Strange find

[EDDIE B 3,145]

19 minutes ago, scothunter said:

Yes . But 9/11 no not even maybe. 

For reasons I previously gave. Also in this era of whistle blowers and social media.

Let's just say for arguments sake they did do it.

They would need hundreds of folk in on it. No way that would be kept secret. Not to mention the fact more than a few would not have the stomach for it killing a load of firefighters and innocent folk. Also citizens of other nations. 

If it came out America would be finished as a nation. Those responsible would be executed!

Pure fantasy. 

Forgetting all that they did not need to do that to invade Iraq. That's a very weak argument. 

Some folk see conspiracy theorists n everything. There heads just can't accept the fact shit happens. 

But if they ply the conspiracy card they sell books get hits on YouTube vids and like David icke make millions from talking to the crazies.

But conspiracy has always been around. Titanic pyramid's etc etc etc. 

Some are plausible but any I have looked into there a counter argument just as plausible.

Yes they wouldn't get away with it now, but back then everyone believed what was in the news, papers etc was gospel. Surely there must be parts of the whole story that doesn't sit right with you? 

[scothunter 12,609]

They capitalised on the attack . 

So tell me how did they bring it down without anyone in those office's not tripping over detonating cable or questions asked about exposing pillars and cutting into them.

For f**k sake we all saw the planes hit lol

[Dinosaurs 2,013]

Hmmm yes we saw the planes but how did such buildings just collapse? No blackboxes found ? Yet they found a passport in good condition? We dont know the full story & doubt in my lifetime we ever will. Atb

[EDDIE B 3,145]

11 hours ago, Dinosaurs said:

Hmmm yes we saw the planes but how did such buildings just collapse? No blackboxes found ? Yet they found a passport in good condition? We dont know the full story & doubt in my lifetime we ever will. Atb

Yes, surely everyone doesn't believe everything went down the way the media portrayed it. Ok, so even if you ignore 90% of all conspiracy theories, you still got facts like the passport, black box's etc. These things has to at least put some doubt in people's minds.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

12 hours ago, scothunter said:

They capitalised on the attack . 

So tell me how did they bring it down without anyone in those office's not tripping over detonating cable or questions asked about exposing pillars and cutting into them.

For f**k sake we all saw the planes hit lol

F*ck*n hell Scot. You'll be telling us we landed on the moon next.

Edited March 3, 2018 by ChrisJones

[ChrisJones 7,973]

1 minute ago, EDDIE B said:

Yes, surely everyone doesn't believe everything went down the way the media portrayed it. Ok, so even if you ignore 90% of all conspiracy theories, you still got facts like the passport, black box's etc. These things has to at least put some doubt in people's minds.

If you actually look at the hard evidence for the tragedy you can remove 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of conspiracy theories. They've even done a study on the viability of conspiracy theories which demonstrate that the conspiracy doesn't hold based on the amount people that would need to be involved and the passage of time.

However, that's just further evidence of a conspiracy where no actual evidence is required and anything that debunks is it simply dismissed because it doesn't fit the narrative.

[EDDIE B 3,145]

7 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

If you actually look at the hard evidence for the tragedy you can remove 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of conspiracy theories. They've even done a study on the viability of conspiracy theories which demonstrate that the conspiracy doesn't hold based on the amount people that would need to be involved and the passage of time.

However, that's just further evidence of a conspiracy where no actual evidence is required and anything that debunks is it simply dismissed because it doesn't fit the narrative.

So how do they explain the passport then? 

[ChrisJones 7,973]

4 minutes ago, EDDIE B said:

So how do they explain the passport then? 

I don't understand the relevance of the passport, what does it add to the narrative? They've explained away 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the rest of the conspiracy.

I get what you're saying but I doubt I could post anything that would convince you it isn't a conspiracy. That's how these things work.

[EDDIE B 3,145]

2 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

I don't understand the relevance of the passport, what does it add to the narrative? They've explained away 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the rest of the conspiracy.

I get what you're saying but I doubt I could post anything that would convince you it isn't a conspiracy. That's how these things work.

