Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rhys_ufc

Craziest conspiracies

Recommended Posts

Okay here's my conspiracy.

 

Dan Henderson didn't really "fail to come to terms" with Dana and the UFC.

 

What's REALLY happening is this. Henderson is a hired assassin to take out Strikeforce. With 4 objectives.

 

1. Get signed by Strikeforce and get paid an exorbitant amount to hurt Strikeforce in the wallet.

 

2. Fight and destroy Mousasi who hasn't yet earned the right to be uttered in the same breath as Anderson Silva, and yet those who don't know what they are talking about think he's some super star. All I gotta say about Mousasi is that he's talented to be sure. He's young and he will improve. But he just had trouble with Mr. 50/50 himself. Henderson will beat him and pop that draw for Strikeforce.

 

3. Drop down to 185 and murder Shield with a big grin on his face. Nuff said.

 

and finally...

 

4. The GRAND MASTER PLAN....Henderson decided that being king of 185/205 isn't enough....hmm...how about....Fedor? He then challenges Fedor publicly. He gets the fight..KO's Fedor.

 

And oh!...whats this??? His strikeforce contract expired?....

 

Back home to the UFC with a million per fight contract after completely undermining the UFC's ONLY competitor....and he get's his rematch..finally

 

 

A stroke of brilliance? I think so.....

 

Then unfortunately he comes back and get's owned by Anderson ...again.

 

 

THAT is what's really going on..

 

Cheers

 

-DR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay here's my conspiracy.

 

Dan Henderson didn't really "fail to come to terms" with Dana and the UFC.

 

What's REALLY happening is this. Henderson is a hired assassin to take out Strikeforce. With 4 objectives.

 

1. Get signed by Strikeforce and get paid an exorbitant amount to hurt Strikeforce in the wallet.

 

2. Fight and destroy Mousasi who hasn't yet earned the right to be uttered in the same breath as Anderson Silva' date=' and yet those who don't know what they are talking about think he's some super star. All I gotta say about Mousasi is that he's talented to be sure. He's young and he will improve. But he just had trouble with Mr. 50/50 himself. Henderson will beat him and pop that draw for Strikeforce.

 

3. Drop down to 185 and murder Shield with a big grin on his face. Nuff said.

 

and finally...

 

4. The GRAND MASTER PLAN....Henderson decided that being king of 185/205 isn't enough....hmm...how about....Fedor? He then challenges Fedor publicly. He gets the fight..KO's Fedor.

 

And oh!...whats this??? His strikeforce contract expired?....

 

Back home to the UFC with a million per fight contract after completely undermining the UFC's ONLY competitor....and he get's his rematch..finally

 

 

A stroke of brilliance? I think so.....

 

Then unfortunately he comes back and get's owned by Anderson ...again.

 

 

THAT is what's really going on..

 

Cheers

 

-DR[/quote']

 

lol

good post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you dont count the eyewitnesses that where in the building and heard and felt explosions go off....the live reporters saying it looked like a demolition

 

the fact that the jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the metal the building was made out of' date=' the fact that beams were pictured cut at angles within the wtc wreckage

the fact that the buildings freefell, which implies that the bottom was taken out of it

 

the fact that many who were said to be hijackers are still alive lmao[/quote']

 

Claim: If you dont count the eyewitnesses that where in the building and heard and felt explosions go off....the live reporters saying it looked like a demolition.

 

FACT: There are just as many that say they heard and felt no explosions. More importantly since when has a reporter been reliable about anything...EVER. And futhermore an expert on demolition.

 

Claim: The fact that the jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the metal the building was made out of.

 

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800? to 1500?F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750?F). However, 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. 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 And at 1800? it is probably at less than 10 percent. 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. Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning 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. Your average house fire can reach anywhere from 1000 to 1800?F. The jet fuel was the ignition source 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.

 

Claim: The fact that the buildings freefell, which implies that the bottom was taken out of it.

 

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor.

Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction.

Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin.

 

Claim: The fact that beams were pictured cut at angles within the wtc wreckage.

 

FACT: Do we even know the date of that famous pic? Did they not cut beams in an attempt to rescue people however unlikely some one would have survived they did cut beams after to possibly free survivors from the

immidiate sourrounding areas.

 

Claim: The fact that many who were said to be hijackers are still alive.

 

FACT: First where's any Proof of that. Second it's very possible the CIA made a mistake about some the actual names of the hijackers. It's not the CIA's first mistake and won't be the last.

 

FACT: 9/11 conspiracy theorist, so called "Truthers" believe the earth is flat.

Opinion: Let them wallow in blind ignorance.

