Trending Topics

      Next match: v [] Thu 1st Jan @ 1:00 am

      Today is the 29th of May and on this date LFC's match record is P8 W3 D3 L2

      Conspiracy Theories

      Read 25355 times
      0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
      finchie
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,576 posts | 154 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #92: May 19, 2010 05:43:04 pm
      Yes Operation Northwoods shows that what people consider impossible ie American government committing terrorist acts against its own people was actively planned. It's quite stunning.

      Also worth reading about is the think tank strategies of the Project for the New American Century from around the turn of the century. Their stated goal was to
      "promote American global leadership"

      Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

      The catastrophic event-9/11??
      bad boy bubby
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 14,564 posts | 3172 
      • @KaiserQueef
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #93: May 19, 2010 06:05:57 pm
      What do you reckon those of you that buy into this pish enough to care should do about it? Apart from spreading the word, of course.



      shabbadoo
      • Forum Legend - Shankly
      • ******

      • 29,479 posts | 4595 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #94: May 19, 2010 06:29:31 pm
      My favourite thread.
      bigvYNWA
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 16,795 posts | 994 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #95: May 19, 2010 06:34:59 pm

      Same.

      I love fantasies ;D
      Ross
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 19,916 posts | 165 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #96: May 19, 2010 06:58:29 pm
      What do you lot make of stuff like this:

      *PT 2. 9/11 WTC HIDDEN IMAGES IN AMERICAN NAZI DOLLAR BILL/MONEY/SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES

      Fast forward to 1:00
      finchie
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,576 posts | 154 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #97: May 19, 2010 07:48:25 pm



      So do you two either:

      i) accept blindly as a matter of faith whatever the US government latest official theory is or

      ii) you can explain how WTC7 fell at free fall. See

      Which is it?
      Gow
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 13,531 posts | 282 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #98: May 19, 2010 07:58:42 pm
      What do you lot make of stuff like this:


      I think he's a nazi.
      KennyIsKing
      • Banned
      • *****

      • 4,628 posts | 129 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #99: May 19, 2010 07:58:47 pm
      What do you reckon those of you that buy into this pish enough to care should do about it? Apart from spreading the word, of course.

      As I have already said, I don't buy into it, but it is fascinating stuff when you start digging into it.

      If you think it's not possible, try reading up on Operation Northwoods - the US had planned to do something similar in 1962...

      If you still think it's a load of bull after reading that, then you probably wouldn't think anything at all in the "black ops" area was possible.
      finchie
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,576 posts | 154 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #100: May 19, 2010 08:35:48 pm
      Why don't you buy into it?

      I can understand those who haven't read into it not buying it. 2 years ago I was obsessed with football and little else more-that was until I saw WTC7 fall and I started to question-I've been digging since. My reaction to this sort of stuff would have been/was to simply not give it any attention and think conspiracy nutters.

      I really don't understand how anyone who's read around this stuff can believe the bull that comes out of governments. Look at how we were blatantly conned about WMDs in order to get the war that 9/11 demanded.
      KennyIsKing
      • Banned
      • *****

      • 4,628 posts | 129 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #101: May 19, 2010 08:40:20 pm
      Oh I think something REALLY dodgy went on, but I'm talking more about the theories like holograms and missiles.

      I'm also talking about ALL the towers, not just WTC7.

      There is without doubt more things that don't add up than do, but by the same score, I don't think either "side" has conclusively "proved" their argument.

      In other words, I have an open mind, but lean more towards the conspiracy side...
      finchie
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,576 posts | 154 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #102: May 19, 2010 08:55:06 pm
      Yes the holograms and missiles are disinformation designed to make those who've figured it out look like nutters. We all get tarred with the same brush.

      I agree about all the towers but I tend to talk about WTC7 more because
      i) no fatalities making it easier to discuss
      ii) no plane hit it
      iii) the NIST report 2008 is so obviously absolute boll..cks-a single office fire at a steel/shear studded/concrete embedded column caused the whole building to collapse
      iv) free fall collapse across the entire structure for 2.25s
      v) it is so obviously a controlled demolition

      Number v in particular!

      The laws of physics (I have a Physics degree and 14 years experience working in Physics) are clearly violated when the twin towers collapse. eg there is no change in acceleration in the spire when its section strikes the section below triggering the global collapse but I tend to stick with WTC7. The Pentagon is more puzzling and less clear cut but applying Physics to the towers we're looking at controlled demolitions.
      Gow
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 13,531 posts | 282 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #103: May 19, 2010 09:10:33 pm
      'we'?

      Are all your posts going to be in this thread? Do you have an agenda here?
      finchie
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,576 posts | 154 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #104: May 19, 2010 09:38:46 pm
      'we'?

