Thread of List......CONSPIRACIES

[number51]

 

[TL1961]

I will digest the SH stuff and look into this Gene Rosen and the Parker family.

Regarding 911 though. I think you are a New Yorker No? I live 20 miles from DC- I work there most days. On 911, I was on 495(DC's beltway) in bumper to bumper traffic. I was at exit 8, right next to Andrews AFB and the story there was that 2 jets were scrambled. I can tell you, dozens of fighter jets were scrambled. It was the most surreal thing I've ever witnessed. They were screaming at low altitudes. On a normal day, the entire AFB region sees many touch and go maneuvers so low flying is not out of the ordinary but this was like nothing I have ever seen. My guess is that they went straight to the Pentagon which would be a less than 5 minute flight from AFB at those speeds.
My- Co-worker was on 395 in traffic right next to the Pentagon. Here is the thing that will forever bug me about 911 truthers regarding the Pentagon. Do you know what my co-worker saw? He saw a passenger jet fly into the Pentagon. And the reason why you don't hear any rebuttals from the whole "it was a missle" crowd, is because of the traffic.
At the time of the plane hitting the Pentagon, rush hour traffic in the DC region is so god damned ridiculous that 395 was bumper to bumper for miles. I estimate on average that at least 30000 cars were parked on 305 south and north bound. The plane hit so hard that it shattered some cars windows sitting in traffic! It also shattered windows in Crystal City Arlington across the highway(395) The amount of people already at work in the buildings also raises the amount of eyewitnesses to staggering amounts of people.
So to say it was"a missile" is preposterous. There is nothing you can say to make me a believer in any sort of agenda if your story starts with "it was a missile". It was a plane. 100% factually a plane. Just like 2 planes hit the 2 towers.
So regarding the towers? 2 planes hit those towers. So if we are talking about conspiracies, not only would the hijackers would of had to hijack planes but also the US had to prepare by setting up the implosion devices?
Now I don't deny what the falling towers looked like. I have seen a handful of imploding buildings and those 2 towers fell exactly like the implosions I saw. But planes DID hit the towers. If the people in high places really wanted to implode the buildings, they would have been imploded. Planes and terrorists were not needed.

The building design of the twin towers made it entirely plausible that they drop as they did. There are nuts who will question everything after the fact. But there are seemingly unexplainable things we see with our own eyes and find hard to believe.

The piece of straw driven through a2x4 by a tornado for example. You could argue somebody staged it (if there was some dark reason by the conspiracy theory folks why that would make sense. )

My friend’s house was once hit by wind...not called a wind shear or tornado....brand new house had to be torn down and rebuilt due to structural damage. No neighbor had so much as a lawn chair overturned.

It wasn’t the government doing it. ?

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

The hand of God protected certain homes from the fire.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

The building design of the twin towers made it entirely plausible that they drop as they did. There are nuts who will question everything after the fact. But there are seemingly unexplainable things we see with our own eyes and find hard to believe.

The piece of straw driven through a2x4 by a tornado for example. You could argue somebody staged it (if there was some dark reason by the conspiracy theory folks why that would make sense. )

My friend’s house was once hit by wind...not called a wind shear or tornado....brand new house had to be torn down and rebuilt due to structural damage. No neighbor had so much as a lawn chair overturned.

It wasn’t the government doing it. ?

Hahahahahaa. wow. Unbelievable. People either desperate to believe the impossible was possible on this magical day or just as stupid as can possibly be. I guess those 500,000 ton buildings just could not withstand the weight of a disintegrated plane.

 

[MDB111™]

Hahahahahaa. wow. Unbelievable. People either desperate to believe the impossible was possible on this magical day or just as stupid as can possibly be. I guess those 500,000 ton buildings just could not withstand the weight of a disintegrated plane.

why did the buildings fall like that? what is the point?

 

[Warrior Spirit]

why did the buildings fall like that? what is the point?

