Steve R wrote:
>>>
BONKERS !!!!!!!
That's exactly what I mean when I talk about "lunatic fringe" theories.
>>
Of course it can be done. You take a plane, point it at the Pentagon and you go into a dive (steep or shallow, take your pick).
So I suppose you're also saying that all those people who SAW a plane hit the Pentagon were hallucinating. Or lying. Or weren't "real people".
9/11 prediction
Re: 9/11 prediction
Steve R wrote:
>>
That "explanation" flies in the face of all logic.
Presumably if you're a plotter you're going to want to keep your conspiracy as simple as possible and for it to involve as few people as possible (while at the same time going for "maximum impact").
So what would be the point of having the added complication of hijacking actual civilian flights?
Not only would it cause unnecessary "collateral damage" on your own side in the shape of the few hundred folk on the planes - as opposed to the "necessary" collateral damage in the Towers / Pentagon (I'm trying my best to think like a CT here).
More importantly if you're a plotter with half a brain, it's also an added - and completely unnecessary - complication.
Why not simply "dress up" your New World Order planes in civilian livery, point them in the direction of where you want them to go and fake the hijackings (complete with bogus cellphone calls from bogus distressed stewardesses and bogus terrified passengers etc.).
Which is presumably what you're saying is in any case what happened.
That's where all these far-fetched & fanciful 9/11 conspiracy theories fall down: Not only do they stretch all credibility to the absolute limit and demand more suspension of disbelief than your average sci-fi movie. They would also by necessity have had to have involved thousands of people from the highest echelons of government to relatively low-ranking members of the armed forces. And yet to date no-one has come forward to blow the whistle.
Sorry Steve, I can't buy it. It makes no sense at all.
And in any case - what PROOF is there that anything like this happened? Simple answer: There is none - not a single solitary scrap of it!!! Just crackpot theories perpetuated by nutters on the Internet.
You'll be telling us next that you believe that Elvis is alive and well and living on the Moon.
>>
That "explanation" flies in the face of all logic.
Presumably if you're a plotter you're going to want to keep your conspiracy as simple as possible and for it to involve as few people as possible (while at the same time going for "maximum impact").
So what would be the point of having the added complication of hijacking actual civilian flights?
Not only would it cause unnecessary "collateral damage" on your own side in the shape of the few hundred folk on the planes - as opposed to the "necessary" collateral damage in the Towers / Pentagon (I'm trying my best to think like a CT here).
More importantly if you're a plotter with half a brain, it's also an added - and completely unnecessary - complication.
Why not simply "dress up" your New World Order planes in civilian livery, point them in the direction of where you want them to go and fake the hijackings (complete with bogus cellphone calls from bogus distressed stewardesses and bogus terrified passengers etc.).
Which is presumably what you're saying is in any case what happened.
That's where all these far-fetched & fanciful 9/11 conspiracy theories fall down: Not only do they stretch all credibility to the absolute limit and demand more suspension of disbelief than your average sci-fi movie. They would also by necessity have had to have involved thousands of people from the highest echelons of government to relatively low-ranking members of the armed forces. And yet to date no-one has come forward to blow the whistle.
Sorry Steve, I can't buy it. It makes no sense at all.
And in any case - what PROOF is there that anything like this happened? Simple answer: There is none - not a single solitary scrap of it!!! Just crackpot theories perpetuated by nutters on the Internet.
You'll be telling us next that you believe that Elvis is alive and well and living on the Moon.
-
strictlybroadband
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: 9/11 prediction
Flat_Eric wrote:
> But for reasons that I'm sick of repeating, I just can't buy
> into the conspiracy theories (many of which wander off deep
> into lunatic fringe / David Icke territory) that 9/11 was some
> massive plot on the part of the US Government, the CIA, Mossad,
> the "New World Order" (whatever that is), the UN, the World
> Bank, NATO or the ghost of my Aunt Liza.
It's hard to swallow such things, but given that the CIA *probably* attacked a US navy ship to create the excuse for the Vietnam war, given the CIA's long-documented involvement in terrorism, given the CIA's role in launching coups against democratically elected governments, it wouldn't be out of character. Note also that bin Laden was (or is) a CIA agent and that Al Qaida is an accidental (or perhaps not) creation of the CIA. The world is a stranger place than we tend to imagine from day to day.