Yes, but surely it puts some doubt in your mind? It certainly got me thinking.

[WILF 44,640]

I don’t for one minute think the United States did that to its own people, alright, most western countries will happily poison you to death with the food and tap water but they wouldn’t do that.

 

[ChrisJones 7,973]

32 minutes ago, EDDIE B said:

Yes, but surely it puts some doubt in your mind? It certainly got me thinking.

About 15 years ago I wrote a 40,000 word manuscript on how the attack was an inside job. When I started talking to professionals about how it could have gone down the whole narrative started to fall apart. As more and more evidence came out my manuscript got progressively more ridiculous to the point where I just shelved it. I only keep it because it acts as a solid reminder of the importance of fact-checking!

The point is that I've slaked my curiosity on the tragedy. The more I read about it the more I side with the evidence and while there may be competing stories they tend to be about trivial details that have little effect on the outcome. I went deep enough into the rabbit hole to form my conclusion and I know that nothing I can say can change someone's opinion if they're not willing to look at the evidence. That's equally applicable to pretty much any subject that crops in the GT.

I can basically point at the source information but that's about it. You can lead the man to knowledge but you can't make him think.

Edited March 3, 2018 by ChrisJones
Typo

[Born Hunter 17,656]

Very cool and moving place to visit. Wish I could post videos.

 

[EDDIE B 3,145]

14 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

About 15 years ago I wrote a 40,000 page manuscript on how the attack was an inside job. When I started talking to professionals about how it could have gone down the whole narrative started to fall apart. As more and more evidence came out my manuscript got progressively more ridiculous to the point where I just shelved it. I only keep it because it acts as a solid reminder of the importance of fact-checking!

The point is that I've slaked my curiosity on the tragedy. The more I read about it the more I side with the evidence and while there may be competing stories they tend to be about trivial details that have little effect on the outcome. I went deep enough into the rabbit hole to form my conclusion and I know that nothing I can say can change someone's opinion if they're not willing to look at the evidence. That's equally applicable to pretty much any subject that crops in the GT.

I can basically point at the source information but that's about it. You can lead the man to knowledge but you can't make him think.

But to accept all this info as nothing more than a terrorist attack, with no connections with the American government then you would have to dismiss so much evidence. Like, how did Bush get away with attacking Iraq because of 9/11? How did they get away with making up these "weapons of mass destruction" idea?

These things actually happened. No fairy story, no conspiracy. They got away with it, and so much more I believe. In years to come people will be saying, "Did this actually happen?" and "how the f**k did they get away with that". 

[scothunter 12,609]

57 minutes ago, EDDIE B said:

So how do they explain the passport then? 

How many other passports personal belongings were scattered from passengers on those planes. Bet the conspiracy nuts don't look into that or even care!

 

Bush and Blair got away with the invasion cause they used the attack as a  platform for invasion. Weapons of mass destruction was a dossier that if I remember right was a made up scenario that was trundled out and sold to gullible people. I honestly when first heard it was"Bollocks" but some believed it. 

[ChrisJones 7,973]

1 minute ago, EDDIE B said:

But to accept all this info as nothing more than a terrorist attack, with no connections with the American government then you would have to dismiss so much evidence. Like, how did Bush get away with attacking Iraq because of 9/11? How did they get away with making up these "weapons of mass destruction" idea?

I'm not following. It was a terrorist attack and caused a catastrophic amount of damage and loss of life. It was then used by politicians as a justification for what is currently a 17-year long war in the middle east. Sure they made shit up as justification but it doesn't make the attack in New York any more than what it was.

2 minutes ago, EDDIE B said:

These things actually happened. No fairy story, no conspiracy. They got away with it, and so much more I believe. In years to come people will be saying, "Did this actually happen?" and "how the f**k did they get away with that". 

Agreed but political corruption is no conspiracy, or fairy story either. In fact, there is a conspiracy in the White House at the minute complete with Russian operatives and a compromised president, but suddenly everyone is believing the official narrative. The Bush administration's justification for war is dubious at best but it doesn't change the evidence behind 9/11 and doesn't make it anything other than a horrific tragedy.