Conspiracy theories

[Old Blue 2]

The official 'story', itself a 'conspiracy theory', is actual tosh.

I have an open mind, but certain things are somewhat persuasive, like tubular aluminium cutting through steel and concrete? A full size airliner simply going straight through a skyscraper? No aircraft wreckage? About 1% wreckage at the Pentagon?

It does give food for thought...

 

[Tramps_mate]

I have an open mind, but certain things are somewhat persuasive, like tubular aluminium cutting through steel and concrete? A full size airliner simply going straight through a skyscraper? No aircraft wreckage? About 1% wreckage at the Pentagon?

It does give food for thought...

That's the main one that's never sat quite right with me...

Plane nose cone piercing several 3 foot thick reinforced concrete walls and the whole plane disappearing into said hole.

Then there's the lack of wing remains outside!

 

[WA Toffee]

I have an open mind, but certain things are somewhat persuasive, like tubular aluminium cutting through steel and concrete? A full size airliner simply going straight through a skyscraper? No aircraft wreckage? About 1% wreckage at the Pentagon?

It does give food for thought...

But then, in his article he does state that an "aluminium ballon" would be instantly crushed by the force of a 10000 tonne concrete structure.

I know he also claims that there should be lots of debris because the planes are so big and bits would fall off.

It does seem that he is changing logic part way through the article depending on what he wants the answer to be.

 

[trueblue84]

That's the main one that's never sat quite right with me...

Plane nose cone piercing several 3 foot thick reinforced concrete walls and the whole plane disappearing into said hole.

Then there's the lack of wing remains outside!

You never seen a plane crash? If that is the logic, all plane crashes would look like a crumpled ball of aircraft on perfectly unspoiled ground.

What about all the independently verifiable accounts which saw the planes crash into the buildings?

Then, the more general question to ask is why would a nation like America need to destroy two major buildings, killing so many, just to justify going to war with Iraq?

 

[witchdoc187]

Worth a read:

CIA Pilot Presents Evidence That No Planes Hit Towers On 9/11

Ex-CIA and commercial jet pilot John Lear claims that the Twin Towers were not bought to the ground by planes crashing into them on 9/11, and now detailed information has been posted online corroborating his [...]

newspunch.com

Make your own minds up...

I thought it was generally accepted that the twin towers was an "inside job" by the US government.

 

[magicjuan]

I have an open mind, but certain things are somewhat persuasive, like tubular aluminium cutting through steel and concrete? A full size airliner simply going straight through a skyscraper? No aircraft wreckage? About 1% wreckage at the Pentagon?

It does give food for thought...

Certainly does. I've never for one minute believed the official narrative.

 

[magicjuan]

You never seen a plane crash? If that is the logic, all plane crashes would look like a crumpled ball of aircraft on perfectly unspoiled ground.

What about all the independently verifiable accounts which saw the planes crash into the buildings?

Then, the more general question to ask is why would a nation like America need to destroy two major buildings, killing so many, just to justify going to war with Iraq?

Simple answer is symbolism for the public psyche. If that needs expanding on I'll give up right now.

 

[PhilM]

With regards to the Twin Towers, I wonder how the government was able to convince the hundreds if not thousands of people who saw said planes hit to lie?

The Pentagon could be a s slightly different issue, but knowing a person who was in NY at the time and watched it unfold I wonder who convinced them.

I thought it was generally accepted that the twin towers was an "inside job" by the US government.

No, no it's not.

 

[trueblue84]

Simple answer is symbolism for the public psyche. If that needs expanding on I'll give up right now.

I get that, but there would have been far less destructive ways to achieve it, and that's ignoring the elaborate planning and execution required to destroy 2 sky scrapers in a densely populated city while making it look like a terrorist attack.

People are not that intelligent. There would've been plenty of discrepancies in the narrative and people would talk, especially considering how many people would need to be involved in such a conspiracy.

Case in point: the assassination attempt in Salisbury. Was pretty much immediately identified as a plot. A website (not even a government intelligence agency) exposed who the people were within months. And that was only a few people involved.

 

[PhilM]

Case in point: the assassination attempt in Salisbury. Was pretty much immediately identified as a plot. A website (not even a government intelligence agency) exposed who the people were within months. And that was only a few people involved.

