Conspiracy theories

[WA Toffee]

Read up on it all, Phil. For example, the phone calls made at 30,000 feet, 20,000 feet, could not be made in 2001.

I signed the Official Secrets Act in October 1969. There is confidential stuff that I know but would NEVER publish anywhere. Not conspiracy, but things that go on that nobody has even the slightest idea about.

Keep an open mind, Phil. That's all I say.

It has been possible to make calls from planes since the 1980s.

 

[WA Toffee]

One theory is that a Saudi guy arranged for people to hijack 4 planes and crash them into buildings. 3 succeeded, 1 didn't. As with all government departments, there is a lot of finger pointing about whose fault it was and who could have done more to prevent it, so some of them changed some small facts to try and divert any blame away from them, which then led to accusations of not just a cover up, but actual government involvement in it.

Crazy I know, but probably the most plausible story I have heard

 

[WA Toffee]

No idea mate and it would be pointless to try and theorize or guess.

Only thing i know is what i can see with my own eyes and that is a very obvious controlled demolition of a building. The official narrative for wtc 7 is impossible.

What about the main towers. Were they controlled demolition too?

 

[WA Toffee]

Bearing in mind the bbc reported it down 45 minutes before it did, with it still stood behind the reporters shoulder.
There were reports of engineers 'working' around the structures in the days leading up.

There were a lot of things reported that day which were not fully accurate. It was a live news event, reporters are just repeating everything they hear without taking the time to fact check.
I reaaly don't get while people insist on using that one sentence as evidence of a conspiracy, while conveniently omitting the other 30-40 reports which also turned out to be incorrect at the time.

 

[PhilM]

Bearing in mind the bbc reported it down 45 minutes before it did, with it still stood behind the reporters shoulder.
There were reports of engineers 'working' around the structures in the days leading up.

This is often reported, but the question is where did they get this information on? Was it a set script which all reporters were involved in or a miscommunication?

If it's a miscommunication, could it not be one in the form of being an innocent mistake reporting the collapse of a building they weren't familiar with?

The whole set script aspect brings the question again of the huge number of complicit individuals. Importantly, what would be the purpose of destroying WTC7?

I'm not a structural engineer and I respect the views of people like @Lob (his videos bring questions), but I then think of all those who've investigated it too.

Again, are they all complicit? If it was a controlled explosion, would you not expect people to see the mass of cabling and explosives required?

For conspiracies to succeed, you need to have consistency and security and 9/11 seems far too big to have either of these when you consider the scale.

 

[Lob]

What about the main towers. Were they controlled demolition too?

No idea mate and if they were it certainly wasn't any controlled demolition method that i have ever seen. Maybe they were just badly designed and it was the planes and structural damage that made them collapse. From what i have seen regarding the structure of those buildings when i researched it a few years back though i have very serious doubts about that and probably the worst i would have expected structurally was for the sections around and above the impact areas to collapse.

I don't have any faith in Nist's investigations regarding any of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11 whatsoever. They basically started with the answer ruling out any other possibility and came up with narratives to how that happened regardless of whether it fitted or was even possible. It was the complete opposite of scientific investigative work and in my eyes they have no credibility at all and just did as they were told to do.

We will probably never know what happened that day and so can choose to believe the official explanations which is what many do or choose to question them and be labelled a conspiracy theorist for having the cheek to do so. The official narratives are what will be recorded in history as factual either way whether they be fact or fiction. It has never been any different.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Absolutely. As well as the film footage of a fire chief clearing the area saying 'they're bringing it down..'.

Link?

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

https://www.addictioncenter.com/drugs/conspiracy-theory-addiction/

 

[PhilM]

Please everyone keep this quiet as we don't want the authorities to know. But, I've finally figured out what the true conspiracy is: conspiracy theories are made up.

What's really happening is that there's some fat, old and greasy haired middle-aged virgin sat in his mother's back room, with the curtains closed, making it all up.

He posts something on YouTube with some vague pictures he found on Google Images and lets it spread, while he sits there and chuckles over his mixed kebab.

 

[Deckard2049]

In a way I miss this guy.

 

[magicjuan]

This is often reported, but the question is where did they get this information on? Was it a set script which all reporters were involved in or a miscommunication?

