Conspiracy theories

[magicjuan]

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.

So, if everyone 'believed' this to be part of a 'drill' there would be a point of no return, their 'complicity' in the event could be unwitting, including non intercepting by scrambled fighters for example.
For every reason for there is one against, too many holes that people have erred on the side of caution. You seem reluctant to acknowledge how 'persuasive' authority is from the public to the upper echelons.
There is no Occam's razor to this, it mainly comes down to the acceptance of the legitimacy of authority or not.
We've lived in a deceptive age for 60 years, authority has consistently duped the public for power gains, either at low level council politics and land deals up to huge wars for minerals, there is nothing that power structures won't do to maintain their authority.
Since 9-11 there have been so many dead cat scenarios it is now a way of life that doesn't get questioned and in the UK that has brought us Farage, Johnson and Cummings etc, doing what they do almost wholly unchallenged.

 

[PhilM]

So, if everyone 'believed' this to be part of a 'drill' there would be a point of no return, their 'complicity' in the event could be unwitting, including non intercepting by scrambled fighters for example.
For every reason for there is one against, too many holes that people have erred on the side of caution. You seem reluctant to acknowledge how 'persuasive' authority is from the public to the upper echelons.

While I can't be certain that it isn't, my point is that on the balance of probability it would strongly suggest that it was in fact a genuine terror attack.

Without talking about those who would need to be unwittingly complicit, for the situation to be a success it would need lots who were knowingly complicit, as above.

Otherwise, why hasn't all that I mentioned been shown to be false? Did one plane leave the airport? If it did, hundreds of people are involved in that process.

It's not about reluctance either; rather, it's having experience of working in or running operations that have to maintain a level of discretion or secrecy.

I'm totally aware that the government, including our own, act shadily, yet sensitive operations are always based on being manageable through reliable security.

There lies the onus on humans to be morally complicit, which when you consider the deaths of so many people is not just unlikely but nigh on impossible.

For 9/11 to be a successful clandestine operation, it would require a small number of people having knowledge and being morally and willingly complicit...

... whereas for it to be a successful tactical operation it would need large numbers of complicit individuals with a fair level of knowledge. That doesn't add up.

Look at ECHELON for example, which was widely suspected to be true and it was. But why was it successful? Because of the moral aspect and can be kept closed.

It's more likely they had drills because they'd been bombed before rather than a huge conspiracy. We have regular fire/bomb/shooting drills, so is that part of a plan?

Ask yourself this: if the US did want to commit such a planned atrocity on their own soil, why plan such an audacious and complex event with so much risk?

Why not get some people to set off a number of multiple car bombs in busy areas (such a stadium) or IEDs on the subway? Same effect, but much less risk.

 

[Dymak]

I don’t doubt that mercenaries or religious nutcases were involved in flying the planes into the towers, you could therefore conclude that it was a ‘genuine terrorist attack’.

I just wonder if certain people were aware that it was going to happen, and were quite happy with allowing it to happen, and maybe even played a role in its coordination, as they had already planned on how the event would be viewed, used, and leveraged in the future.

The world changed that day! The US military industrial complex has certainly benefited financially, and it has led to the ongoing and exacerbated destabilisation of Muslim countries in the Middle East.

The BBC’s reporting of the collapse of WT7 40 minutes in advance, and the subsequent nature of its collapse makes me continue to believe that there were more forces at play than a gang of Muslim terrorists on some aeroplanes.

 

[Dymak]

Plandemic II: Indoctornation (FULL MOVIE)

Brighteon.com is a leading online free platform that empowers free speech, allowing individuals to freely share videos and express their thoughts without any form of censorship. Join us today and be part of our community.

www.brighteon.com

Worth a watch, imo.

The segment that looks into the nature of ‘fact checking’ and Google’s level of control on what you see and hear were particularly interesting, I think.

 

[Juddablue]

Ive always been very sceptical of the fed narrative from the moment it unfortunately happened.
There seems no mention so far of the mysterious flight leaving US soil to Arabia. That flight was logged during a total shutdown of all global airbourne traffic, just 30 hours after the event.
Very odd in my humble opinion.

 

[WA Toffee]

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

Yes it was. So are you suggesting it was a pre-written script that they read out too early or something else?