 

 

Just so you know I don't completely buy the governments story either ( In particular concerning tower 7 ). They do cover things up and thats a fact but the Truthers are far worse in regard to passing some circumstantial evidence off as FACT because there cynical people. That's the main problem with all conspiracy theorist. It's a theory and one that is hard to prove or disprove beyond a doubt. If it could indeed be proven as FACT there could be no disputing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
glad to see that I have sucessfully converted some of you to the side of truth.

 

you tube has a plethora of vitally important and truthfull ( or at least truthyish ) videos regarding the annunaki and nibiru.

 

this is officially my new doctorine of faith.

some of my personal favorites....

and

 

there really are too many to mention.

 

but there is a HUGE amount of information on the internet regarding the annunaki and nibiru...... the you tube videos are fantastic!

 

 

just dont look any of this up on nasa's butthole web site for jerks.

those guys dont have a clue!

 

Yeah and my balls are really Hexagons.

 

and

 

My C U M is the sweet sweet nectar of creation. That's what the ladies that are into hot laundry tell me so it must be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wtc building 7 is the one that i always come back to with questions. the wtc buildings owner made that infamous comment about having to pull the building (wtc 7), not sure why he would have said that. i just have a hard time accepting that wtc 7 fell with that perfect v that happens in the top middle of a building brought down by controlled demolition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been reading this thread for last few days, its a great read have to thank every1 for their input.

 

Anyway, another conspiracy theory which you might not know a lot about in the US(maybe you do im not sure) is the death of Princess Diana.

 

Conspiracy Theories

 

Famous people meeting tragic ends are a phenomenon that seems to bring out conspiracy theories. The death of Diana is no exception. Discussions on how Princess Diana died haven't wained since her death. The incredible scale of speculation is in evidence on the internet, where there are an estimated 36,000 Diana conspiracy theories. Here are the most popular theories so far:

 

Faked Death

One theory says the deaths were staged to enable Diana and Dodi to start a new life, away from the prying eyes of the media. Security forces apparently colluded to ensure that the press did not find out and a staged video of the crash was filmed. Reports that Diana could still be alive are fuelled by the fact that she had no post mortem prior to burial at Althorp. Victims of sudden death require a post mortem by law in the UK. Some even suggest that, with plastic surgery, the princess could return unnoticed to look after her sons.

 

Who was Henri Paul?

Mystery surrounds Henri Paul, the security officer who stepped in at the last minute to drive the Mercedes. Co-workers at the Ritz Hotel say he kept himself to himself and never socialised with them.

 

Was he really drunk?

It's said that he had two drinks at the Ritz. The medical results from his blood test showed a very high level of carbon monoxide in his blood. Experts say this would have incapacitated him before his set off on his fatal journey - and yet the video evidence shows him walking around normally. Paul has also been accused of being an alcoholic, but he passed a health check just two days before the accident. His liver showed no signs of abuse on post mortem. There is also the question of the multiple bank accounts Paul held, with balances far exceeding his salary as acting head of security at the Ritz. One possible explanation for this is that he was an agent for the French secret service agency.

 

MI6 Killed Diana

Rogue elements in the British secret service decided that Diana was a threat to the throne and the stability of the state. Therefore she needed to be eliminated. It's not inconceivable, as it's been revealed that agents had files on Jack Straw, peace campaigners and union officials and once tried to destabilise the Labour government in the 1970s. MI6 is suspected of bugging Diana throughout her years in the Royal Family. Many believe they were behind the leaking of the 'Squidgygate' phone-tapping tapes, which damaged her image.

 

Other establishment figures have also been accused. An Egyptian lawyer attempted to sue the Queen and Prime Minister Tony Blair for damages, of $170,000 alleging they conspired to kill Diana because she was in love with Dodi, a Muslim. Nabih Alwahsi says the British establishment was determined to prevent a Muslim from becoming stepfather to the future King of England.

 

Target Dodi

Business enemies of Dodi, and his father Mohammed Al Fayed, allegedly assassinated Dodi, with the death of Diana a magnificent cover for their operation. Al Fayed has not got to the top without making some serious enemies along the way. The owner of Harrods fought a bitter battle for the top London store some years ago and has also been denied British nationality, after question marks were raised about his business practice. As his oldest son and heir, Dodi would be an obvious target for anyone wanting to settle a score with Al Fayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you dont count the eyewitnesses that where in the building and heard and felt explosions go off....the live reporters saying it looked like a demolition

the fact that the jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the metal the building was made out of' date=' the fact that beams were pictured cut at angles within the wtc wreckage

the fact that the buildings freefell, which implies that the bottom was taken out of it

 

the fact that many who were said to be hijackers are still alive lmao[/quote']

 

laugh your **** off all you want.

 

1) what does an explosion feel like? you do understand that gas lines were run through the entire building right? what about buckling steel and cracking concrete?

