fallen citizens).............when the commisioned report was set up, the remains had already been destroyed/made un-inspectable.............so why was that?
Next

Return to Off-Topic Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron