It's no coincidence.
Hacker group releases '9/11 Papers', says future leaks will 'burn down' US deep state
- Thread starter Minusorange
- Start date
You are either with us, or one of them, one of the sheeple.
Every CT thread, all of them, can be encapsulated in that statement. Most of them will come to realise they are crazy/misguided/mostly wrong and look back and laugh, but some won't and for them all I have is a wry smile and a shake of the head. They REALLY hate that because "you are just one of the blind".
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,660
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
One of my embarrassing posts that was very quickly shut down with facts - https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...vidence-of-explosives.17996645/#post-13847999
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,495
- Location
- ST4
I've always explained them finding thermite in the wreckage by asking what happens when ~60t of aircraft grade aluminium impacts a decades old steel structured building at high speed and then comes into contact with burning aviation fuel at 1500°C.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,633
This thread is full of deep state shills. I can sense it....
They're planning a false flag as we speak. How do I know any of you are real? you could all be advanced AI chat bots deployed by the government!
How do I know i'm real?
They're planning a false flag as we speak. How do I know any of you are real? you could all be advanced AI chat bots deployed by the government!
How do I know i'm real?
All sensible folk know that the only state that engages in conspiratorial behaviour is Russia, especially when it doesn't benefit them and they're quickly found out, bringing down further international condemnation on their heads 
While I doubt 9/11 was an inside job, I also remember the days when the 'hysterical nut job conspiracy theorists' were the only ones claiming our internet traffic/phone conversations were being secretly and illegally monitored. Since the Snowden revelations, we now know that's the case and seem to have accepted it, not to mention very nasty NSA toys falling in to the hands of hackers (i.e. the NHS/global ransomware attack).
The 'deep state', for a lack of better word, has been involved in some very shady business. As in the Snowden revelations, private companies have been used to enable that shady business, proving that a lot of actors can be willing participants to something without it leaking out.
I'm interested to see what this hacker group have got on 9/11. I expect there'll be nothing too juicy, but I won't be jumping on the 'CT nut job' bashing train any time soon.
While I doubt 9/11 was an inside job, I also remember the days when the 'hysterical nut job conspiracy theorists' were the only ones claiming our internet traffic/phone conversations were being secretly and illegally monitored. Since the Snowden revelations, we now know that's the case and seem to have accepted it, not to mention very nasty NSA toys falling in to the hands of hackers (i.e. the NHS/global ransomware attack).
The 'deep state', for a lack of better word, has been involved in some very shady business. As in the Snowden revelations, private companies have been used to enable that shady business, proving that a lot of actors can be willing participants to something without it leaking out.
I'm interested to see what this hacker group have got on 9/11. I expect there'll be nothing too juicy, but I won't be jumping on the 'CT nut job' bashing train any time soon.
This thread continues to deliver....
Firstly, remember that everyone posting "CT nut", "tinfoil wearer", "crazy" etc is implying they don't believe in any conspiracies. Because only nuts believe in that stuff, right? So what about conspiracies that have turned out to be true? Presumably you'd have also called anyone not believing the official stories (at the time) on Watergate, Operation Northwoods, Iran-Contra, MK Ultra etc similar names? I'm sure many did. With hindsight we now know the "CT nuts" as you'd have called them were actually right, and the official story was load of rubbish.
Secondly, in response to my incredulity at the collapse of building 7 due to fire, we have two replies. One is a regurgitating of the official story without any further evidence, and another is a video by someone on YouTube (no idea who) that just shows again, the official NIST story. And even in that video, the collapses of other steel framed buildings due to fire is clearly no where near as uniform as is the case with WT7. Of course the doubt around WT7 could have easily been debunked with forensic evidence (like the authorities take in every, you know, serious crime scene) but unfortunately the steel was promptly taken away and melted down.
On the basis of that, I think I'll stick with the 3,000+ architects and engineers.
Firstly, remember that everyone posting "CT nut", "tinfoil wearer", "crazy" etc is implying they don't believe in any conspiracies. Because only nuts believe in that stuff, right? So what about conspiracies that have turned out to be true? Presumably you'd have also called anyone not believing the official stories (at the time) on Watergate, Operation Northwoods, Iran-Contra, MK Ultra etc similar names? I'm sure many did. With hindsight we now know the "CT nuts" as you'd have called them were actually right, and the official story was load of rubbish.
Secondly, in response to my incredulity at the collapse of building 7 due to fire, we have two replies. One is a regurgitating of the official story without any further evidence, and another is a video by someone on YouTube (no idea who) that just shows again, the official NIST story. And even in that video, the collapses of other steel framed buildings due to fire is clearly no where near as uniform as is the case with WT7. Of course the doubt around WT7 could have easily been debunked with forensic evidence (like the authorities take in every, you know, serious crime scene) but unfortunately the steel was promptly taken away and melted down.
On the basis of that, I think I'll stick with the 3,000+ architects and engineers.
And by the way, I believed the official 9/11 story (why wouldn't you, at first) up until I was in Germany a few years back and got talking to a group (including a university professor) at a function. I couldn't believe how many Germans didn't believe the official story, and looked into it properly after then.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 1,575
If it was staged, for what reason?
Well obviously the US wanted to destabilise their own economy leading to massive falls in share prices and erm...
Oil. Yeah. Oil. Afghanistan is renowned for its oil resources. Erm...
Saddam! Without the terror attacks the WMD reason for the invasion just wouldn't have made sense. Erm...
PNAC (10 of the 25 founders of PNAC served in Bush's administration) had already said (taken from Wikipedia) they wanted to turn the US into "tomorrow's dominant force", and had been quoted saying(quoted from Wiki again):
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
That was before 9/11.
Then 9/11 happened, and the War on Terror, invasions in Iraq, Afghanistan etc all kicked off, the Patriot Act was passed etc.
Nope, but I'm happy to dismiss as conspiracy nuts those who can't provide any coherent explanations/arguments...
You don't seem to be capable of articulating what your issue is specifically with building 7 in the first place:
If you can't even do something as basic as explain what the "conspiracy" is or what the issue is that you have with what reportedly happened then how is anyone even supposed to engage with you?
You're trolling right? Is this how your post count is so high?!
Nobody asks "why" that many times without responding to any of the actual points made....
You're trolling right? Is this how your post count is so high?!
Nobody asks "why" that many times without responding to any of the actual points made....
Yet you haven't responded... I'm literally asking for you to make some actual points - why is that so hard?
Yes, that's exactly what it is.
The big difference there is that those conspiracies fall into the "highly unlikely yet still plausible" category, the conspiracies the 9/11 nutjobs bang about mostly fall into the "not really possible and fall down when subjected to logic/science" category.
Last edited: