9/11 crap again, what do you think?
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
- Status
Yes, you have a point. Everyone has an agenda, whether malevolent or benign. It's obvious who is which most of the time, sometimes you get disinfo agents infiltrating boards spreading their malevolent agenda under the guise of it not. But it's not hard being neutral most of the time, and the US/British/Russian propaganda machines make themselves so obvious.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
It has already been proven that it was a controlled demolition. The only controversy that remains is whether there was any air planes or whether they were missiles and they just faked the air plane story. Of course the MSM and official narrative will never change as too many people have an interest in that narrative. Too many people have put their official reputation on the line for them to ever admit they were wrong.
Largest case of insurance fraud ever to go uninvestigated.
Largest case of insurance fraud ever to go uninvestigated.
dey see me baitin
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,339
- Location
- Woking
No it has not. It was not a controlled demolition. A bloody plane hit both of the towers!
You're a joke and you do a severe injustice to the victims.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 1,222
- Location
- UK
But he has - he's pointed out several times that the melting point of steel is not relevant at all - it's strength at the temperatures of the fire is among other points.
All of your points have been refuted multiple times, the only CT that is even close to slightly plausible would be that security services knew of the attack and didn't act - and this one would be virtually impossible to categorically prove or disprove.
By embarrassing failure in intelligence , I assume you mean the intelligence agencies
ignoring reports from 2 friendly governments warning them of a serious attack that happened 2 months after the warning ?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
An injustice to the victims is not investigating the incident. An injustice to victims is calling people names who have investigated the incident and try to tell the truth about the incident. An injustice to the victims is not doing anything but believe what the government and media tells you.
Listen mate, its 100% proven that it was controlled demolition and whether you want to accept it or not, it makes no difference to the truth. Top scientists in the world have come out and said its impossible for it not to be a controlled demolition. It has been proven using the scientific method. Only thing that is a joke is NIST!
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Stealth planes and holograms? never have I ever said such things.
I've always said it was three controlled demolitions and four missiles. The WTC was hit by tomahawk missile and the pentagon looks like a missile from a helicopter and the shankesville looked like a jet blew up a trailer with a missile.
Its a fairly obvious case with the pentagon even a 5 year old can see it was not a plane crash. You realy have to leave your logic at the door and jump in to a fake reality in order to believe that a plane hit the pentagon.
I've always said it was three controlled demolitions and four missiles. The WTC was hit by tomahawk missile and the pentagon looks like a missile from a helicopter and the shankesville looked like a jet blew up a trailer with a missile.
Its a fairly obvious case with the pentagon even a 5 year old can see it was not a plane crash. You realy have to leave your logic at the door and jump in to a fake reality in order to believe that a plane hit the pentagon.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,339
- Location
- Woking
Top scientists in the world also believe in ghosts, reptilians, jesus, creation stories, anything you can think of. That doesn't mean they're right. And, unfortunately for you, in this case the large majority of scientists whose opinion is actually valid (ie not quoted in a conspiracy theory video) would disagree with you very strongly.
It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the demolition was not controlled, and some intelligent people who have posted in this thread have given very good explanations as to why not, which you appear to have ignored. Mate.
I don't see how this thread is moronic TBH. Asking questions of anything should be encouraged.
We have a thread on here with lots of Muslim hate.. in fact we have a society with lots of Muslim hate and guess where the majority of that was manufactured from? yup 9/11
I though I could never convince anyone that it was a part-inside part-demolition job as I myself used to think that it was just two planes. But watch a few vids on some stuff and well.. nothing is conclusive. I dont know the answer and It upto each person to look into it if they care (no moral obligation required its ok if you don't care)
WT7 demolition with admission of owner to 'pull it' on record its staggering how it goes down
Thermite Found
WTC towers Full of Asbestos to be shut down in a matter of weeks if tens of millions was not spent re-furbing it. Thermite found, rubble burned for months
CIA operative claims unmarked Trucks came into the buildings for 3 weeks solid prior between 3-5am and was told to avoid the city due to a plane attack
My theory, I think the buildings were set for demolition to get insurance (in fact said lease holder has received around 18 billion dollars from the whole escapade so far)
The planes were the decoy flown by satellite as we now affectionatly know them as 'Drones' but back then we knew little of this technology and the terrorist were blamed.