Note also that the KGB is also accused of bombing apartment blocks in Moscow in order to start a war against Chechnya. This is what "intelligence" services do from time to time.
> I'm still firmly in the "cock-up, yes - conspiracy, no" school.
I'm agnostic. I'd recommend you watch the video this thread refers to. It's harder to discount than you might expect.
> Do you think that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon? And
> if so, what happened to Flight 77? And were all those hundreds
> of people who say that they actually saw a plan hit the
> building "in on" the conspiracy, on drugs, lying or what?
Dunno - it does seem unlikely that a plane hit the Pentagon - beyond that it's all guesswork.
> And if "The Conspirators" flew 2 planes into the Twin Towers
> (and even though we all saw it happen on live TV there are
> still some fruitcakes who insist that it wasn't real and was
> all done with 'stickytape & mirrors') - why then bother farting
> about with missiles at the Pentagon and JUST PRETENDING it was
> a plane there? What would be the point of that?
Good questions - I don't know.
> And if these were indeed suicide hijackings but it was all a
> "false flag" conspiracy, then presumably the CIA (or whoever
> was responsible) would have needed to recruit 19 (count 'em!)
> volunteers to pose as Islamic fanatics and then actually "die
> for the cause". How easy do you think THAT would have been
Very easy. The CIA recruited thousands of such people to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. MI5 also recruited British Muslims to fight the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo. Of course, they don't open a big office saying "CIA terrorist recruitment centre" - they use agents on the ground like bin Laden. I've no doubt that the 19 hijackers genuinely believed they were going to meet 72 virgins, regardless of who was behind the plot.
> given that these people would presumably have been pro-Western
> / westernised agents loyal to the Government and therefore
> hardly "real" religious fanatics with a death wish at all (or
> can you in fact BE an Islamic religious fanatic and STILL be in
> league with the pro-Israeli "NeoCons"?)
See above. Terrorists are always dumb fucks who believe in the cause. Thids was true of the IRA bombers, Hamas, Al Qaida, whatever. The guys in charge don't plant bombs or blow themselves up - they leave it to the faithful.
> And if the planes that were used were (as some CTs claim)
> unmanned drones that were substituted for the hijacked planes -
> what happened to those planes and all the people aboard them?
Like I said, take an hour to watch the video. It didn't answer many questions for me, but it raised a lot of new ones.
BTW, the bad guys who have been forgotten in recent years are the Saudi regime. They are in bed with the neocons, and capable of any kind of evil. It's long been forgotten that 9/11 was essentially a plot by Saudis.
> But for reasons that I'm sick of repeating, I just can't buy
> into the conspiracy theories (many of which wander off deep
> into lunatic fringe / David Icke territory) that 9/11 was some
> massive plot on the part of the US Government, the CIA, Mossad,
> the "New World Order" (whatever that is), the UN, the World
> Bank, NATO or the ghost of my Aunt Liza.
It's hard to swallow such things, but given that the CIA *probably* attacked a US navy ship to create the excuse for the Vietnam war, given the CIA's long-documented involvement in terrorism, given the CIA's role in launching coups against democratically elected governments, it wouldn't be out of character. Note also that bin Laden was (or is) a CIA agent and that Al Qaida is an accidental (or perhaps not) creation of the CIA. The world is a stranger place than we tend to imagine from day to day.
Note also that the KGB is also accused of bombing apartment blocks in Moscow in order to start a war against Chechnya. This is what "intelligence" services do from time to time.
> I'm still firmly in the "cock-up, yes - conspiracy, no" school.
I'm agnostic. I'd recommend you watch the video this thread refers to. It's harder to discount than you might expect.
> Do you think that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon? And
> if so, what happened to Flight 77? And were all those hundreds
> of people who say that they actually saw a plan hit the
> building "in on" the conspiracy, on drugs, lying or what?
Dunno - it does seem unlikely that a plane hit the Pentagon - beyond that it's all guesswork.
> And if "The Conspirators" flew 2 planes into the Twin Towers
> (and even though we all saw it happen on live TV there are
> still some fruitcakes who insist that it wasn't real and was
> all done with 'stickytape & mirrors') - why then bother farting
> about with missiles at the Pentagon and JUST PRETENDING it was
> a plane there? What would be the point of that?
Good questions - I don't know.
> And if these were indeed suicide hijackings but it was all a
> "false flag" conspiracy, then presumably the CIA (or whoever
> was responsible) would have needed to recruit 19 (count 'em!)
> volunteers to pose as Islamic fanatics and then actually "die
> for the cause". How easy do you think THAT would have been
Very easy. The CIA recruited thousands of such people to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. MI5 also recruited British Muslims to fight the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo. Of course, they don't open a big office saying "CIA terrorist recruitment centre" - they use agents on the ground like bin Laden. I've no doubt that the 19 hijackers genuinely believed they were going to meet 72 virgins, regardless of who was behind the plot.
> given that these people would presumably have been pro-Western
> / westernised agents loyal to the Government and therefore
> hardly "real" religious fanatics with a death wish at all (or
> can you in fact BE an Islamic religious fanatic and STILL be in
> league with the pro-Israeli "NeoCons"?)
See above. Terrorists are always dumb fucks who believe in the cause. Thids was true of the IRA bombers, Hamas, Al Qaida, whatever. The guys in charge don't plant bombs or blow themselves up - they leave it to the faithful.
> And if the planes that were used were (as some CTs claim)
> unmanned drones that were substituted for the hijacked planes -
> what happened to those planes and all the people aboard them?
Like I said, take an hour to watch the video. It didn't answer many questions for me, but it raised a lot of new ones.
BTW, the bad guys who have been forgotten in recent years are the Saudi regime. They are in bed with the neocons, and capable of any kind of evil. It's long been forgotten that 9/11 was essentially a plot by Saudis.
[url=http://www.strictlybroadband.com/]Strictly Broadband[/url]: new movies published daily, 365 days a year!
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Where's the logic?
Ok, I've read half of this thread, so I'm apologising in advance if someone has already made the same assumptions.
Why can't we all look at this outside the box? Not as a 'westerner' who's suspicious of Islam, not an Arab that's suspicious of western agendas, nor a westerner that's an agenda against his/her own political government? Hard I know but I'll try......
Firstly I'll put a few questions to you, that run around my head.
Who's to gain most?
Islamic terrorists would gain much acclaim within their own circles for such successful attacks as 9/11 & 7/7. It would show that the mighty western powers are vulnerable, and also show their sponsors that their funding is worthwhile. It boosts fundamentalist's morale and may help recruit new martyrs. So they gain significantly.
The West would find the perfect excuse for war against Islamic supremacy in the middle east. The west is totally dependent on oil, and control of it would be a policy western powers dream about. In the process war in itself makes money. Countries have to be rebuilt. Roads, housing, bridges, power link-ups etc etc. Who gets these contracts to rebuild countries we've bombed? Western businesses. Who funds government campaigns? Western businesses. Get the connection? So all in all, the western world also gains. -a side note to remember is that China is becoming more 'capitalist' orientated every year, whilst still being under communist rule. China's economy will overpower the US economy pretty soon, and the demand for oil from China will increase greatly. China is now the 2nd largest user of oil, and pretty soon will take first spot off the USA. They have their own oil of course, and exporting oil will make them very rich. The US needs Arab oil to keep up with China's threat.
So who gains the most here? The USA or Islamic terrorism? In the short term it's Islamic terrorism, but in the long term -and on a global scale- it's the USA.
Now onto the actual attacks....
Can 30 unarmed men overpower 4 men armed with pocket knives?
This is the question that sits with me the most. Surely the crew & passengers didn't just accept their fate? They were going to die for fucks sake, and they -supposedly- had a few 5'6'' terrorists with pocket knives standing in their way between certain death, or a few puncture wounds that would probably be artificial wounds unless they were unlucky. It's not like the terrorists had 10" Bowie knives for fucks sake. I myself have fought a guy with a 12" chef's knife before and come out without a scratch. He was drunk, I was drunk -and probably stupid to attempt standing up to him- but I was 19 at the time and a fucking retard (at least that night). I was only 5'8'' & about 10 stone then, and the guy way about 2 inches taller, about 15 stone, and had been in prison for killing someone in an armed robbery. Anyway, my point is that I didn't think of my safety at the time, even though I could have run. These people on the plane outnumbered the terrorists easily, probably 'outsized' them easily -comparing your average American v Egyptian- and had absolutely nothing to lose. A man faced with certain death is a very unpredictable and dangerous man indeed. 30-50 of them would be unstoppable against a few dickheads with penknives. I can't see how they sat there for 15 mins and just gave up on life. We are clever animals, but we all know a drowning man will clutch a straw to save himself. Consciously we know he'd be wasting his time doing so, but he's not thinking consciously & rationally because he's fucking dying! We all saw people jumping 60-100 floors off the Twin Towers to escape burning to death: that's the rationality I'm talking about. They jumped to their deaths yet the passengers & crew on the planes just sat crying because of a few penknives? It's not logical. Logic tells me that the only way these terrorists could have kept the passengers from attack would be to assure them that they weren't going to die. We may never know.
As for the Pentagon...
Why was the Pentagon's damage shaped like a perfect round hole?
The planes that flew into the Twin Towers clearly left the evidence of where the wings had ripped into the building, while the Pentagon's damage was totally different? As far as I'm aware, 'all planes have wings.'
Forget conspiracy theories, and forget official statements for now. Just try to find logical answers in your own minds about the few things I've brought up.
Why can't we all look at this outside the box? Not as a 'westerner' who's suspicious of Islam, not an Arab that's suspicious of western agendas, nor a westerner that's an agenda against his/her own political government? Hard I know but I'll try......
Firstly I'll put a few questions to you, that run around my head.
Who's to gain most?
Islamic terrorists would gain much acclaim within their own circles for such successful attacks as 9/11 & 7/7. It would show that the mighty western powers are vulnerable, and also show their sponsors that their funding is worthwhile. It boosts fundamentalist's morale and may help recruit new martyrs. So they gain significantly.
The West would find the perfect excuse for war against Islamic supremacy in the middle east. The west is totally dependent on oil, and control of it would be a policy western powers dream about. In the process war in itself makes money. Countries have to be rebuilt. Roads, housing, bridges, power link-ups etc etc. Who gets these contracts to rebuild countries we've bombed? Western businesses. Who funds government campaigns? Western businesses. Get the connection? So all in all, the western world also gains. -a side note to remember is that China is becoming more 'capitalist' orientated every year, whilst still being under communist rule. China's economy will overpower the US economy pretty soon, and the demand for oil from China will increase greatly. China is now the 2nd largest user of oil, and pretty soon will take first spot off the USA. They have their own oil of course, and exporting oil will make them very rich. The US needs Arab oil to keep up with China's threat.
So who gains the most here? The USA or Islamic terrorism? In the short term it's Islamic terrorism, but in the long term -and on a global scale- it's the USA.
Now onto the actual attacks....
Can 30 unarmed men overpower 4 men armed with pocket knives?
This is the question that sits with me the most. Surely the crew & passengers didn't just accept their fate? They were going to die for fucks sake, and they -supposedly- had a few 5'6'' terrorists with pocket knives standing in their way between certain death, or a few puncture wounds that would probably be artificial wounds unless they were unlucky. It's not like the terrorists had 10" Bowie knives for fucks sake. I myself have fought a guy with a 12" chef's knife before and come out without a scratch. He was drunk, I was drunk -and probably stupid to attempt standing up to him- but I was 19 at the time and a fucking retard (at least that night). I was only 5'8'' & about 10 stone then, and the guy way about 2 inches taller, about 15 stone, and had been in prison for killing someone in an armed robbery. Anyway, my point is that I didn't think of my safety at the time, even though I could have run. These people on the plane outnumbered the terrorists easily, probably 'outsized' them easily -comparing your average American v Egyptian- and had absolutely nothing to lose. A man faced with certain death is a very unpredictable and dangerous man indeed. 30-50 of them would be unstoppable against a few dickheads with penknives. I can't see how they sat there for 15 mins and just gave up on life. We are clever animals, but we all know a drowning man will clutch a straw to save himself. Consciously we know he'd be wasting his time doing so, but he's not thinking consciously & rationally because he's fucking dying! We all saw people jumping 60-100 floors off the Twin Towers to escape burning to death: that's the rationality I'm talking about. They jumped to their deaths yet the passengers & crew on the planes just sat crying because of a few penknives? It's not logical. Logic tells me that the only way these terrorists could have kept the passengers from attack would be to assure them that they weren't going to die. We may never know.
As for the Pentagon...
Why was the Pentagon's damage shaped like a perfect round hole?
The planes that flew into the Twin Towers clearly left the evidence of where the wings had ripped into the building, while the Pentagon's damage was totally different? As far as I'm aware, 'all planes have wings.'
Forget conspiracy theories, and forget official statements for now. Just try to find logical answers in your own minds about the few things I've brought up.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
jasonhallceltic
- Posts: 427
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: 9/11 prediction
can i just throw this out there that alot of the people who were said to have flown the planes into the buildings, have since come forward as being alive and well and had having nothing to do with the attacks!
Re: 9/11 prediction
jasonhallceltic wrote:
>>
Very old "news" and debunked within days of the attacks themselves. All down to identity mix-ups and innaccurate reporting.
>>
Very old "news" and debunked within days of the attacks themselves. All down to identity mix-ups and innaccurate reporting.
Re: Where's the logic?
Sam Slater wrote:
>>>
Sam - you appear to be giving the passengers & crew on the first 3 flights the benefit of a hindsight that we have after the event but that they could not possibly have had at the time.
They had no way of knowing what was in store for them, quite simply because nothing like that had ever happened before - as far as they knew it was just a "regular" hijacking and they probably thought that they were going to be taken somewhere to sit on the tarmac for a few days while demands were issued and negotiations went on.
They were probably shit-scared of course, who wouldn't be in such a situation? But I doubt that they had any idea that it was a suicide mission. How could they have? In any case the terrorists appear to have done what you say they must have done, i.e. give the passengers false reassurances (all that "please remain sitting we are returning to the airport .." stuff).
By the time the fourth flight, Flight 93, had been hijacked however (its takeoff was delayed by 45 minutes remember), news had begun to get through of the first 3 attacks, so the passengers - realising that a similar fate was in store for them - decided that they might as well "have a go".
>>>
Oh no, not the fucking Pentagon again!!!!! !boring!!boring!!boring!
Doesn't ANYONE believe that HUNDREDS of eyewitness statements are enough?!!
And why do the CTs think that all impact holes have to be the same shape, for fuck's sake??!!! Besides which, there are plenty of photos showing what is clearly plane wreckage in the Pentagon - and NO it wasn't planted.
>>>
Sam - you appear to be giving the passengers & crew on the first 3 flights the benefit of a hindsight that we have after the event but that they could not possibly have had at the time.
They had no way of knowing what was in store for them, quite simply because nothing like that had ever happened before - as far as they knew it was just a "regular" hijacking and they probably thought that they were going to be taken somewhere to sit on the tarmac for a few days while demands were issued and negotiations went on.
They were probably shit-scared of course, who wouldn't be in such a situation? But I doubt that they had any idea that it was a suicide mission. How could they have? In any case the terrorists appear to have done what you say they must have done, i.e. give the passengers false reassurances (all that "please remain sitting we are returning to the airport .." stuff).
By the time the fourth flight, Flight 93, had been hijacked however (its takeoff was delayed by 45 minutes remember), news had begun to get through of the first 3 attacks, so the passengers - realising that a similar fate was in store for them - decided that they might as well "have a go".
>>>
Oh no, not the fucking Pentagon again!!!!! !boring!!boring!!boring!
Doesn't ANYONE believe that HUNDREDS of eyewitness statements are enough?!!
And why do the CTs think that all impact holes have to be the same shape, for fuck's sake??!!! Besides which, there are plenty of photos showing what is clearly plane wreckage in the Pentagon - and NO it wasn't planted.
Re: 9/11 prediction
strictlybroadband wrote:
>>
I take it you're referring to the 'Gulf Of Tonkin Incident'. The (North) Vietnamese themselves publically admitted years later that their gunboats attacked the US vessels. IIRC it was when General Giap met up with Robert McNamara some time in the '90s.
That the Johnson administration then used this event as an excuse to up the ante in Indo-China is however very plausible (parallels with the aftermath of 9/11 perhaps?)
>>
Yes, but (unless you believe the CTs) not against its own people.
>>
Again yes - although the true "democratic" credentials of some of these regimes leave a lot to be desired. And right or wrong, in any case it's hardly the same as murdering thousands of your own people at home.
>>
They had a common cause against the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 80s. That's no secret. But then they fell out when the US sent troops to "sacred Muslim soil" in the early '90s for Desert Storm, and kept them there ever since. This pissed off Bin Laden mightily and turned him into a bitter enemy of the West. Again, no great mystery there.
>>
Yes but that's all they are - ACCUSATIONS by various groups and individuals (including the Chechens) with an axe to grind against the powers-that-be in the Kremlin. There's no proof - it's another conspiracy theory.
>>
I can see where you're coming from on that point, SBB. However, the difference is that back then, the West (broadly speaking) and Islam (again, broadly speaking) were "on the same side", so to speak. Namely they had a common enemy in the shape of the Soviets.
All that changed post-Desert Storm, when Muslims began to grow suspicious of the West's motives in the region. So whereas during the '80s it might have been plausible to think of Islamic radicals climbing into bed with the CIA, by the mid to late '90s it's hard to picture it.
>>
So who was it - the CIA or the Saudis??!
>>
I never thought I'd see myself say this, but on that point SBB - I AGREE WITH YOU !shocked!
>>
I take it you're referring to the 'Gulf Of Tonkin Incident'. The (North) Vietnamese themselves publically admitted years later that their gunboats attacked the US vessels. IIRC it was when General Giap met up with Robert McNamara some time in the '90s.
That the Johnson administration then used this event as an excuse to up the ante in Indo-China is however very plausible (parallels with the aftermath of 9/11 perhaps?)
>>
Yes, but (unless you believe the CTs) not against its own people.
>>
Again yes - although the true "democratic" credentials of some of these regimes leave a lot to be desired. And right or wrong, in any case it's hardly the same as murdering thousands of your own people at home.
>>
They had a common cause against the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 80s. That's no secret. But then they fell out when the US sent troops to "sacred Muslim soil" in the early '90s for Desert Storm, and kept them there ever since. This pissed off Bin Laden mightily and turned him into a bitter enemy of the West. Again, no great mystery there.
>>
Yes but that's all they are - ACCUSATIONS by various groups and individuals (including the Chechens) with an axe to grind against the powers-that-be in the Kremlin. There's no proof - it's another conspiracy theory.
>>
I can see where you're coming from on that point, SBB. However, the difference is that back then, the West (broadly speaking) and Islam (again, broadly speaking) were "on the same side", so to speak. Namely they had a common enemy in the shape of the Soviets.
All that changed post-Desert Storm, when Muslims began to grow suspicious of the West's motives in the region. So whereas during the '80s it might have been plausible to think of Islamic radicals climbing into bed with the CIA, by the mid to late '90s it's hard to picture it.
>>
So who was it - the CIA or the Saudis??!
>>
I never thought I'd see myself say this, but on that point SBB - I AGREE WITH YOU !shocked!
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Where's the logic?
[quote]But I doubt that they had any idea that it was a suicide mission. How could they have? In any case the terrorists appear to have done what you say they must have done, i.e. give the passengers false reassurances (all that "please remain sitting we are returning to the airport .." stuff).[/quote]
This is the 'only' explanation that's logical for them to sit in their seats like good little passengers -and that the US authorities are telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
[quote]And why do the CTs think that all impact holes have to be the same shape, for fuck's sake??!!![/quote]
I'm not a 'CT'. I'm Sam Slater -on this board- and my common sense tells me that plane wings containing jet fuel must leave some mark on a concrete building when smashing into it at over 300mph.
I'm not saying the wreckage was planted. What I'm saying is that I'm open minded about the idea that the Americans can lie, and were in a position to cover up the truth (if indeed they wanted to).
I have no conspiracy theory. Just a few questions that haven't been fully answered.
This is the 'only' explanation that's logical for them to sit in their seats like good little passengers -and that the US authorities are telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
[quote]And why do the CTs think that all impact holes have to be the same shape, for fuck's sake??!!![/quote]
I'm not a 'CT'. I'm Sam Slater -on this board- and my common sense tells me that plane wings containing jet fuel must leave some mark on a concrete building when smashing into it at over 300mph.
I'm not saying the wreckage was planted. What I'm saying is that I'm open minded about the idea that the Americans can lie, and were in a position to cover up the truth (if indeed they wanted to).
I have no conspiracy theory. Just a few questions that haven't been fully answered.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: 9/11 prediction
>
> >>
>
> Yes, but (unless you believe the CTs) not against its own
> people.
So so wrong. If know it's confortable to think that the US goverment wouldn't attack it's own people but it's just not true.
Operation Northwoods, read it. It's pretty hard for anyone to dismiss, and I don't know anyone who has. This is no theory. The US planned to attack it's own people to gain support for war in Cuba.