Do you define "conspiracy theory" as the Mainstream Media does -- that's such a silly idea, only idiots would go down that rabbit hole.
Or the strict dictionary definition of a "conspiracy theory" being --- a theory that there may, or may not, be a conspiracy (definition: "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful").
For example .... and this might be pushing people beyond their general knowledge of history ..... did Guy Fawkes in 1605 conspire with five others to blow up of the House of Lords. That's not a conspiracy-theory. It's a conspiracy-fact.
Whereas now, the Media has warped the plain meaning of "conspiracy-theory" into "don't even review the data and evidence that those fools present to you".
OK, this is a conspiracy theory (in the strict definition) that I am closely monitoring for further information.
I have a university degree in a related field of science on this topic
In history, there has never been a case -- aside from the allegations at 9/11 -- that a multi-storey highrise skyscraper burns with fire, and then collapses.
Even to this day, when I speak to people, very few people are aware that 3 skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11
The twin towers are the best known skyscrapers that collapsed that had airline jets flying into them. But there was also the 3rd Tower No.7 that collapsed.
The 9/11 report hardly, or did not mentioned, the third tower No.7
There is an organisation - Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911T) - who collectively assert that WTC7 could not just have fallen down due to fire.
AE911Truth is a nonprofit organization that represents more than 3,000 architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11.
www.ae911truth.org
e.g. the Grenfell Tower fire on June 14, 2017, in London - did not fall down.
e.g. the Dagenham Tower in London, burned on August 26, 2024, did not fall down.
You would have thought that, because of this historically-unprecedented case where a skyscraper falls down, ostensibly from fire, that massive amounts of academic engineering study and testing of the fallen structure would have been subjected to metallurgical testing. If the theory is that the fire causes the structural steel to fail, even a 2nd year Engineering student knows that the first step is to test the metallurgy of the steel. BUT the government took all the remains of WTC 7 and melted it all into scrap, so that no further testing can be done, with no peer reviews, and no transparency.
Do this test: ASK ANYONE YOU KNOW: how many towers fell on 9/11, and virtually 100% will say that 2 towers fell. I can't recall meeting any people (aside from people clued-up on so-called conspiracy theories) who are aware that THREE towers fell on 9/11. And that the 3rd tower fell without a plane flying into it.
From the viewpoint of structural engineers, that simply cannot happen - a skyscraper falling down due to fire. And there was no transparency, no peer viewed studies of the 3rd WTC7 tower.
A history-first occurrence of a skyscraper falling down due to fire -- and absolute secrecy in the testing, with no transparency, and no peer-reviewed studies.
Me, as a person with a university degree in a related field, my warning bells are blaring.
But when I ask people about the 3rd WTC 7 tower, typically people toss me off as a "conspiracy theorist". I have a friend who is an engineer, and he also is suspicious about this 3rd WTC 7 falling down without a plane flying into it.
C'mon people. A world's first, never before, never after, has a skyscraper ever fallen down due to fire. And total blackout, no transparency in the investigation. All the structural materials from WTC 7 now destroyed for scrap so that no further investigations are possible.
Funny thing is, 99.9999999% of people dismiss this as a "conspiracy theory".
OK, this is a conspiracy theory (in the strict definition) that I am closely monitoring for further information.
I have a university degree in a related field of science on this topic
In history, there has never been a case -- aside from the allegations at 9/11 -- that a multi-storey highrise skyscraper burns with fire, and then collapses.
Even to this day, when I speak to people, very few people are aware that 3 skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11
The twin towers are the best known skyscrapers that collapsed that had airline jets flying into them. But there was also the 3rd Tower No.7 that collapsed.
The 9/11 report hardly, or did not mentioned, the third tower No.7
There is an organisation - Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911T) - who collectively assert that WTC7 could not just have fallen down due to fire.
AE911Truth is a nonprofit organization that represents more than 3,000 architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11.
www.ae911truth.org
e.g. the Grenfell Tower fire on June 14, 2017, in London - did not fall down.
e.g. the Dagenham Tower in London, burned on August 26, 2024, did not fall down.
You would have thought that, because of this historically-unprecedented case where a skyscraper falls down, ostensibly from fire, that massive amounts of academic engineering study and testing of the fallen structure would have been subjected to metallurgical testing. If the theory is that the fire causes the structural steel to fail, even a 2nd year Engineering student knows that the first step is to test the metallurgy of the steel. BUT the government took all the remains of WTC 7 and melted it all into scrap, so that no further testing can be done, with no peer reviews, and no transparency.
Do this test: ASK ANYONE YOU KNOW: how many towers fell on 9/11, and virtually 100% will say that 2 towers fell. I can't recall meeting any people (aside from people clued-up on so-called conspiracy theories) who are aware that THREE towers fell on 9/11. And that the 3rd tower fell without a plane flying into it.
From the viewpoint of structural engineers, that simply cannot happen - a skyscraper falling down due to fire. And there was no transparency, no peer viewed studies of the 3rd WTC7 tower.
A history-first occurrence of a skyscraper falling down due to fire -- and absolute secrecy in the testing, with no transparency, and no peer-reviewed studies.
Me, as a person with a university degree in a related field, my warning bells are blaring.
But when I ask people about the 3rd WTC 7 tower, typically people toss me off as a "conspiracy theorist". I have a friend who is an engineer, and he also is suspicious about this 3rd WTC 7 falling down without a plane flying into it.
C'mon people. A world's first, never before, never after, has a skyscraper ever fallen down due to fire. And total blackout, no transparency in the investigation. All the structural materials from WTC 7 now destroyed for scrap so that no further investigations are possible.
Funny thing is, 99.9999999% of people dismiss this as a "conspiracy theory".