Everyone apart from those on the ground and in the buildings set to benefit.
Look into the officially released documents about a similar plot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
did governments grow a conscience since then ^ Id argue they are worse now !
The pre-condition for everyones belief that this was two planes and some bad guys comes from years of psychological programming from TV and Movies and the Media coverage ..
its hard to accept like its hard to accept that that this didn't actually need many people involved to make it happen as people would expect and that the 'good' guys could do it.
but they can do and have .. today and soon tomorrow.
We have a thread on here with lots of Muslim hate.. in fact we have a society with lots of Muslim hate and guess where the majority of that was manufactured from? yup 9/11
I though I could never convince anyone that it was a part-inside part-demolition job as I myself used to think that it was just two planes. But watch a few vids on some stuff and well.. nothing is conclusive. I dont know the answer and It upto each person to look into it if they care (no moral obligation required its ok if you don't care)
WT7 demolition with admission of owner to 'pull it' on record its staggering how it goes down
Thermite Found
WTC towers Full of Asbestos to be shut down in a matter of weeks if tens of millions was not spent re-furbing it. Thermite found, rubble burned for months
CIA operative claims unmarked Trucks came into the buildings for 3 weeks solid prior between 3-5am and was told to avoid the city due to a plane attack
My theory, I think the buildings were set for demolition to get insurance (in fact said lease holder has received around 18 billion dollars from the whole escapade so far)
The planes were the decoy flown by satellite as we now affectionatly know them as 'Drones' but back then we knew little of this technology and the terrorist were blamed.
Everyone apart from those on the ground and in the buildings set to benefit.
Look into the officially released documents about a similar plot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
did governments grow a conscience since then ^ Id argue they are worse now !
The pre-condition for everyones belief that this was two planes and some bad guys comes from years of psychological programming from TV and Movies and the Media coverage ..
its hard to accept like its hard to accept that that this didn't actually need many people involved to make it happen as people would expect and that the 'good' guys could do it.
but they can do and have .. today and soon tomorrow.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
That is such a logical fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
Strange how you can say top scientists are not credible but then in the next sentence go on say that scientists have proven it. So only scientists that prove your narrative are credible? Why not look at the arguments and facts brought forward by the scientists instead of ignoring them because "its in a conspiracy theory video".
From my perspective the official story is far more of a conspiracy theory than the real investigation done by the likes of architects and engineers for 9/11 truth.
There is no evidence that it was not a controlled demolition. There is how ever overwhelming evidence that it was a controlled demolition.
The collapse theory does not exist. There is no evidence to support it, in fact the evidence does not support it.
Explanations in this thread? lol really?
All people are doing is repeating what the official story says. That's not an explanation that's called parroting someone else.
Repeating it again and again and again...doesn't make it true. There are experts on both sides. To say that just because someone says there is something wrong with the official explanation..that they are CT nutjobs and therefore lack any credibility whatsoever is very very sloppy reasoning indeed.
Why? because no-one in this thread or forum has any credibility to discuss what actually happened.
In here its just a lot of folk with their **** in their hand slapping each other about it with them..
But the way some people go on and on...you would think they actually built the towers themselves and are therefore an authority on the subject.. ahh LOLcakes!
All people are doing is repeating what the official story says. That's not an explanation that's called parroting someone else.
Repeating it again and again and again...doesn't make it true. There are experts on both sides. To say that just because someone says there is something wrong with the official explanation..that they are CT nutjobs and therefore lack any credibility whatsoever is very very sloppy reasoning indeed.
Why? because no-one in this thread or forum has any credibility to discuss what actually happened.
In here its just a lot of folk with their **** in their hand slapping each other about it with them..
But the way some people go on and on...you would think they actually built the towers themselves and are therefore an authority on the subject.. ahh LOLcakes!