 

[WA Toffee]

Ive always been very sceptical of the fed narrative from the moment it unfortunately happened.
There seems no mention so far of the mysterious flight leaving US soil to Arabia. That flight was logged during a total shutdown of all global airbourne traffic, just 30 hours after the event.
Very odd in my humble opinion.

I've seen lots of mentions of it. Wasn't it a relative of Bin Laden who had a lot of friends in high places? Which would lead me to believe that he has excerted his influence (and no doubt cash) in order to get out of the country as he would have felt unsafe. Not ethical, but I don't see how it can be used as evidence that there was an inside job.

Especially since it wasn't the only flight during the no-fly period, but I suppose those other flights are not convenient for a conspiracy theory so they are best to be just ignored

 

[Harryflashman]

It's not about reluctance either; rather, it's having experience of working in or running operations that have to maintain a level of discretion or secrecy.

I'm totally aware that the government, including our own, act shadily, yet sensitive operations are always based on being manageable through reliable security.

There lies the onus on humans to be morally complicit, which when you consider the deaths of so many people is not just unlikely but nigh on impossible.

For 9/11 to be a successful clandestine operation, it would require a small number of people having knowledge and being morally and willingly complicit...

... whereas for it to be a successful tactical operation it would need large numbers of complicit individuals with a fair level of knowledge. That doesn't add up.

For me you nail it here. Governments and people are capable of terrible , despicable things but the more you involve in these schemes the idea it can be maintained on a covert basis disappears .

Me and you Phil we could plot and carry out an attack at the behest of a shadey governmental figure and it could well never be revealed . Start to include and involve people on the periphery then you’ve broken the circle so It leaks to wives, lovers , siblings , friends and even texts and social media and the whole thing collapses. So the idea that hundreds if not many more can be involved but never reveal their complicity particularly when in many cases their loyalty would be questionable seems to me just Fanciful.

What is it the hells angels say “three can keep a secret , if two are dead “

 

[PhilM]

What is it the hells angels say “three can keep a secret , if two are dead “

C: "Crime stoppers, how can I help you?"

R: "Well, Bogus Bill, who lives at 47 Happy Street, is smuggling drugs. He usually leave his house at 7:17 to go to the gym, travelling along n X, Y and Z...

..in a Red Mercedes with the reg plate GOT1878. He usually wears a pair of blue designer trainers, which he got from the Trafford Centre for £175 back in April.

He's 6ft 3, 173lb, short black hair and a dimple on his right arse cheek. His phallus is less than 3". The drugs will be under the spare wheel in an Aldi bag."

C: "Do you know him?"

R: "No."

 

[kev]

C: "Crime stoppers, how can I help you?"

R: "Well, Bogus Bill, who lives at 47 Happy Street, is smuggling drugs. He usually leave his house at 7:17 to go to the gym, travelling along n X, Y and Z...

..in a Red Mercedes with the reg plate GOT1878. He usually wears a pair of blue designer trainers, which he got from the Trafford Centre for £175 back in April.

He's 6ft 3, 173lb, short black hair and a dimple on his right arse cheek. His phallus is less than 3". The drugs will be under the spare wheel in an Aldi bag."

C: "Do you know him?"

R: "No."

Not having that.
A red Mercedes with that registration? Scandalous.

 

[PhilM]

Not having that.
A red Mercedes with that registration? Scandalous.

Drug dealers are bad people!

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

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.

Exactly this

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

It was just some angry people flying planes into buildings
It’s Literally that simple

 

[JimmyJeffers]

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.

I don’t know how people can say ‘you would expect this to happen if you flew a plane into a building’ etc. It’s not like we can compare it to many previous examples of planes being flown into skyscrapers.

As an aside @magicjuan seems a very smart man and I generally like a lot of his posts. Can’t get on board with this one though.

 

[PhilM]

I don’t know how people can say ‘you would expect this to happen if you flew a plane into a building’ etc. It’s not like we can compare it to many previous examples of planes being flown into skyscrapers.

As an aside @magicjuan seems a very smart man and I generally like a lot of his posts. Can’t get on board with this one though.

Exactly. If like @Dymak said that they had prior knowledge of the plan and perhaps even to some extent facilitated it, I’d be more inclined to agree.

Why? It needs less people involved ultimately just as effective. But a mass organised conspiracy involving hundred if not thousands... sorry, but no.