All 3 were clearly demolished and had been rigged to be demolished. Evidence of thermite being used and that's why we saw people jumping out, it was unbearably hot. Also why there was evidence of molten steel. Office fires and even those caused by fuel wouldn't get anywhere near that hot. Official report claims all 3 collapsed due to fire but no building has ever suffered full symmetrical collapse due to fire simply cause it's impossible. Collapsing straight down would be the path of most resistance and is not possible nor can anybody with common sense fathom that fires could have weakened all 240 columns of 200,000 tons of steel in the 90 floors below the fire at the same time, or even at all for that matter. The fires in all 3 buildings were pretty small and heat rises, in case you didn't know. Firemen at the scene as well as numerous witnesses, who were interviewed, described it all as a controlled demolition. But if you missed day 1 of the news, you missed all that. Cause when the official story was put out for consumption and Bush ordered that no news footage of that day could be shown again, it was all quickly forgotten and became all about terrorists armed with box cutters.

 

[MDB111™]

All 3 were clearly demolished and had been rigged to be demolished. Evidence of thermite being used and that's why we saw people jumping out, it was unbearably hot. Also why there was evidence of molten steel. Office fires and even those caused by fuel wouldn't get anywhere near that hot. Official report claims all 3 collapsed due to fire but no building has ever suffered full symmetrical collapse due to fire simply cause it's impossible. Collapsing straight down would be the path of most resistance and is not possible nor can anybody with common sense fathom that fires could have weakened all 240 columns of 200,000 tons of steel in the 90 floors below the fire at the same time, or even at all for that matter. The fires in all 3 buildings were pretty small and heat rises, in case you didn't know. Firemen at the scene as well as numerous witnesses, who were interviewed, described it all as a controlled demolition. But if you missed day 1 of the news, you missed all that. Cause when the official story was put out for consumption and Bush ordered that no news footage of that day could be shown again, it was all quickly forgotten and became all about terrorists armed with box cutters.

What was the point of the towers being demolished? What purpose did an elaborate story featuring planes and terrorists serve? Who benefited from the way the buidlings fell? Did it protect further life? Because several thousand people died, so what purpose would a controlled demolition serve?
Also, you mentioned evidence of thermite. That conflicts with what i have seen. They found no fuses or demolition debris anywhere.

 

[MDB111™]

All 3 were clearly demolished and had been rigged to be demolished. Evidence of thermite being used and that's why we saw people jumping out, it was unbearably hot. Also why there was evidence of molten steel. Office fires and even those caused by fuel wouldn't get anywhere near that hot. Official report claims all 3 collapsed due to fire but no building has ever suffered full symmetrical collapse due to fire simply cause it's impossible. Collapsing straight down would be the path of most resistance and is not possible nor can anybody with common sense fathom that fires could have weakened all 240 columns of 200,000 tons of steel in the 90 floors below the fire at the same time, or even at all for that matter. The fires in all 3 buildings were pretty small and heat rises, in case you didn't know. Firemen at the scene as well as numerous witnesses, who were interviewed, described it all as a controlled demolition. But if you missed day 1 of the news, you missed all that. Cause when the official story was put out for consumption and Bush ordered that no news footage of that day could be shown again, it was all quickly forgotten and became all about terrorists armed with box cutters.

I imagine there were several other explosions throughout the buildings. Is it not conceavable that computers or transformers could have ignited when a plane unconventionally flew into the towers and exploded?
What would be the purpose here? why fly planes into the towers AND implode them?

 

[Rory Sparrow]

I guess those 500,000 ton buildings just could not withstand the weight of a disintegrated plane.

Interesting theory...the weight of the plane brought down a building. I guess the weight of the air is what made the plane crash into the building in the first place.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

What was the point of the towers being demolished? What purpose did an elaborate story featuring planes and terrorists serve? Who benefited from the way the buidlings fell? Did it protect further life? Because several thousand people died, so what purpose would a controlled demolition serve?
Also, you mentioned evidence of thermite. That conflicts with what i have seen. They found no fuses or demolition debris anywhere.