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 16,176
- Location
- London
The insurance
At the time of the Towers' transfer from the New York Port Authority to Silverstein Properties they faced much more than $1 billion in costs for renovation and asbestos-removal. Eric Darton's excellent study of the World Trade Center, Divided We Stand, published in 2000, summarizes the property's problems as real estate:
'To maintain the trade center as class-A office space commanding top rents, the [Port Authority] would have had to spend $800 million rebuilding the electrical, electronic communication, and cooling systems.'
These problems were, of course, removed from the Port Authority when it leased away the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Buildings 4, 5, 6 and 400,000 feet of retail space to the consortium led by Silverstein Properties seven weeks prior to 9-11. The $3.2 billion long-term price for the 99-year lease was widely thought to be low for properties estimated to be worth $8 billion over that time-span. JP Morgan Chase, the flagship of Rockefeller-controlled Banks, advised the Port Authority in the award of this lease. The new lease-holders immediately took out insurance policies worth more than the total, long-term price of their new WTC holdings. Silverstein Properties itself invested only $15 million of the less than $600 million actually transferred to the Port Authority. The British Financial Times reported on September 14, 2001:
The lease has an all-important escape clause: If the buildings are struck by "an act of terrorism," the new owners' obligations under the lease are void. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings that collapses or were otherwise destroyed and damaged in the attacks.
In April 2004, Silverstein Properties and its partners won an award of $4.8 billion from their claim for $7.1 billion in losses to their 2001 World Trade Center acquisitions as a result of the 9-11 attacks.
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue8/Don_Paul.cfm
At the time of the Towers' transfer from the New York Port Authority to Silverstein Properties they faced much more than $1 billion in costs for renovation and asbestos-removal. Eric Darton's excellent study of the World Trade Center, Divided We Stand, published in 2000, summarizes the property's problems as real estate:
'To maintain the trade center as class-A office space commanding top rents, the [Port Authority] would have had to spend $800 million rebuilding the electrical, electronic communication, and cooling systems.'
These problems were, of course, removed from the Port Authority when it leased away the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Buildings 4, 5, 6 and 400,000 feet of retail space to the consortium led by Silverstein Properties seven weeks prior to 9-11. The $3.2 billion long-term price for the 99-year lease was widely thought to be low for properties estimated to be worth $8 billion over that time-span. JP Morgan Chase, the flagship of Rockefeller-controlled Banks, advised the Port Authority in the award of this lease. The new lease-holders immediately took out insurance policies worth more than the total, long-term price of their new WTC holdings. Silverstein Properties itself invested only $15 million of the less than $600 million actually transferred to the Port Authority. The British Financial Times reported on September 14, 2001:
The lease has an all-important escape clause: If the buildings are struck by "an act of terrorism," the new owners' obligations under the lease are void. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings that collapses or were otherwise destroyed and damaged in the attacks.
In April 2004, Silverstein Properties and its partners won an award of $4.8 billion from their claim for $7.1 billion in losses to their 2001 World Trade Center acquisitions as a result of the 9-11 attacks.
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue8/Don_Paul.cfm
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 16,176
- Location
- London
Oh ffs...
Later.
Later.
This is the Truth ^
Its what I was alluding that it was actually a financial job. The ultra rich have no morals or they sold their souls
Read up on what offices were in WTC7 and the exact part of the pentagon that got hit and the files that were supposed to be in that bit.
Its a joke but I feel a small amount of shame that previously I hadn't taken the time to read into the detail and just bought the official line ..
I saw it live, I had the day off by chance and watched it for hours on the BBC at the time I knew inside the way they fell looked off and the exellent accuracy of the plane hits was very controlled & computerized in their operation ( I have used computers and automation since I was four years old so 30 years now I can spot when something is linear or not)..
I haven't met many people in recent times that truly believe it was what the official story told us but its so long now that many don't care.
Important point raised by someone.. if it was properly revealed there could be a civil war and the countries weakness would effect our lives in the UK as when the cats away the mice will play! I.e China and Russia would have our collective asses
So perhaps.. those people should remain buried in a lie .. i feel conflicted
Last edited:
- Status