Exactly. 9/11 would require thousands and thousands of complicit accomplices, who would need to maintain a strict narrative for what would now be 19 years.

I read the article and I always ask this question: can you confirm if the evidence provided (images etc.) is genuine without manipulation or editing?

If it's so clearly a fake with blatant evidence, why do countries such as Russia, China, NK and many others with their resources not expose it to the world?

If not, why are they complicit? Soon, you're onto Rothschild and Illuminati nonsense with a spiralling narrative, which goes back to how to keep it so rigid.

Just like with the Moon Landings.

 

[trueblue84]

Just like with the Moon Landings.

Always a good one. The look of confusion on the face of someone who believes the moon landings were fake when you ask them about the reflective mirrors that where placed there and are still used today.

If not, why are they complicit? Soon, you're onto Rothschild and Illuminati nonsense with a spiralling narrative, which goes back to how to keep it so rigid.

The other one is flat earthers. Ignoring the fact that for a couple hundred quid, they could buy a camera and balloon and test their theory very easily; their view that a round earth is a hoax that was created by nato, with no rationale as to why and neglecting the fact that nato didn't exist prior to 1949. Yet, there is no documentation prior to 1949 talking about a flat earth (another misconception). People have always know the earth is spherical. Way back to the earliest civilisations. All caused by a lyric in an effin' song.

 

[PhilM]

Always a good one. The look of confusion on the face of someone who believes the moon landings were fake when you ask them about the reflective mirrors that where placed there and are still used today.

Aye I've mentioned about the laser system you can actually use as a scientist, but then they talk about it being planted on the moon but not by humans.

Come on, we're not talking about the vast distances to Mars: if they can land on the moon with the prcesions to plant reflectors, they can probably take humans.

But the simplest point is why didn't the Russians expose them? If they're monitoring the whole situation, why not expose it? Why not even question the validity?

Oh I know why... because they did go. The same logic could apply to 9/11.

The other one is flat earthers. Ignoring the fact that for a couple hundred quid, they could buy a camera and balloon and test their theory very easily; their view that a round earth is a hoax that was created by nato, with no rationale as to why and neglecting the fact that nato didn't exist prior to 1949. Yet, there is no documentation prior to 1949 talking about a flat earth (another misconception). People have always know the earth is spherical. Way back to the earliest civilisations. All caused by a lyric in an effin' song.

I love the pictures of 5G weapon masts deployed by the US military when it is in fact a well-known, purchasable portable communication mast used by countries.

When YouTube and Facebook is their main source of information but the rest of the evidence is apparently invalid, you need to worry.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

So if you've read it, what is your response to the views of the airline pilots?

Hi OB, first thing I do when reading things like this is check the reputation of the site. As this site seems like a right wing crock of nonsense, I then take any quotes from ‘professionals’ etc with a pinch of salt. I’m not sure if these pilots are real and if they are, I’d imagine they’ve been cherry picked to fit with the narrative of the story and publication.
As an aside, the main problem i have with 9/11 conspiracies is that i can’t see any reason why it should be an inside job. Like I said, the U.K. went to war largely on the back of a sexed up dossier.
It’s like if I find a hole dug in my garden. It looks like an animal hole, I mean it could have been my neighbour I guess, but why would she dig that hole. The animal would use it for sleep and protection. Not really sure what the neighbour would use it for therefore I am not going to pursue this train of thought or investigate further.
Also, just to alleviate everyone’s concerns, there is no hole in my garden. Just some empty Skol cans and a supermarket trolley

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Exactly. 9/11 would require thousands and thousands of complicit accomplices, who would need to maintain a strict narrative for what would now be 19 years.

I read the article and I always ask this question: can you confirm if the evidence provided (images etc.) is genuine without manipulation or editing?

If it's so clearly a fake with blatant evidence, why do countries such as Russia, China, NK and many others with their resources not expose it to the world?

If not, why are they complicit? Soon, you're onto Rothschild and Illuminati nonsense with a spiralling narrative, which goes back to how to keep it so rigid.

Just like with the Moon Landings.

Indeed. And when you think someone like Snowden became a whistle blower, you’d think that there would be multiple people with clashes of conscience

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Also it’s a good old fashioned GOT 9/11 debate. Come on everyone! Don’t be shy