If you believe that, you paid no attention all. The point was it embellishes the narrative while getting rid of buildings they wanted to get rid of. One need not even worry about what the point of it was. Just know, for pure fact, there is no other possible way those buildings could have collapsed as they did.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

I imagine there were several other explosions throughout the buildings. Is it not conceavable that computers or transformers could have ignited when a plane unconventionally flew into the towers and exploded?
What would be the purpose here? why fly planes into the towers AND implode them?

Computers and transformers? C'mon. Stop. Haha. You thinking there's transformers on every floor or something? Computers exploding? Geez, man. And what caused these transformers on the 90 floors below the fire to explode?

 

[MDB111™]

If you believe that, you paid no attention all. The point was it embellishes the narrative while getting rid of buildings they wanted to get rid of. One need not even worry about what the point of it was. Just know, for pure fact, there is no other possible way those buildings could have collapsed as they did.

Who is they?
I have a problem with you bringing up a scenario and your answers to my questions are "one need not even worry about what the point was"
There is always a point for everything.
So what was the point? Why go to all the ffort with planes and terrorists?
So if "they" wanted to get rid of buildings, you ought to know who "they" is right?

 

[MDB111™]

Computers and transformers? C'mon. Stop. Haha. You thinking there's transformers on every floor or something? Computers exploding? Geez, man. And what caused these transformers on the 90 floors below the fire to explode?

You think there were 90 explosions below where the planes hit?

 

[Warrior Spirit]

Who is they?
I have a problem with you bringing up a scenario and your answers to my questions are "one need not even worry about what the point was"
There is always a point for everything.
So what was the point? Why go to all the ffort with planes and terrorists?
So if "they" wanted to get rid of buildings, you ought to know who "they" is right?

Not really looking to go into the whole Port Authority/Larry Silverstein thing. Not relevant to the impossible acts you have to believe in order to believe the 9-11 narrative put out by the government. Much rather stick to the impossible acts you people are required to believe in order to buy into the 9-11 official story as you have. It's the impossible acts that prove it all a lie and there were impossible acts required at all three sites, the WTC, Shanksville and the Pentagon.

You think there were 90 explosions below where the planes hit?

Of course, never implied at all, but all the explosions talked about were below where the planes hit and visual evidence could also be seen from the outside as the towers were destroyed.

 

[Briggs is GOAT]

Again, What "my co-worker" saw was fact. I think the reason no really argues about a missile is the absurdity of tens of thousands of eye-witnesses "witnessing" a plane hit the pentagon while they sat in traffic. My co-worker didn't "think" he saw a plane. He saw a GD plane. And if you knew the DC region like I do, You'd understand that in the year 2001 when cell phone video was still not around, the only video capable of picking up the plane was spotty at best. But the point I am trying to drive home, is that outsiders can concoct any story they wish, but DC natives that were sitting in traffic by the tens of thousands know what they saw and to argue any differently is Special person.
This is sort of like your towers scenario, you argue that that the towers dropped like a timed implosion but you ignore the fact that 2 planes literally hit both towers. So which is it? Did the government know about the plan and let it happen because they had the buildings rigged to fall anyway? Or did the govt fake hijcakings and towers falling?

Really the only conspiracy that I subscribe to is the passenger plane that went down in PA. I think the story is Uber patriotic. I think the plane was indeed hijacked, but I think the US gov't after the entire morning they were subjected to, shot that plane out of the sky to lessen further casualties. And all the movies that came out way too fucking soon after the event further solidified the story of Americans thwarting the pilots. But I dont fault our defense of this OUR country one bit for minimizing casualties at that point.

There are recordings from the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania that fully support the story that we hear.