If it's a miscommunication, could it not be one in the form of being an innocent mistake reporting the collapse of a building they weren't familiar with?

The whole set script aspect brings the question again of the huge number of complicit individuals. Importantly, what would be the purpose of destroying WTC7?

I'm not a structural engineer and I respect the views of people like @Lob (his videos bring questions), but I then think of all those who've investigated it too.

Again, are they all complicit? If it was a controlled explosion, would you not expect people to see the mass of cabling and explosives required?

For conspiracies to succeed, you need to have consistency and security and 9/11 seems far too big to have either of these when you consider the scale.

They reported it a few times before it actually happened, plenty of time for the pantomine effort of 'it's behind you'.
Sometimes events snowball, panic, incompetence and poor decision making enter the frame so there isn't a need for lots of people involved.
The practice drills? Were they not 'intriguing'?.
Always comes back to cui bono?

 

[magicjuan]

There were a lot of things reported that day which were not fully accurate. It was a live news event, reporters are just repeating everything they hear without taking the time to fact check.
I reaaly don't get while people insist on using that one sentence as evidence of a conspiracy, while conveniently omitting the other 30-40 reports which also turned out to be incorrect at the time.

Maybe because when the beeb reported it, it was clearly visible over the reporter's shoulder

 

[PhilM]

They reported it a few times before it actually happened, plenty of time for the pantomine effort of 'it's behind you'.
Sometimes events snowball, panic, incompetence and poor decision making enter the frame so there isn't a need for lots of people involved.
The practice drills? Were they not 'intriguing'?.
Always comes back to cui bono?

If WTC7 was demolished using explosives, it would imply the whole event was planned, and there lies the issue where it would need many, many people involved.

Were the flights genuine commercial airliners? If not, it would need the involvement of the supposed families, airport clerical staff, security, baggage handlers et al.

You then have ATC who would have monitored the flights from their initial take off. Did the plane really exist? You would have the airline staff and Boeing etc.

If they're to guarantee that the three WTCs towards would fall, which they must have done to destroy WC7, then they'd have required demolition charges in all.

That's a large undertaking and as such would require complicit staff internal and the people to do it, so why was this never noticed? It's not small scale stuff.

The events on Flight 93 would require complicit staff and rescue crews, coroner et al. You're also talking about the press being compliment - why the BBC?

Why not choose an American network? Then, you'd have the huge undertaking of evidential research afterwards and analysis, with those staff being complicit.

With the WTC being a target of a previous attack, would it not be sensible or prudent to have practice drills? If it was set up, you'd again need more staff complicit.

That's before talking about the Pentagon staff, people in the local area and all those who watched and reported on the events unfold. The administration too.

It would need thousands! Sometimes, the actual answer is the one starting you in the face rather than looking anywhere and everywhere for something special.

 

[trueblue84]

If WTC7 was demolished using explosives, it would imply the whole event was planned, and there lies the issue where it would need many, many people involved.

Were the flights genuine commercial airliners? If not, it would need the involvement of the supposed families, airport clerical staff, security, baggage handlers et al.

You then have ATC who would have monitored the flights from their initial take off. Did the plane really exist? You would have the airline staff and Boeing etc.

If they're to guarantee that the three WTCs towards would fall, which they must have done to destroy WC7, then they'd have required demolition charges in all.

That's a large undertaking and as such would require complicit staff internal and the people to do it, so why was this never noticed? It's not small scale stuff.

The events on Flight 93 would require complicit staff and rescue crews, coroner et al. You're also talking about the press being compliment - why the BBC?

Why not choose an American network? Then, you'd have the huge undertaking of evidential research afterwards and analysis, with those staff being complicit.

With the WTC being a target of a previous attack, would it not be sensible or prudent to have practice drills? If it was set up, you'd again need more staff complicit.

That's before talking about the Pentagon staff, people in the local area and all those who watched and reported on the events unfold. The administration too.

It would need thousands! Sometimes, the actual answer is the one starting you in the face rather than looking anywhere and everywhere for something special.

 

[Cels]

All this 911 talk is making me uncomfortable, to be honest. Two of my best friends died in the Twin Towers attack, and it really hurt me. What hurts me the most though was the fact that I'd known both for over five years, and in all that time neither of them ever let on that they could fly a plane.