OK, this is a conspiracy theory (in the strict definition) that I am closely monitoring for further information.
I have a university degree in a related field of science on this topic
In history, there has never been a case -- aside from the allegations at 9/11 -- that a multi-storey highrise skyscraper burns with fire, and then collapses.
Even to this day, when I speak to people, very few people are aware that 3 skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11
The twin towers are the best known skyscrapers that collapsed that had airline jets flying into them. But there was also the 3rd Tower No.7 that collapsed.
The 9/11 report hardly, or did not mentioned, the third tower No.7
There is an organisation - Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911T) - who collectively assert that WTC7 could not just have fallen down due to fire.
AE911Truth is a nonprofit organization that represents more than 3,000 architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11.
www.ae911truth.org
e.g. the Grenfell Tower fire on June 14, 2017, in London - did not fall down.
e.g. the Dagenham Tower in London, burned on August 26, 2024, did not fall down.
You would have thought that, because of this historically-unprecedented case where a skyscraper falls down, ostensibly from fire, that massive amounts of academic engineering study and testing of the fallen structure would have been subjected to metallurgical testing. If the theory is that the fire causes the structural steel to fail, even a 2nd year Engineering student knows that the first step is to test the metallurgy of the steel. BUT the government took all the remains of WTC 7 and melted it all into scrap, so that no further testing can be done, with no peer reviews, and no transparency.
Do this test: ASK ANYONE YOU KNOW: how many towers fell on 9/11, and virtually 100% will say that 2 towers fell. I can't recall meeting any people (aside from people clued-up on so-called conspiracy theories) who are aware that THREE towers fell on 9/11. And that the 3rd tower fell without a plane flying into it.
From the viewpoint of structural engineers, that simply cannot happen - a skyscraper falling down due to fire. And there was no transparency, no peer viewed studies of the 3rd WTC7 tower.
A history-first occurrence of a skyscraper falling down due to fire -- and absolute secrecy in the testing, with no transparency, and no peer-reviewed studies.
Me, as a person with a university degree in a related field, my warning bells are blaring.
But when I ask people about the 3rd WTC 7 tower, typically people toss me off as a "conspiracy theorist". I have a friend who is an engineer, and he also is suspicious about this 3rd WTC 7 falling down without a plane flying into it.
C'mon people. A world's first, never before, never after, has a skyscraper ever fallen down due to fire. And total blackout, no transparency in the investigation. All the structural materials from WTC 7 now destroyed for scrap so that no further investigations are possible.
Funny thing is, 99.9999999% of people dismiss this as a "conspiracy theory".
You are so stupid and you have said so many ridiculous things and outright lies here it would take a day to refute them all and you still wouldn't be convinced so I'm not going to.
You are a fuckhead for the ages.
I will address one outright lie though. (See links and youtube video below.)
You are so stupid and you have said so many ridiculous things and outright lies here it would take a day to refute them all and you still wouldn't be convinced so I'm not going to.
This report describes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse of WTC 7; an evaluation
www.nist.gov
Who knew that a giant fucking skyscraper falling on a building might cause it to collapse later?
I've never muted anyone or put them on ignore but I'm very close. The bloke is a fucking idiot.
This particularly subject is 100% right up my alley. I have an actual degree in the subject not some 'related field' as that flog purports to have and have had a major interest in this for years. As part of forensic investigations I do I have a folder of photos of steel buildings that have buckled and/or collapsed due to heat let alone steel buildings that have had major structural elements ripped out of them and then had jet fuel ignite all around them. The only people that believe this crap that he is spruiking are the uneducated, the ignorant or the wilfully ignorant.
All the information on how it happened is there if you care to look. The fact that fuckwits like this fuckwit refuse to speaks volumes about what sort of 'troof seeker' they actually are.
Having said all of that the US did use the attack as a pretext to invade Iraq. That's not a conspiracy, that's a fact.
Dude step back a little .... its like refuting 6000 years of existence and flat earth... why let it bother you? Let the 0.00000000% believe what they want its funny as shit.
I've never muted anyone or put them on ignore but I'm very close. The bloke is a fucking idiot.
This particularly subject is 100% right up my alley. I have an actual degree in the subject not some 'related field' as that flog purports to have and have had a major interest in this for years. As part of forensic investigations I do I have a folder of photos of steel buildings that have buckled and/or collapsed due to heat let alone steel buildings that have had major structural elements ripped out of them and then had jet fuel ignite all around them. The only people that believe this crap that he is spruiking are the uneducated, the ignorant or the wilfully ignorant.
All the information on how it happened is there if you care to look. The fact that fuckwits like this fuckwit refuse to speaks volumes about what sort of 'troof seeker' they actually are.
Having said all of that the US did use the attack as a pretext to invade Iraq. That's not a conspiracy, that's a fact.
AE911Truth is a nonprofit organization that represents more than 3,000 architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11.
AE911Truth is a nonprofit organization that represents more than 3,000 architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11.
Dude step back a little .... its like refuting 6000 years of existence and flat earth... why let it bother you? Let the 0.00000000% believe what they want its funny as shit.
AE911Truth is a nonprofit organization that represents more than 3,000 architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11.
www.ae911truth.org
If you truly are an expert of small structures, then I'd expect you to have at least some professional curiosity about how other professionals view this controversial matter, rather than ranting and raving about your experience with far smaller structures.
If I met a professional who had a innate curiosity about things in the public discourse that pertain to his work-experience -- versus some idiot that rants and raves at the slightest provocation -- I'd be include to hear the guy who gives reasoning and arguments, rather than the raving screaming guy claiming to be some consultant.
e.g. when there's some events in current affairs that pertain to my professional expertise -- and friends ask me about it -- I reply with reasons and arguments. I don't scream and yell like some stark-raving loony.