 

[Briggs is GOAT]

Just went through several Gene Rosen videos. You don't think he was in shock? His testimony is that of a confused bystander and nothing more? Have you personally ever witnessed or have been a part of something so heinous that it made you react and talk in a certain way?
For the record, I have... The body, when in shock will react and talk in many different ways. In short, sparty, I didnt see anything out of the ordinary with Mr. Rosens recounts of what he saw.
What did you see?

No he hasn't.

 

[MDB111™]

Not really looking to go into the whole Port Authority/Larry Silverstein thing. Not relevant to the impossible acts you have to believe in order to believe the 9-11 narrative put out by the government. Much rather stick to the impossible acts you people are required to believe in order to buy into the 9-11 official story as you have. It's the impossible acts that prove it all a lie and there were impossible acts required at all three sites, the WTC, Shanksville and the Pentagon.

Of course, never implied at all, but all the explosions talked about were below where the planes hit and visual evidence could also be seen from the outside as the towers were destroyed.

What impossible act happened at the Pentagon site?

 

[run and shoot]

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth | WTC Twin Towers and Building 7


KAMAL OBEID, S.E.
Structural Engineer
"A localized failure in a steel-framed building cannot cause a catastrophic collapse like a house of cards at free-fall acceleration."
____________
The link above has several other Architects & Engineers giving their professional assessment of the 9/11 tower collapses.

It would seem all this was done to start the so-called "war on terrorism", Al-Qaeda, bin Laden, etc.

I feel bad for all who lost their lives in the towers and the "war".
I trust most feel this way.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

What impossible act happened at the Pentagon site?

The flight path indicated by the downed street lights was not only impossible for a plane to maneuver but well off the path reported by your witnesses and the path that would put it more on target for where it was said to hit. So who do you want to believe now, the official story or your witnesses? You can't believe both as they were very different flight paths. Also look at the hole in the wall...hahaha, way impossible. The Flight Data Recorder Analysis offered also conflicts greatly with the path provided in the official narrative and puts it at a height in which it was far above those street lights even if it had been on that path which it was not.

The story of the plane knocking down those lights used another odd, impossible story to support it. As the story goes when the plane hit one street light it flew through the windshield of a taxi being driven by Lloyd England. He said it went through the windshield and into the back seat. There were no pics of the street light in the car but plenty of his cab in the spot he was supposedly hit by it and we see a busted windshield but not so much as a single ding or scratch on the hood of the car. He was the Gene Rosen of the Pentagon strike. His story made no sense and could not be believed by anyone with sense but got a lot of news coverage. The story got funnier as England said a passer by helped him pull the street light out, again, not putting a scratch on the hood of the car while they performed this Herculean act. He was later interviewed and recorded by independents eventually unwittingly giving up that it was bigger than him and was a planned act.

 

[MDB111™]

The flight path indicated by the downed street lights was not only impossible for a plane to maneuver but well off the path reported by your witnesses and the path that would put it more on target for where it was said to hit. So who do you want to believe now, the official story or your witnesses? You can't believe both as they were very different flight paths. Also look at the hole in the wall...hahaha, way impossible. The Flight Data Recorder Analysis offered also conflicts greatly with the path provided in the official narrative and puts it at a height in which it was far above those street lights even if it had been on that path which it was not.

The story of the plane knocking down those lights used another odd, impossible story to support it. As the story goes when the plane hit one street light it flew through the windshield of a taxi being driven by Lloyd England. He said it went through the windshield and into the back seat. There were no pics of the street light in the car but plenty of his cab in the spot he was supposedly hit by it and we see a busted windshield but not so much as a single ding or scratch on the hood of the car. He was the Gene Rosen of the Pentagon strike. His story made no sense and could not be believed by anyone with sense but got a lot of news coverage. The story got funnier as England said a passer by helped him pull the street light out, again, not putting a scratch on the hood of the car while they performed this Herculean act. He was later interviewed and recorded by independents eventually unwittingly giving up that it was bigger than him and was a planned act.