Conspiracy theories often are the truth.

@BDair There are actual conspiracies and then there are THEORIES. The scientific method requires that a theory be proven or disproven. I myself am pretty good at coming up with conspiracy theories, but I do not post them online because they are only theories that to date have not been proven and to publish them would be dissemination of misinformation. And there is way too much of that floating around.

There are plenty of conspiracy theories that have been well researched
by those with relevant expertise following the scientific method.

@BDair and once they are proven or disproven they are no longer theories. I guess you get the point.

Then the collapse of WTC 7 in free fall is not a theory,
because has been proven. Despite the fact that it defies
the laws of physics if you believe the official narrative,
ie. normal office fires caused the collapse.

@MyTVC15 Scientific theory, which I do not believe can be applies in this case, means that it is the best explanation of a natural process or event BASED on the FACTS available. It has been tested and corroborated by others.

noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
the scientific theory of evolution.
A scientific theory is a well-tested, broad explanation of a natural phenomenon.

In everyday life, we often use the word theory to mean a hypothesis or educated guess, but a theory in the context of science is not simply a guess—it is an explanation based on extensive and repeated experimentation. And it’s not the job of theories to become facts—they use available facts to make sense of a broad concept.

@Budgie Taken to another level, we are talking about the science of bullshit. Unproven statements are just theories that are too often presented as fact. When one decides to believe in something that is unproven, like gawd, like Ivermectin curing covid, that there are tracking chips in the covid vaccine, that 911 was an inside job or that the grieving parents of those lost at Sandy Hook were actors, then those theories become dangerous misinformation.

Yet Columbus was conspiracy theorist :-you would fall into the void if you sailed too far.
So were Newton, Copernicus, Galileo Tesla,, Freud and a host of now revered people who actually indulged in thinking , having a theory which they proved eventually. Everyone knew that man could not be in a machine going faster than 21 miles per hour. Luckily the conspiracy theorists did not agree. Nor did the Wright Brothers who did believe that heavier than air machines could actually fly
Conspiracy theorist is a label adhered by the unthinking, with an inability to reason to tear down to their level anyone who is not one of the mindless mass.

@Kurtn You misunderstand the meaning of the word "theory." Please see the correct definition provided by @Budjie above.

@MyTVC15 @Budjie provided a very good definition of "theory" below.

@Budgie

@Flyingsaucesir I have a scientific / albeit medical background. From education and years of professional work, I have a reasonably good grasp on what defines and constitutes a theory.

@Kurtn You wouldn't know it from your comments above. The idea that the Earth is flat, in Columbus's day, was not a conspiracy theory; it was simply a poor but popular interpretation of the observable facts. Galileo was convicted of heresy, not conspiracy theory. Who exactly would Newton have been conspiring with when he wrote his Principia? He is known to have worked in absolute solitude. Copernicus did not allow publication of his work until he was on his deathbed. He like Galileo, was called a heretic, not a conspiracy theorist. Tesla was considered a crank by some, a genius or visionary by others. I'm not aware of any accusations of conspiracy theories. Lets face it: all of your examples fall flat. If your intention is to lift up modern-day conspiracy theorists, give them an air of respectability by placing them in the company of actual intellectual giants, you will have to try harder. Much harder.

@Flyingsaucesir @Flyingsaucesir Yes you wouldn't know. you have shown that .B.T.W. that is not a theory.

@Kurtn Your surrender is accepted.

Speaking of magical thinking. Can you explain how an
aluminum aircraft wing could magically pass through a grid of
structural steel columns and disappear inside a building?

@BDair Who elected you to the office of inquisitor-in-chief? He doesn't have to explain anything, you moron.

@BDair Your obsessions do not interest me.

Seems you just fooled yourself!!!

All kidding aside!!!

What is your opinion on what happened to this building?

@MyTVC15 None of that is relevant to the photo, or explains what
happened to WTC 6, or WTC 3, 4, 5, & 7 for that matter.

@BDair Yeah, I mistakenly thought that you were denying the pentagon attack so that is why I went there. I deleted my original response now that I realize that it is the twin towers you are denying.

I have not denied anything, I am looking for
an explanation as to what caused the near
total destruction of the 7 buildings of the
WTC complex, including the pictured WTC 6.

@BDair What does the 911 report say?

It did not even mention the fact that every building
with a WTC designation was destroyed.
I think it even ignored WTC 7, which everyone watched collapse in free fall.

@BDair
Do not forget the $3 trillion unaccounted for in the Pentagon budget!!!
Building seven was the back up data site for the Defense Budget Audit office , just as the part of the Pentagon hit was the main office and data center, both destroyed the Same day!!!

@BDair There is an unfortunate coming together of many faults in securities and lack of information , including engineering faults which had never happened in other buildings before

What 'engineering faults' suddenly appeared in buildings
that had stood for decades?
Can you provide an example?

@BDair Sorry the documentary was a long time ago and I cannot remember the details because I am not an engineer, but it convinced me that engineering played a part in the catastrophic nature of the disaster . Building were never designed for direct collision from and aircraft, perhaps the will be in the future. Also any material joins had never been tested under such heat. there was also a domino effect.

That is nonsense, and it is not supported by any facts or data.
You can not have a domino effect, because each floor was designed
to hold up everything above it, with a safety margin or three or four
times. A building can not collapse through itself, the path of greatest
resistance, at near free fall. Also, there were only scattered fires on
a few floors, most of the structure was never exposed to any heat.

Here is the science.

[ae911truth.org]

You got that right!

Just block the loons for your own serenity. Works for me.