      Are all your posts going to be in this thread? Do you have an agenda here?
      By "we" I mean 9/11 sceptics-not sure what you're suggesting.
      bigvYNWA
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 16,795 posts | 994 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #105: May 19, 2010 10:46:11 pm
      I believe what I want to believe, not what anyone tells me until it's proven - Government or "theorists" like yourself. And I just don't believe a lot of what you are telling us here. Doesn't mean I'm blind or whatever you said. 
      HUYTON RED
      • Forum Legend - Shankly
      • ******

      • 40,484 posts | 8671 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #106: May 19, 2010 11:11:10 pm
      By "we" I mean 9/11 sceptics-not sure what you're suggesting.

      I think he means you continually banging on about 9/11.

      F**k the US Govt and 9/11, I'd personally just like to hear our govt tell the truth about something they've kept hid for the past 21 years.
      Gow
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 13,531 posts | 282 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #107: May 19, 2010 11:17:14 pm
      Free-fall speed?

      In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

      Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

      Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

       Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

      When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
      d = 1/2at^2
      so
      t = (2d/a)^1/2
      a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
      d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
      so
      t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
      OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
      v = at
      v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
      So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


      Let's see:
      KE = 1/2mv^2
      The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to  this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
      208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
      50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
      additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
      450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
      so the total mass would be
      4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
      Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
      90.4m/s
      so our
      KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
      So, divide by 2 and we get
      10,362,544,260J
      OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
      t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
      v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
      KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
      Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
      110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
      = 1,139,879,868,600J
      OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
      1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

      Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

      Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with.  - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

      Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.

      Link
      finchie
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,576 posts | 154 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #108: May 19, 2010 11:26:44 pm
      I think he means you continually banging on about 9/11.

      F**k the US Govt and 9/11, I'd personally just like to hear our govt tell the truth about something they've kept hid for the past 21 years.
      This is a conspiracy thread-is it unreasonable to argue strongly about a conspiracy theory in a conspiracy theory thread.
      And your second point-yes, absolutely-this is perhaps one of the reasons why I mistrust governments so much and why governments/authorities anger me so much
      finchie
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,576 posts | 154 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #109: May 19, 2010 11:36:35 pm
      Link doesn't work.
      http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

      I've never said the twin towers fall at free fall.
      I'm talking about WTC7 and free fall is both declared impossible by NIST's lead investigator and reported as happening in its final report 2008.

      See
      Gow
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 13,531 posts | 282 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #110: May 19, 2010 11:50:40 pm
        "But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in its own foot print" you might say. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings.

      This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.

      http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
      finchie
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,576 posts | 154 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #111: May 20, 2010 12:05:57 am
      I'm not sure what that text is trying to argue.

      NIST reports that there are 3 stages to the collapse. It is stage 2 where there is a contradiction ie

      "a free fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25s"
      NCSTAR 1A

      What happens before or after or whatever the total time of collapse is is not central to my argument. The fact is that NIST admits free fall for a stage of the collapse-that's a clear enough contradiction-because for that period a section of the building fell through building structure (supposedly) and experienced ZERO resistance. That can't happen as Shyam Sunder (NIST lead investigator) said originally.
      bigvYNWA
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 16,795 posts | 994 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #112: May 20, 2010 12:12:07 am
      You know what I find funny is that you say "do you believe what you're told" when you are really just trusting others information and opinion as well.

      Sooo. Do you like football? :D
      finchie
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,576 posts | 154 
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #113: May 20, 2010 12:25:14 am
      You know what I find funny is that you say "do you believe what you're told" when you are really just trusting others information and opinion as well.

      Sooo. Do you like football? :D
      I suppose at some stage I must but I have checked David Chandler's calculations which demonstrated free fall and from my knowledge of Physics free fall means zero upwards resistance-so yes in fact I'm trusting Isaac Newton. Perhaps that stuff with apples was government deception!
      Do I like football? once to obsession levels but since the commercialisation of the game less so. Istanbul was still the best night of my life then along came H&G and f..cked up the club. I still play socially and coach a team. So I'm not an internet troll or if I am not consciously so ;D
      bad boy bubby
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 14,564 posts | 3172 
      • @KaiserQueef
      Re: Conspiracy Theories
      Reply #114: May 20, 2010 08:17:10 am

      So do you two either:

      i) accept blindly as a matter of faith whatever the US government latest official theory is or

      ii) you can explain how WTC7 fell at free fall.


      Which is it?

      Neither finchie - i just couldn't give a F**k to be honest.  >:D

      There are more important things in my life than this but fair play to you; if pish like this worries you, then the rest of your life must be sweet.

      Quick Reply