 

all of these things could "feel" like an explosion when under the load of 30ish stories of a concrete and steel building to a ****ing receptionist or a financial analyst.

 

2) live reporters say alot of stuff. the fact is that they are NOT structural engineers and there was NO evidence of a controlled demo. and to skip ahead the building did NOT fall at free fall speed.

 

all buildings are built to a specific standard, it varries slightly but in general you are building to 1.25 dead load and 1.5 live load. (Limit state design) this gets more complex with the extreme lateral loads in tall structures, but that building was NOT built to withstand more than 3 times its full static load.

 

with a fall distance of about 10 - 12 feet the dynamic load applied would be around 50 times the static load (Fdt = mVf - mVi) using 0.1 seconds as dt which is conservative.

 

its not going to be slowed down significantly by the resistance in the structure.... when a building enters progressive collapse it does not slow down (94% of the force is continuing on unresisted)

 

3) jet fuel burns hot enough to weaken the steel beams to the point of fail. how would you bend steel? by heating it.... you dont have to melt it. think about holding a lighter to a plastic straw. it doesnt need to melt before it loses the majority of its structural integrity.

 

4) when were those pictures taken? during cleanup. noone is going to go on site with 20 tons of steel and concrete hanging above their head. the REASONABLE assumption is that those cuts were made early in the cleanup process (not to mention the fact that there is no demolition device today that is capable of making cuts like that through steel without being wired etc.)

 

5) freefall, no.

 

and in conclusion, inorder to set up that scale of demolition would take months, it would require concrete walls to be removed within the builting, it would require key beams to be pre cut, and it would make the building uninhabitable for a monbth before the collapse.

 

( the building must be taken down to being able to barely support its dead load )

 

if you want a reasonable view you could check the site I posted, I know you didnt because everything you stated is addressed in it.

 

 

but then, if someone wants to believe that the 2 huge planes that crashed into the towers 30 minutes before they collapsed had NOTHING to do with the collapse, its not like anything else is going to convince them.

 

/rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wtc building 7 is the one that i always come back to with questions. the wtc buildings owner made that infamous comment about having to pull the building (wtc 7)' date=' not sure why he would have said that. i just have a hard time accepting that wtc 7 fell with that perfect v that happens in the top middle of a building brought down by controlled demolition.[/quote']

 

cracks were appearing in the structure (there are pictures online) "pull out" could have easily ment "get the last half of new yorks living firefighters out of there"

 

WTC7 had 3 massive diesle fuel tanks on (cant remember) around the 9th or 11th floor.

 

fire surpression is 3 tiered system.

 

1) fire fighters

2) fire surpression equipment ( sprinkler systems )

3) passive fire resistance (fire proofing on beams )

 

1) fire fighters were unable to contain the fire (due to the focused burn on the 9th floor )

again cant remember the exact floor #

 

2) sprinklers were not working ( possibly doe to the other 2 towers collapsing)

 

3) passive fire surpression is rated for around 3 hours. this is because the burn will travel as it burns out all the fuel (dry wall, furniture etc. )

but when you have diesle tanks that continue to provide fuel for an extended period of time passive fire resistance is useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man i can never watch videos of the 2 towers collapsing or even the planes hitting them,i think the conspiracies surrounding the towers are absolute ******** the proof is there that the planes went in and destroyed a part of America that day.

 

I was reading that the two buildings were designed to take impact from planes but the planes that were flying back in the 1960's were alot smaller than they are now and thats how the buildings were so damaged by impact.

 

I hate to see any videos on the 9/11 tragedy,i was really young when it happened...i was something like 10 or 11 but i still remeber it like it was yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cracks were appearing in the structure (there are pictures online) "pull out" could have easily ment "get the last half of new yorks living firefighters out of there"

 

WTC7 had 3 massive diesle fuel tanks on (cant remember) around the 9th or 11th floor.

 

fire surpression is 3 tiered system.

 

1) fire fighters

2) fire surpression equipment ( sprinkler systems )

3) passive fire resistance (fire proofing on beams )

 

1) fire fighters were unable to contain the fire (due to the focused burn on the 9th floor )

again cant remember the exact floor #

 

2) sprinklers were not working ( possibly doe to the other 2 towers collapsing)

 

3) passive fire surpression is rated for around 3 hours. this is because the burn will travel as it burns out all the fuel (dry wall' date=' furniture etc. )

but when you have diesle tanks that continue to provide fuel for an extended period of time passive fire resistance is useless.[/quote']

 

It's not so much how it came down - which is laughable, but for what was housed in it, that sets it apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not so much how it came down - which is laughable' date=' but for what was housed in it, that sets it apart.[/quote']

 

I dont find any part of what happened on 9/11 funny...i guess your english then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×