On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world

I still scratch my head to this day, as to why they even bothered including this.

What does his dialysis have to do with his the capability of telling people what to do?

Why does a satellite phone, laptop or his location make 9/11 more difficult or unbelievable?

Why would you oppose a madman in a confined space armed with a knife - Yes, boxcutters are knives. When hijackings typically involved survival?

What's so sophisticated about hijacking a plane?

the most heavily-defended airspace in the world

the most heavily-defended airspace in the world <-that.

So you agree they should trim the fat of this bloated load of nonsense?

The part you quoted describes the official story, so yes, nonsense.

aaahhhhh someone not understanding the satirical context here...

Not sure if that's my failure or yours...

This entire thread is a failure, starting with OP's misattributed credit.

Sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories#Using_planes_as_missiles

Not sure why you're posting that...

You...you really don't get it...huh?

Look up the definition of satire then reread this entire thread.

I look forward to the day when the house of cards that is your fragile world view comes crashing to the ground.

#MeToo.

The thing is, you seem to have so much potential. Your propensity for skepticism is your greatest strength, but there is the increasing danger of letting it rule you.

Amen. Seems like when certain ppl disagree with you, rather than having a logical, positive exchange, they go on the attack. There is way too much fuckery with 9/11 for it just to be a terrorist attack by Osama. This other user is just trying to push buttons at this point.

It isn't the most heavily defended airspace in the world, though....

What's so sophisticated about hijacking a plane?

My cousin was a UAL pilot. He told me there is not a commercial airline pilot who ever flew, who would give up his charge and responsibilty to a guy with a boxcutter - let alone four aircraft.

Was your cousin a pilot pre-9/11?

9/11 changed everything about hijackings.

Look how many there are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

That doesn't explain the military response once the first had crashed into WTC. It also doesn't explain the complete lack of air defense at the Pentagon.

Well yeah it's not meant to explain anything you mentioned.

It is however, meant to show that the person I replied to is flat out wrong about their cousins claim of no pilot ever succumbing to a hijacking.

Being that you had to take their words out of context and give it a similar but different meaning, that automatically discredits what you’re trying to say/do in my eyes.

That’s not what they said.

You deliberately twisted their words to fit your agenda, and everyone is seeing how obvious it is.
Try harder next time.

Thanks, but shouldn't you be telling me to stop trying?

Trying harder would just make things worse.

Naw, I support my fellow man, even when I think what theyre doing is retarded and blatant. Best of luck!

Thanks.

Next!

Yes, he flew for over 20 years, mostly pre-9/11, and indeed knows his colleagues and industry quite well.

So why are there examples in my wiki link of peaceful, cooperative hijackings?

I see few hijacking of American aircraft on that list and in the examples the hijackers were stopped short of taking down planes.

So instead they succumbed to the threats of bombs - Not necessarily seeing the bomb.

Or the threat of being shot, but not necessarily realizing the gun was fake.

Whereas box cutters are real and in your face - you can't dismiss the threat when you realise the following: How deep is my jugular? Unless you're fat as fuck, a box cutter will do a fine job of bleeding you dry very quickly.

I could see one freak occurance of a coward giving up a plane over a boxcutter, but four? Spare me.

I've already shown in my link that non-violent hijackings often take place.

Yet you call them freak occurrences - Why?

I assume you bothered to look over your list. Since all four hijacking occurred in the US on 9/11- let's examine all the US events and likely protocol in the 15 years before 9/11. There were two hardly giving you victory lap rights.

April 7, 1994: FedEx Flight 705 experienced an *attempted hijack *by disgruntled employee Auburn Calloway as it left Memphis, Tennessee

January 11, 1987: A Continental Airlines DC-9 was hijacked in flight by Norwood Emanuel on Jan. 11, 1987. Captain Mark Meyer was credited with thwarting the hijacking by quickly landing at Dulles International outside of Washington D.C..

Why are you restricted it to US only and 15 years?

You said your COUZIN said there's no comercial airline pilot who ever flew. WHO. EVER. FLEW.

NO. PILOT.

Gee hot shot, put the handcuffs on. He was a domestic American pilot and that is what he said to me. And the US hijack record (that you provided) supports him 100% in terms of his personal experience and knowledge and I would say conclusion.

So now you're changing your initial claim.

The reality is that pre 9/11 it was safer to just cooperate with the hijackers than try fight.

No not at all what I am claiming after the protocol changed around 1980 it became very difficult to hijack US commercial aircraft- just wasn't happening except in your cartoon game world.

Dude. You're not looking like the brightest bulb in the pack. Hijackings had happened before 9/11. None really had much success. You couldn't hijack a fucking bus in rural Michigan with a box cutter but you seem to think planes are much simpler targets for some reason. The fact that Pentagon air space was invaded and literally nothing happened should be enough for any reasonable person to question this.

He told me there is not a commercial airline pilot who ever flew, who would give up his charge and responsibilty to a guy with a boxcutter

Nobody claims he met every pilot

pick one

Funny wag, conversation was in 2002. He did tell me about this however.

Commercial pilots are trained to squawk a universal hijack code (7500) if they are subject to an attempted hijacking, thereby notifying FAA controllers on the ground. The fact is that not one of the eight pilots (4 Pilots and 4 Co Pilots) on the four hijacked planes performed this action.

“To communicate to air traffic control that an aircraft is being hijacked, a pilot under duress should squawk 7500 or vocally, by radio communication, transmit “(Aircraft callsign); Transponder seven five zero zero.”

look man, I'm on your side here. I came to this sub specifically for 9/11 back in the day. I'm just saying your comments were not matching up

I think your nitpicking over irrelevant details.

If I said no body would spend $1 for a penny. It’s true, granted there are people who would do that and you would think somethings wrong with them or there was a catch like those printed pennies.

eh, to each their own. They use a blanket statement then immediately back peddle on it. Probably just should have been worded differently but I guess it's my fault for calling it out judging by my score.

You think the hijackers didn't know this?

The location of the Mode A panel is common knowledge, and emergency squawks are even more common knowledge.

It's possible the hijackers moved fast enough to prevent 7500 being set.

The setting of 7500 is a very serious step, if the door was opened and trouble detected, it's reasonable to imagine that the first thought of the crew was to see what's happening rather than squawk straight away.

Since there were virtually no hijackings in US skies over the previous eighteen years, yes they may have been surprised. But none of the eight could have transmitted or beat the hijackers to it in their own cockpits? unlikely

Hard to say. None of us were there and none of us know if there were any hijackers.

BUT

Going by the official story right here - in this part, in my view, it holds up.

Talk of bombs and knives at throats would get my attention. And don't forget that suicidal hijackers were not expected. The previous rule was that you play along and live. There's no reason the crew didn't think along these lines.

Can passengers just open the door and enter the cockpit? I don't know the answer 100%, but the protocols were tightened up in 1980.

Not after 9/11 certainly.

But before then it was a simple door, rarely locked and certainly not armoured. Many pilots flew with the door open, which you certainly could not do now.

Like I said, for this aspect of the official.story, I find it feasible.

Hey Rockran, go through your wiki list of hijackings and tell me how many times pilots turned over planes to hijackers.

I can't count past my fingers.

No shit

Thanks.

Next!

He told me there is not a commercial airline pilot who ever flew, who would give up his charge and responsibilty to a guy with a boxcutter

Oh if he said that it must be true. Has he often been in that situation, where a knife was held against him while flying? Does he know all the pilots well enough to know how they would react? Or even how he would react?

The sophisticated part was flying those planes at speeds so near sea level they should be breaking apart and controlling them like seasoned biplane trick pilots. All while the U.S. Air Force couldn't seem to muster a single plane to intercept, even though there was plenty of time and ample bases. Oh, that's right, they were all involved in an exercise that just so happened to be about hijacked planes and everyone was confused. Allowing a plane to hit THE PENTAGON, which could have been THE WHITE HOUSE, or THE CAPITAL. Like last years Superbowl, there was no defense to be seen whatsoever.

Thank god for over-engineering.

The WTC towers were over-engineered too. They were literally built to withstand an airplane crashing into them.

Because that totally means they can cop any and all airplanes.

Hint, it doesn't.

So you will believe that the airplanes were over-engineered to totally cop any and all flying conditions and crazy speeds near sea level, but the over-engineered buildings will just crumble to pieces? Cool story bro. Why do planes bother flying so high at all then, so totally unnecessary right?

Pretty much.

Why do planes bother flying so high at all then, so totally unnecessary right?

You can't be serious.

The sophisticated part was flying those planes at speeds so near sea level they should be breaking apart and controlling them like seasoned biplane trick pilots.

Ahhh I just commented on this elsewhere. Isn't it called "wing wobble" or something like that? Know where I can read more about this? I'm surprised this argument isn't used more often, especially if true.

More than wobble. Planes can start to break apart flying so fast in such thick air. At those speeds they were going, one little microscopic nudge of the yoke could send it offline by hundreds of feet. Yet these barely trained pilots flew them like the Red Baron.

I could respond to this properly but you’re just a fucking retard.

Removed. Rule 10.

I'm glad it was included as it immediately means I don't have to bother reading the rest of the article.

The equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears going "la la la I can't hear youuuu".

More like the equivalent of a mother ignoring the nonsense her 2 year old child is blathering on about.

If the first paragraph is exaggerated, emotionally-based hyperbole, the chances are the rest will be too.

What does his dialysis have to do with his capability of telling people what to do?

I don't know what to tell you about the rest of this, but I work in dialysis. Sure, many of them would be fully capable of telling others what to do but if you are on dialysis you can't get far from that machine for a long period of time. You go more than a few days without running and you have to go the hospital because you can't breathe. You have to have special chemicals to cleanse the blood and specifically purified water to use. Not to mention the medications you have to take on top of that. This would be difficult to pull of hidden in a cave with no trace of your whereabouts.

James Corbett is the author of this, OP.

Of course he is. God damn he's good.

Who's the author of the Bob Lazar files though? That's the conspiracy that's got me scratching my head.

I'm familiar with Bob Lazar, but what do you mean who's the author of the Bob Lazar files?

Also, always wondered why that dude wasn't suicided decades ago.

The files covered up about his life, like the tax files being made classified. There's a weird paper trail behind him someone powerful tried to burry.

As as ufo (or uap now) nut these questions have kept me up at night and i mean literally. You're damn right somethings off with this one.

Oh yea, it definitely seems like someone powerful had to be involved in the discrediting effort too. I mean, just look at his Wikipedia page. Count how many times on there they talk about there being no records of him attending the schools he claimed to hold degrees from (MIT being one of them). Are you trying to tell me that this guy didn't go to any schooling, but was somehow still qualified enough to be contracted with NASA, and expose Area 51 to the public?

Or how about this one!

Lazar claims to have worked as a scientist "in the Meson Physics facility" at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. His name does appear in a Los Alamos National Lab telephone directory; however, this lists both employees and contractors, and Stanton Friedman claims that he actually worked as a technician for Kirk Meyer, an outside contractor.

...ok? So he did work at least WITH them. Why phrase it to make it seem like he's lying about that too?

Also, why is this Youtuber "Jim Piver" spamming this comment all over that comment section?

3/28/18 -- - Roswell, New Mexico - - - - - - We visited the International UFO Museum here. Not a single mention of Bob Lazar. Not a word. There were pictures of, and information about Stanton Friedman, but nothing of Lazar, a man who claims to have reverse-engineered UFOs. - - - - Lazar is a pathological liar. http://www.alienscientist.com/docs/TheLazarReport.

Uhh yea, if anything that would tell me he's probably MORE LIKELY to be legit, when the fucking "International UFO Museum" won't mention him. It's not like they are the pinnacle of only using highly credible and well vetted sources, lol amirite?

Yeah it’s a bit of a head scratcher. I mean they suicided Phil Schneider in 1993. There are so many secret space program whistleblowers that have come forward in the last 5-10 years that it seems like TPTB can’t keep the lid on through violence and intimidation alone.

Character assassination is far more effective than actual assassination

Don't forget Ron Rummel.

Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/V4bSS5Bwn38V/

Props on the BitChute link rather than ThemTube.

Unsurprisingly, the official video from Corbett's channel doesn't even show up when you try to search for it on YT. You'll get reuploads from other users, but nothing from the official channel. Youtube is the worst. Can't even find decent content on there anymore.

This part gets me every time.

determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.

Seven Days (1998) - s01e01 - aired Oct 7, 1998

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0156063/

Pilot episode on Youtube.

Skip to relevant parts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zs4LOJcH9o&amp;t=5m
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zs4LOJcH9o&amp;t=10m43s

Full pilot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zs4LOJcH9o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrbNyOGwQQ4

That was a great show.

Bitch ute didn't think ahead about their url

I knew I recognized it. Ive seen the video multiple times. James is the real deal, much respect for his work.

Yeah, he's a truly good guy. The video came first, over a decade ago, I believe. I've only seen the transcript in the last three, four years.

Op should edit his post to give credit where credit is due.

Op should edit his post to give credit where credit is due.

Attribution is always nice. And appreciated, I'm sure.

Basically the script for this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_IZaUuK_d0

Anyone know what is being referenced by the image/comment at 3:11? " but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide."

The image is, I believe, of the retrieval of debris from the Pentagon. As to the comment, if you've got nothing to hide, why keep it hidden?

So what happened with the retrieval that is related to the FBI being dishonest? I'm curious what the arrows pointing at people are trying to draw attention to.

They work for the FBI.

As I said, if everything about their investigation was on the straight and level, why would they keep it a secret? Remember, this is 9/11 we're talking about, which didn't get an enquiry (and never got a proper one) until they caved in to public pressure.

Ok I feel like my question isn't being understood. So this photo is likely from the debris recovery after the Pentagon was hit, and the arrows are pointing at FBI agents who should NOT be there? I'm basically asking for a source, because I'd like to learn more about the people with arrows pointing at them. Is that possible?

Who gathered up the debris? Who confiscated the film from 80-something cameras that may have shown exactly what hit the Pentagon? Who has kept all of that hidden away from the public ever since?

If all the evidence fits the official narrative, why be so secret about it all?

If you can find the time, here's a good video to watch, a 3 hour presentation on the Pentagon attack by Barbara Honegger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk

thank you

The materials in the basement of the Twin Towers was burning for weeks.

They didn't want to share it with the public because it would most likely prove that Thermite was used to take parts of the building down.

Weeks? Im pretty sure it was months on end. It was over 100 days, despite millions of gallons of sea water pumped onto it.

Not really how thermite works. It is however how millions of tons of flammable materials and jet fuel would burn

Same for the clip immediately following that at 3:18 where he says "this man never existed, likewise him, him, him, and her, and her and her and him".

Fake witnesses? I've never heard of this part.

It was sarcasm

I get that, but what was the photo pointing to people all about? Is there some reference to a specific event?

Link to the original:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

• James Corbett

• Sword Monk

~ Michael Scott

I love you

We tsszzwftcxxzewxxdeswswwxerrssc

The maneuver to hit the pentagon could only have been performed by a professional.

Similarly, the first jet, I believe, that hit the first tower made another impressive turn, as if it were routine to boot.

To me this would suggest these planes, at least the tower jets, were remotely controlled. If I had to guess, some of these turns were upwards to sustained 6G turns, judging by velocity and the maneuvers.

Sounds like a lot of Gs. Wouldn't a person not in a g-suit lose consiousness in a 6G turn?

Were the aircraft in question built to withstand 6G?

Design max load is around 3.

However the user above is guessing the 6G figure. I wouldn't put much stock in it.

And airplanes, especially, typically, American-made airplanes are typically capable of tolerating much more.

And you're not supposed to be stock into it. It's a guess based on memory. Improbable isn't the same as impossible, but what are we talking about anyway? A plane apparently hit the pentagon? And clearly isolated the damage to one area? The floors immediately beside and behind had fire damage but little else. Doesn't that seem improbable, if you were to believe the official story? As improbable as a 6G descending from 8,000 feet to hit a building no taller than 50ft at 500 mph. All done by somebody who trained in a cesna, apparently.

Depends on the individuals tolerances. A G-suit will squeeze the pilots legs and arms to keep from blood leaving the brain, in such a case when blood is emptied from the head all control of a person's head and neck ceases, their eyes go blind and it's even difficult for them to tell. But a trained pilot can refine techniques, the G-suit merely augments these techniques.

Fighter pilots practice this sort of thing, but to a common person a 3G turn, or 3 times 1 normal gravitational pull, I.E. your 8 pound head feels like 24 pounds is sometimes enough to force a black out on people. Youtube G Force training of modern fighter pilots to see what I'm talking about.

If there was somebody sitting in that plane they would have needed to be trained for this. Not to mention, it isn't like a 747 type of craft is designed for that kind of thing either. That would suggest to me, in turn, that the pilot wasn't new, he wasn't some random guy who recently learned how to fly a single engine prop plane. He was a pilot that knew his aircraft very well and knew the limits and how to handle it and probably wasn't sitting in the cockpit physically.

Compare the aircraft weights, which at first I would have personally guessed, a Cesna vs a 747, to be 1:10 in weight. I was completely wrong.

A 747 weighs roughly 404,000 pounds. Compare that to a F-15, which is also giant, ~54,000 pounds fully loaded. These are HUGE aircraft!! Heavy American jets.

A cesna weighs 1,600 pounds. Lighter than most cars!!!

Their flight characteristics are NOTHING alike!! Not to mention the speed differences. 100 mph vs 500 mph.

This is an example of Americans failing to think critically for themselves, blindly believing what the TV says because the alternate would mean claiming responsibility and acknowledging there is a BIG lie going on(the rest of the world didn't fall victim to this and thought Americans were insane). Make the lie big and keep repeating it - Hitler or Goebbels said something like that.

This is an example of Americans failing to think critically for themselves, blindly believing what the TV says

I'd be careful.posting like that seeing as you got basic facts about the aircraft used in 9/11 completely wrong.

I never studied the aircraft used, never claimed to be an expert.

I'm not sure what basic facts you're talking about, I listed the common weights of aircraft for a perspective and I was honest about it.

A 747 is considerably larger than a 757.

Instead of listing the weights, knowing I'm not an expert(actually I don't care at all for modern planes and openly admit to not being an expert on them), why not just list the weights and point out the flaw? Maybe help grow all of our knowledge, but maybe you're not here for that.

Instead it's a weird ego-driven 'point the finger' type of thing from you with ultimately no point.

This is a conversation for me, that's all - what is it to you? Ego padding time?

Well said

I was wondering why you kept mentioning a 747, that's all.

You're not helpful. You're not adding to the conversation. Thanks I guess.

I never studied the type of jets used because frankly there are bigger holes in the story. Thanks for pointing out the inaccuracy and helping expand everybody's knowledge, as I said before, though I doubt that's what you're doing. I doubt you know what you're doing here in fact.

As an American i agree with his sentiment

F1 drivers face upwards of 5g forces in every race.

I also remember hearing something about "wing wobble", but have never heard it referenced since. Is there any validity to the idea that the speed the first plane was traveling (that hit the first WTC) would have experienced too much air resistance at such a low altitude, which would have ripped the wings off?

I'm paraphrasing a lot obviously, just interested to see if anyone here knows more about that phenomenon.

It shouldn’t have been able to penetrate the building, aluminum can’t magically smash through steel columns

If it's going fast enough, it can.

They weren’t and not really, it would be like a soda can to a truck trailer, it would bend the steel if it was going extremely fast, but it wasn’t because NIST blatantly lies about the speeds

That's not a good comparison; planes are massive and have a lot of kinetic energy.

It's my understanding that at a high enough velocity it could be possible. Like how you can do some serious damage with a ping pong ball if it's going fast enough.

That being said, I agree. The outter steel structure of the WTC, and the fact that the architect specifically stated that the building would be able to withstand a (commercial?) plane impact, makes me super suspicious.

AFAIK is was built to withstand a smaller aircraft.

That wasn't the first time an aircraft hit the WTC.

It was, as far as I know.

A B-25 hit the Empire State Building if that's what you're thinking about.

You are correct even though you wete downvoted

Haha tell me about it. Oh well!

Which is not made from the same material as WTC plus it was a military plane as well

Yes smaller but if you watch the architect describe how it was built to sustain an aircraft collision the collapse is still suspicious

Just gonna put this out there... architects are not trained in thermodynamics. Or compounding failures.

To his credit, the tower did survive an aircraft collision. The architect however did not anticipate how cheap insulation around the steel members could be blown off by the explosion, nor how burning jet fuel could weaken the supporting columns. In addition, no one had ever built a tower like this before, so a lot of the safety assessment came from calculations. Calculations run 3 years before we landed on the moon. From an era with much smaller passenger planes.

Does this piece of evidence only seem reliable when paired with everything else? Or can a building-artist from the 60s prove with mathematical rigor that an untested structural column design can survive every single event resulting from a collision with a commercial airliner 40 years in the future, with no mistakes?

When you consider the fact of what the original architect said and combine it with the video footage of the towers falling at near free fall speed implies much more than a progressive collapse.

When you consider the fact of what the original architect said

I just did. I don't think someone saying something with zero documentation should be counted as evidence. There's no record of any testing models or calculations analyzing an airplane collision, just the architect's word and a single memo to PANJNY saying that testing was done with a 707. They never say what the tests were, or give any results.

the towers falling at near free fall speed implies much more than a progressive collapse

Why do you say a progressive collapse is slow? Have you measured the rate of collapse, or are you just eye-balling it?

The architect designed it that way, this summarizes it well: http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

A progressive collapse is relatively slow by definition, that's why its progressive. One floor falls onto the other. Of course planted explosives would speed up collapse, they gut the building from within instead of top down.

1. It really doesn't. This is going to be the third time I have to say this: there is NO RECORD of any crash analysis on the WTC towers. There is a single memo that claims the analysis was performed. The architect structural engineer claims he performed the calculations. NO ONE ELSE on his staff even recalls seeing anything like the calculations: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

1.A: Even if we could verify his calculations with modern methods (which we can't, seeing as he "lost" his calculations), he explicitly stated he did an analysis for an emergency landing in low visibility. That meant low speeds and minimum fuel. If the plane had more fuel, ATC would have redirected it to an airport with better visibility.

1. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=progressive+collapse. A progressive collapse is called progressive because it means one element's failure causes the next element's failure. This is a very fast process.

2.A: Stop thinking that common sense is all you need to understand building demolition. You can't "speed up" or "slow down" a collapse. When the top levels of a building start pancaking down, those beams aren't going to hold for dramatic effect, they just break instantly. After the first layer, the loss of momentum is marginal.

BONUS ROUND: that link you sent is full of lies, here's a highlight reel:

Both technical calculations and testimony from WTC structural engineers confirm that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact from the passenger jets that hit them on 9/11.

1. The lead structural engineer was unable to produce the calculations he used.
2. Calculations do not confirm whether something happened. They can confirm the design matches building codes and engineering guidelines, but that's a step away from saying the codes were sufficient.
3. Designed to withstand =/= built to withstand. See Citigroup Center for more on how contractors can nearly cause catastrophe by not following design.
4. Again, low-fuel, low-speed 707 =/= high-speed 767. The only reason high-speed ever comes up is because of the PANYNJ white paper (readable here at page 305 https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101012). Robertson continues to deny that his calculations ever went above 200 mph. It would appear 600 mph was an exaggeration by the Port Authority.
5. Despite most of this sentence being wrong, it still doesn't say anything meaningful because the towers did survive being hit by the planes. The cause of collapse was weakened steel beams from burning jet fuel and lack of insulation over the beams, a compound issue that structural engineers had never considered before.

In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed

They would not have assumed, and they did not assume. They assumed a low speed collision with low fuel.

Gonna skip over the napkin math on energy distribution. Long story short, you can't do structural analysis of an airplane crash on a single sheet of paper and expect it to match reality.

This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

Except it didn't. Again, the towers survive the plane crashes, have their supports weakened by high temperatures, then buckle and pancake.

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

For the most part he's right. There was a horrendous fire, and the structure survived the impact. What he didn't consider was the loss of steel insulation in the explosion and the weakening of the support structure from elevated temperatures. An engineer from 40 years ago makes a mistake. It happens.

In 2001, Leslie Robertson, a WTC structural engineer who worked as a subordinate to Skilling, claimed that the Twin Towers were only able to withstand the impact of jet airplanes going no faster than 180 mph. However, not only are these statements contradicted by the design test results...

They're contradicted by a 3-page white paper put out by the Port Authority. We don't know the results because, again, Robertson has no record of them.

...they also contradict statements made by Robertson in 1984/1985, when he said that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”

An easy thing to say when you don't consider compounding engineering issues. Just because the engineer said it's safe doesn't mean it's safe. That's why there was an investigation, so we could find out why it happened.

“Who would design these buildings for jet plane impacts but not fuel fires?”

Engineers with little-to-no experience in plane-building collisions and who don't consider steel insulation to be removeable.

Not only were the towers designed to survive crashes of large jet aircraft, but they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes.

Huh. It's almost like the authors of this page ignored the report and chose their own version of events to dispute, where 767s make skyscrapers fall down like dominoes. Repetition does not make it true: the WTC was not brought down by collision forces, but by weakening support columns.

This assertion is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

As fun as it is to interview people who built something and hear them gush about how strong it is, he's probably right. If structural weakening of exposed support columns wasn't an issue, then the building might have been able to take multiple hits. But that's not what we're discussing anyway.

In addition, investigators from NIST who examined the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers told The New York Times in 2007 that newly disclosed documents from the 1960s show that the new York Port Authority, the original owners of Twin Towers, also considered aircraft moving at 600 mph,slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers.

I think you get my point on both of these problems.

The WTC designers seemed to be correct in their analysis in the 1960s, and the evidence that these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition corroborates their conclusions.

This one is stupid enough to give me a headache. If you're arguing that something didn't happen, that's not arguing something couldn't happen. You can't "prove" someone's calculations are correct by giving evidence that something else happened.

Please bring better sources.

Hello- I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comment.

1. I dispute your claim about there being no crash analysis, that seems ridiculous, for context here is Frank Demartini discussing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY

Re: Progressive collapse - its a fast process, just not as fast as near free fall as was observed.

2A: BY your reasoning it would make sense for all controlled demolitions to initiate a progressive collapse top down every time, which is insane.

I still think its a great source I presented. Some of your counter points are OK, thanks for sharing. It would be cool if you could provide your general feeling about the entirety of the events that happened that day, for example the destruction of World Trade Center 7 and the plane hitting the pentagon. I am just curious but do you also find these events as not suspect in any way as decribed by the press? Thanks.

1. That video is no substitute for hundreds of pages of calculations. I don't believe that the engineers lied about doing a crash analysis, but I think they would have done one that wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. For example, Mr. Demartini's observation does not cover sustained fires around uninsulated steel, only the physical impact of the plane. I will also continue to say that an engineering calculation done by hand in the 60s is fully capable of being wrong.

2A. A progressive collapse would start wherever the first failure occurred, and as I understand it most demolition occurs nears the base of a structure to be demolished.

My "general feeling" is that American psychology wasn't prepared for 9/11. No American had ever seen his home country attacked, nor their parents or grandparents. The idea that it was not only possible to cause horrific mass murder, but to have it coordinated from a cave in Afghanistan by a group so dedicated to their leader they were willing to die for him, is intolerable. Americans have always had something like vengeance in our blood, which has propelled us into many wars, in search of the attackers who "started it", seemingly unfairly. For many people, it's much easier to attack an existing villain at home, one who "broke the rules" or "played unfairly" rather than come to terms with their weakness as a society. Every conspiracy theory is rooted in the incredible power of The Authority: a malevolent force that is somehow without flaw.

The events of 9/11 are, in my mind, barely knowable. So much happened that had never happened before, which raised many more questions than we had evidence to answer. It would be impractical, for example, to reconstruct the Twin Towers and fly another plane into them, this time with strain gauges on every steel beam, thermometers on every floor, cameras recording every detail. But this is the only way some people will accept a version of events. Because they will find discrepancy between reality and The Authority, and trust that The Authority was correct.

The truth is we can only find the most likely series of events, given an incomplete picture. There has never been an exception to this rule in the history of mankind, save for certain religious events.

In short, I would ask you to investigate something else. Anything else. Do it with the same fervor, the same high standards, the same distrust in The Government and faith in The Authority as you have for 9/11. Maybe look at the Radisson hotel walkway collapse. You find out how easy it is to weave conspiracies.

What's ridiculous is expecting an engineer from the 60s to anticipate the effects of a plane-building collision on a steel frame structure, and on a separate issue expecting it to be accurate. I'm not saying Mr. Demartin lied in that video, but do you think he read that report? Keep in mind the alternative is that the already-massive conspiracy now includes demolition experts running into flaming towers to set charges that will be undetectable afterwards, because whoever's in charge of the operation thinks the plan so far won't cause enough damage.

Let's not get carried away. No one credible has suggested that the buildings got rigged to blow during the chaos of the day. That is not the alternative.

Then what is? That the planes had time bombs? There was a collision, a delay, and a collapse. The official version of events explains that in a practical, provable way . Referencing a reference to a 40-year old document is very weak evidence.

I spelled out for you how that site is a dump. If you'd like to defend it, let's hear it.

My belief is it was missiles that were made to look like planes to ground civilians and the news footage tampered with(you can find some good yt breakdown vids on this). They could have, but would probably just bend the steel/break the glass and most likely be hanging halfway out of the buildings.

I'm not sure what 'wing wobble' refers to. Maybe a sign of a stall, perhaps? A high speed stall is plausible.

I'll look to find some recreations of the flight paths. I don't know the limits and envelope of a 747 or similar jets.

John Lear knows something about that, I suggest a search on your own and come to your own conclusions.

Would you recommend me watching parts 1 through 4 of this? Or are there better sources out there.

Can't trust Google/Youtube these days.

The maneuver to hit the pentagon could only have been performed by a professional.

Except for the time when a Dutch TV program had an inexperienced pilot try it on a simulator and it wasn't difficult.

If I had to guess, some of these turns were upwards to sustained 6G turns, judging by velocity and the maneuvers.

WTF? Guess? Show the calculations! How do you go from "I believe ... impressive turn" to "6G"?

Unfortunately airlines don't have g meters onboard and the flight recorders were never recovered, according to the official story, so we'll never know really, other than what radar contacts picked up and what can be extracted from that information. All the pilots are dead as well. So what we have are recreations. Whatever I watched in the past wasn't the same as what I just watched.

And actually, looking at some of them, if they are accurate then all of the turns appeared sound and simple, they appeared to be flown well within a normal envelope.

A 6g turn in a 400,000 pound airplane would be impressive too, btw and that's estimated from what I remember watching before. It was a descending right turn, sharp and sustained for a big airplane. What I just watched they maneuvered no greater than 2 G's, mostly standard turns.

And also, btw, flying is actually easy. Especially in a modern jet with advanced flight controls. The difficult part is not breaking the airplane, which may have endured stress and wear and tear over it's history, I doubt the simulator had those factors coded. So, I don't really care what DutchTv had on or what any tv show had, that's where the lies originated.

Also another main difference is the sim pilot was given instructions, he had a flight plan and is familiar with the avionics. The guy sitting in the actual plane is using his eyeballs presumably, unless he was familiar with the area and how to read the panels. Seems a bit excessive for guys who apparently got their training in a cesna? A prop plane 1,600 pounds and that flies no faster than 150 mph?

So I’ve always thought flight 93 was shot down. It is the only plane that was delayed, about 45 minutes. And it’s the only plane that was still in hen air when the order was given to scramble jets.

However, if the other planes were remotely controlled, then maybe flight 93 was too. What if the high jackers only job was to get into the cock pit and allow for the planes to be remotely controlled. Basically kill the pilots To prevent them from saving the day.

So flight 93 left late, missed it’s window, and finally was remotely sent straight down to the earth in shanksville before the scrambled jets could get to it.

Of all that happened, what always bothered me most was Flight 93. Maybe it was commercial jets that hit the towers, maybe they were gray, unmarked, windowless military jets, who knows - either are possible.

But flight 93? The pictures of the plane crash don't look like a plane crash. After a crash they put the plane together, literally, piece by piece to figure out what went wrong. This didn't happen and the pictures resemble a pile of junk, there was no luggage, no chairs or windows, nothing that resembled an airplane. Similarly, when a building 'pancakes' as the official story states, tehre's stuff left. Chairs, computers, etc. Bodies. That didn't happen, again.

So it begs the question, if the plane didn't go down there, where did it go? What happened to those people? It's still possible 93 went down in the manner described, but that doesn't explain the official pictures. There is some ATC chatter that helps paint a picture of what was happening.

Even so, a hijacking doesn't directly indicate those blamed for this were directly involved or to blame.

Well, I guess if I got blown out of the sky by a missile or two then their wouldn't be much to piece back together. We know for a fact a fighter jet was scrambled and got near Flight 93 but apparently was a few miles away when it went down. They also claim the fighter jet wasn't loaded with ammo, though their are some conflicting accounts about that.

I think the most likely scenario is the plane was shot down with the passengers and hijackers aboard. That is not a fun story to tell the American public when your about to rally them into two wars. So the official story was the passengers were brave and patriotic and whoever discounts their heroism would be shunned.

I don't know what kind of jet was sent up but I can tell you about some of the weapons systems they have.

They use something called 'BVR'. Beyond visual range.

The most modern missiles are both radar operated and have an I.R. functionality.

If they were trying to shoot down a commercial jet they would likely be able to see it via radar as far as 100 miles away or more. And would be able to shoot it within 40 or so.

Maybe a jet did shoot them down. Maybe the passengers forced the terrorists hand. That doesn't explain the pictures. Whatever that was, it wasn't a plane crash.

Go back through the years and see what lengths the FAA go to put the plane back together after an accident. Telling me they couldn't pull this off that time?

And you make a good point about the 'being shunned' bit. Very true.

Wasn't it Bush? 'Support the troops', which we all do of course, but that's a separate issue from the wisdom behind the war, all together separate from the actual people there.

All good points. I think the most interesting aspect of flight 93 conspiracy is it doesn't imply deeper more wide spread conspiracies. Its possible that flight 93 was shot down by our military and they just didn't want to explain that to the American public. That doesn't imply a widespread inside job.

Which is very different from something like building 7. Controlled demolition means foreknowledge, planning, and execution on a massive scale.

Flight 93 could just be a PR stunt on an already sad day for the United States. If we shot it down, it would be questioned hard by media and public, even if it was the right thing to do. Instead the PR story of heroism and crash oozes nationalism and keeps us marching towards full retaliation to whatever enemy they choose.

The story is plausible. Could have been shot down. Maybe the passengers charged the cockpit, particularly if they found out what their fate would be - assuming it was commercial airliners that hit the building and not something else. That would beg greater questions of course and that's probably what bothered me most, there are some questions about whether the planes themselves were commercial or not and some compelling photographic/video evidence to suggest they were not(i.e. the nose of the airplane igniting into something pre tower contact, a flame, it's hard to say as it's a single frame just before it strikes the tower. I don't remember if it's the first or second plane. What did it look like? That the nose of the aircraft was exploding before it hit the tower). If this was true though, where ever are the people from 93? Where did the flight actually go?

Either way, the pictures they offered up as a 'crash sight' don't look like a crash sight, this much to me is fair to say.

And yet you wonder why people like you are being made fun of

I don't wonder about that. I know why. Skip to the end if you don't have the brain power to read, which I expect you don't.

Normalcy bias, for one.

Two, the lie is too big. It scares you and people don't like having their world views stepped on.

Nobody likes being ridiculed, but what do I care? These people that 'make fun' probably watch TV, things like the voice or whatever, so who cares?

The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. A lie is a lie even if everybody believes it. - Fulton Sheen

All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer

At least I'm taking a stand on something. At least I've put some thought and made up my own mind. What have you done? You're not cooler by telling somebody they're wrong, anybody can do that, you're not cooler for making fun of your peers that are risking alienation by talking about this.

You're just not cool at all, in fact. I don't know what you are. A pawn? A nitwit?

And as far as 'people like me', you don't know anybody like me, take my word for it. But I know a thousand people -JUST LIKE YOU-.

Moron. >.>

I can only read this in corbits voice.

Me too!

hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001

I cannot for the life of me find it again, but I had previously found an article from the year 2000 from a major news site (NYT I think) talking about the Department of Defense couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars. I know for a fact it exists, because I linked to it in once already in response to someone else who claimed the story broke originally on the 10th instead of months before in 2000. Google and Bing can't find it anymore. It's almost as if it's been expunged from the records or something.

The money wasn't really "missing" either. Rumsfeld was talking about how outdated the budget tracking system used in the Pentagon was.

The cumulative questions and sorting issues totaled 2.3t according to Rumsfeld.

If that amount was "missing" in the traditional sense then the equivalent of 130% of the entire federal budget was secretly moved somewhere.

It doesn't make sense.

How can you possibly begin to prove that when the department of defense has NEVER been audited?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/08/569394885/pentagon-announces-first-ever-audit-of-the-department-of-defense

I'm not trying to prove it, just going on the actual press conference about the actual issue.

Right. Just another organic conspiracy enthusiast with a 7 year old account that only began commenting within the last 24 hours.

Wouldn't call myself an enthusiast. Just going on the press conference here.

They said it at a press conference. Case open, and shut Johnson.

Never said case shut. Just going on the evidence. The money shouldn't be characterised as "missing" in the way it has been here

Except it is missing since it was never found out accounted for, cause planes.

Who do you work for?

What like, my job?

Rule #10

Lol these guys are so funny that come and defend the mainstream narrative

It baffles me that so many people believe a single plane could bring down those buildings.....when it hit on the top levels......the bottom just, melted?. Like, what?

The top is connected to the bottom.

So your response to this whole fantastic story of media complicit is to trust the press and the conspirators.

Most of the issues mentioned in the post were lied about in press conferences.

Look if you have any more information on this please go right ahead.

I'm saying that based on what is publicly available, the notion of a sum larger than the entire federal budget being socked away somewhere is silly.

The actual words on record say otherwise.

You don't have to trust them, but that makes the most sense to me.

There's a place and purpose for circumstantial evidence to support a conspiracy theory. But that circumstantial evidence has to actually be evidence.

Suppose it was coincidence that the plane hit the office with answers to your questions.

except he didn’t ask any questions and you just deflected from responding. you are an idiot

Removed. Rule 4.

sorry but if you can’t form a proper argument and instead deflect then you are in fact an idiot

And if you can't coherently express that without resorting to calling others idiots, your comments will be removed. Cause and effect.

why sugar coat it? if someone’s an idiot let me know maybe they’ll realize they should think their comments through more thoroughly than they have in the past

Are you incapable of responding to people without calling them idiots?

i see you can’t form an argument either and just deflected from i said before this making you an idiot like the person i originally replied to.

also i don’t have to call idiots idiots but i don’t see any reason not to

You can call people idiots, and the mods will remove your comments. That simple.

why though explain to me oh wise one. what’s wrong with telling people how it is? if someone’s dumb they’re dumb and my comments on reddit won’t change that

It's easier to be nice.

Pretty much

Removed rule 10

There is really no reason for the Pentagon to lie in order to embarrass themselves.

Public references to the $2.3 trillion figure can be seen as far back as March 5, 2000

"When you spend money, you account for it--that is required in the federal government," Jacobson said. "But DOD doesn't have that. They just say, . . . 'We had money, we spent it.' Then they try to go back later . . . to pull the balance sheet together."

How do you know that the 2.3 trillion wasn't an aggregated number from misreporting over a longer period of time?

The end result was that they could not provide documentation on how they spent that 2.3 trillion.

"The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments."

So money was "missing" in the sense that somebody spent it and we don't know how or on what.

How do you know that the 2.3 trillion wasn't an aggregated number from misreporting over a longer period of time?

That's precisely what I think it is.

Have you had your arms in casts for the last 7 years? Been in a coma? Just discovered adderall 21 hours ago? I NEED TO KNOW

I was working in a coal mine. Found a 3g connection and a stack of old Washington Times.

How about those London Olympics?

LIAR!!! Everyone knows all the coal miners were out of work until January 20th, 2017, and have since been far too happy about being back in the mines for redditing.

I work in Chile.

It's risky!

I've read its 30 trillion unaccounted for now. Lee Camp just had an article.

directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop

Irrelevant and tries to paint a picture, within the first sentence, that this is a work and not something that could have possibly happened.

The authors of these things need to spend some time reading places like arxiv and writing scientific documentation that will/can stand up to rigor. I fully support these writings and the freedom to write them but, they need to be done with a little bit more .... adultivity.

writing scientific documentation that will/can stand up to rigor.

Like NIST did, right?

I mean - I get the sarcasm but - just because others don’t do it very rigorously doesn’t mean we can’t.

Completely agree.

Well he was made out to be the boogeyman and mastermind and one of the largest reasons for going to war...so the fact that he was literally claimed to be hiding in a fucking cave and reported (even by the MSM in 2001) to be dying of kidney failure is relevant.

Someone posted yesterday all of the articles from 2001/2002 in which the MSM reported high level intelligence reports that OBL's associates "were looking for a dialysis machine" for him. The fact that they lacked common resources like a dialysis machine but could pull off 9/11 is relevant whether you like or not.

Well he was made out to be the boogeyman and mastermind and one of the largest reasons for going to war

kidney failure is relevant

Ok, in further thinking - I can agree that the usage and need of dialysis and kidney failure is relevant, but the tone in which the first sentence was written was very much "internet sarcastic" and not professional in the least. This is my opinion, of course.

I agree. It takes away from the substance of the writing. A lot of people who don't believe 9/11 was an inside job will not take this post seriously, which is unfortunate because there is good info in there.

Context is everything thpugh. This is a vifeo directed at a specific audience

The kidney failure thing was cia disinformation. It was a way to tell if terror suspects actually had met obl or not

I've never heard that! Interesting!

Whoa. Source?

That totally makes sense.

Never heard that i am doubtful of this claim

What proof do you have of that?

I think his point really was, one way or another, these weren't a bunch of guys in caves. Dialysis is a weekly ordeal, it's artificial kidney functionality - without it he dies - maybe these are luxury caves?

I understand - I, really, just want to see a day with more "professionally written" conspiracy documentation and less stuff that looks like it's train of thought / chat conversations.

Well this is a forum. Some consider it social media as well.

I wouldn't come here expecting to arrive at any conclusions, it's just a conversation. Or to me it is.

I get that, I really do. Sometimes, I think, the authors of the pieces like OP here take what's written far more serious than it's actually presented. This is what I mean when I discuss the ways in which things could improve.

Standard "Hey wtf was this?" - that's different, I get that.

I guess I see what you mean.

I mean, I take it seriously. It's important. I risk alienation, among other things(maybe not so much today, but in 2002? hell yeah) by even talking about this.

How is the physical health of Osama not relevant? How is the means how he communicated with the alleged hijackers not relevant? It's the same story the MSM told us.

In my opinion James tries to summarize some of the events leading up to 9/11, the event itself and the aftermath and the improbability of those things happening the way the MSM have been telling us.

The video adds more context as well.

Read my later replies - I tried to focus mostly on the idea of professionalism in the writing and format.

Its not something that could have possibly happened as described. Also have you seen the original video? Its a sarcastic tone

I dunno where to start here buddy. Top post BTW. I'm just gonna mention the fact that Tim Osman (Bin Laden ) was in the C.I.A..

Serious question. If 9/11 was proven to be an inside job with solidarity. That the American government did indeed fake a terrorist attack to gain morale high ground from the public to invade countries to steal oil. Would there be consequences from a 3rd party? Would there be punishments at all or just war?

Short answer: no.

Look into the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It is what got us into Vietnam War.

Are you talking about the real attack on the first day or are you talking about the screwed up radar readings of the second day?

The attack that never occurred. The pretext for the war.

What are you talking about?

Because there were 2 parts of that incident

Ok. What difference does that make? The pretext for the war was false

Idk u asked

Jim Morrison's father was the Navy Admiral in charge of the fleet of ships that were attacked in The Gulf of Tonkin. Look into the CIA creating the counterculture. Google Laurel Canyon.

Timothy Leary was a CIA asset

Jim morrison from the doors?

Yup. Youll find the link between government agencies (FBI/CiA etc) and hollywood/music pretty interesting if you havent read up on it. Id check out matt damon and ben Affleck too, just a beginners coure

Youtube Dave Mcgowan and listen to his interviews. He did a ton of research and wrote a book before he died, r.i.p. His book, Weird Scenes Inside The Canyon, is highly recommended. He concluded that most of the musicians from the mid 60's that were instrumental in starting up the counter culture movement came from military intelligence families. The Mamas and the Papas, The Byrds, Buffalo Springfield, etc. Frank Zappa's father was a chemist at Edgewood Arsenal. Frank grew up on the military base. That's where MK ultra experiments were conducted.

Wasnt MKUltra done at harvard in the basement of a building?

The Tavistock Institute.

There were attacks on two different days. There is no real debate on the attack on the first day. The are plenty of witnesses, radar records, damage.

The "conspiracy" lies in the events of the second day, Sunday. A torrential rain storm in the Gulf and overwrought nerves makes reports of a second attack debateable. When Johnson announced there had been two attacks on a American ship in the Gulf of Tonkin, He was 100% right on the first one, and unknown at the time on the second one.

It wasn't until the late 80s that the technology advanced to the point where it could be stated beyond a reasonable doubt that the second attack was just a bunch bad weather and radar shadows.

Of course, you can always argue that Johnson was ready for the fight and he just took a minor incident and conflagulated it enough to justify a stronger military response. And that would be correct.

But to say nothing happen would be false.

The context around the first attack alone should’ve made it clear we were the aggressors and it was self defense for them. That whole war was started because they wanted the war to happen.

Are you really trying to justify USA for trying to invade another country? The vietnamese didnt do shit at first.

I may be wrong, but from what i remember reading was that the US slowly began occupation as France began to exit Vietnam from its occupation that started in the mid 50s. Once established, the gulf of Tonkin incident occurred which “gave” the US the opportunity to fully engage in war. From what I got from it was that the IS seized an opportunity to finish what France began. The entirety of it is really messed up.

Vietnam was never a war since congress never announce it. The last time was back in WW2.

I never knew that. Is that the same situation with the Gulf war and Iraq war?

Pretty much. No declaration of war.

I don't think it matters in any real case but I think that's the above users point.

In Vietnam, you can take a tour and learn about the war. They call it "The American War". The Vietnamese people have been attacked?/invaded by other countries multiple times. They are true survivors.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm just reciting the facts. Draw what conclusion you care to.

dont forget the French just walked the rich out to the guillotines.

No dude there wouldn't. Wanna know why? People don't actually give a shit. The government can tell them straight to their faces that their slaves and they wouldn't blink an eye. Deep down they like being slaves as long as the government gives them comfort.

Everything is made for human comfort. That’s what religion is for.

Yup. Also it gave the rulers at the time a monopoly on literally all ideas. Religion is philosophy for someone who can't think for himself. It's sad how many people I find that think Jesus literally walked on water and performed miracles. These people are nothing more than older infants, still clinging to their belief systems because they can't handle the unknown,

That’s so true. Grown infants.. who fear the unknown and must have something stuffed in their cranium to keep them comfort. Poor people.

You are blindly clinging to an enlightenment epistemology, built largely on circular arguments, i.e. Hume's, which have been ripped to shreds by even secular philosophers and logicians such as John Earman.

At least religious people know that we believe in messages that were passed down. We recognize that we have faith and presuppositions. What's problematic is how many people believe the cliche of a polemic you put forth, having no clue that it is very much a recent, culturally constructed article of faith for epistemology. And a bad one at that.

Could you provide maybe just one argument why anything he said was untrue?

If he wants to debates the truth claims of his position, I am happy to do that. But my point wasn’t that he’s wrong. It’s that it’s as much of a faith position as anything he’s railing against, he just doesn’t seem to realize it.

Then it seems to me all arguments of ideas are arguements of faith based on your point of view. I didn't actually reach my conclusin through Hume, I thought it through independent of any text, therefore I don't see how it's the same as a religious person blindly following their religious leaders. I think religion has value don't get me wrong, but where it goes wrong is that it creates a platform for a leader to control a population of blissfully ignorant people willing to die for "god", which is a standin for the church. You accused me of creating a circular argument yet your whole point is based on the fact that I'm wrong, which you've stated to be true yet haven't proven.

The delivery guy rarely knows the ingredients of the pizza

So it’d be a mistake if he were to accuse Chinese food delivery people of being inherently clueless over things the pizza guy is actually guilty of.

Also, this Chinese food delivery person does kitchen shifts too.

Wut

I guess I was rare then. I made the dough, the sauce, cooked the sausage, chopped the ingredients, shredded the cheese, weighed and tossed the dough, and delivered the pizza. Being devil's advocate aside, I do see your point.

That's because Christianity likes to start them young. Get the kids brainwashed before they become adults. It's sick as fuck and should be illegal.

The same thing can be said for any isntitution, take school for exampke. Are you telling me it's healthy to send our kids to a place where they have to raise their hands just to speak for themselves and have to sit in a metal fucking chair for 8 hours a day and if they can't we just drug them until their braindead. How have we let this go on during the formative years of a child's life. I'll tell you why. The government needed mommy and daddy to go away for work but needed someone to baby sit the kids. That's where school comes in. The ultimate waste of time during the most important years of a person's life where they should be exploring and questioning everything.

Yea, because fuk anyone who doesn't believe like me

Fuck anyone who is a mindless slave working for these greedy religious leaders who couldn't give a fuck about you and have caused atrocity after atrocity thoughtout history. If you're too unconcious to question anything then you're barely a human in my eyes. Just a mindless drone.

One way to look at the walking on water story is as a metaphor for steadfastly standing in the law of nature - rising above the water of admiralty law that has covered all the lands in legal fiction. It's illegal to use a LEGAL NAME. http://losethename.com

Everything is made for human comfort.

even swords?

If you swallow them it’s rather comforting I hear

human sword fighting ;)

Is protection not comforting?

not when it's stabbing you

What if you’re slicing off tumors?

Ah, you've been using those wrong! You're supposed to do the slicing.

it's only a flesh wound

This is the old opiate theory of religion, which even most Marxists have abandoned. Martyrys, prisoners, charities engaged in risky activity, and social movements made it impossible to cling to.

We live in a brave, new world

Religion is for slavery. The ritual of the work Week was invented by slavers to make slaves work better. By colonizing the mind of the slaves chains are not necessary.

It's no mere co-incidence 'week' is a homophone of 'weak'.

Everything? Even lego? I can tell you that it’s not comfy to step on a piece of lego.

They control the propoganda, have a monopoly on legal violence, control the justice system. Are entrenched in finance and politics. Lol even if people wake up in mass? What do you suggest? The bloodiest revolt in human history?

Good point. Maybe comfort is better than freedom if the price is utter destruction. But the tyranny will only get worse. The prosperity we are experiencing now will soon fade after another false flag causes the world to go into WW3. From there, they'll make up all kinds of justifications for more civil rights violations until we're too defenseless to do anything. What do you think all these shootings are for? Even if they're not false flags the media is still using them to push gun control, and after that amendment is gone we are totally fucked. A couple days ago the EU overruled the results of an Italian election and NO ONE CARES. Tommy Robinson is locked up for reporting and NO ONE CARES. Humans are too self obsessed too stop and think. After all, thinking would require the ability to look at things truthfully and humans just can't handle the truth.

A couple days ago the EU overruled the results of an Italian election and NO ONE CARES.

What?

No.

I'm sorry that didn't happen? I could've sworn a finance minister was being elected only to be turned down because of "nationalism"?

The Italian President vetoed that minister of finance.

Not the EU.

What I should've said is that the president was heavily influenced by the EU in his decision.

That's different if true.

Depending on how much influence the EU has on the president (which I believe is 100% of the influence) then it's pretty much one in the same.

It doesn't overturn the election though does it.

The Italian President has the right to veto ministers.

Fair enough, but the consequences of favoring foreign parties over the voice of your own people can prove detrimental to the Italian social fabric. Let's just hope the Italian people are okay with their opinions being shutdown.

The Italian people also voted for the President.

To be the president.

To make decisions like this.

Its their law and country.

True, but they probably didn't forsee the president having allegiances with the EU that would undermine his allegiance to the country and to the people.

These EU allegiances, have they been substantiated at all or is it your opinion?

No one disputes the fact that the Italian President did this because of the effects it would have on the EU and their relationship in regards to trade. http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/380424-italian-nationalism-a-blow-to-european-economic-stability

Of course that's a consideration and a responsible I've.

You're saying I was orchestrated by the EU. I'm saying that hasn't been shown.

I guess that's my interpratation based on the outcry in Britain over the same issue. The people wanted out yet the leaders feel they know better than the people and decided against it. Now it's happening to Italy in a different way. The people voted for a "populist" party, which stands in direct opposition to the EU which promotes unity in Europe. Here Macron talks about the politcal and idealogical battle between "liberal democracy" and "authoritarianism": http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43794856 Yet by denying the finance minister for fear of authoritarianism is counter to liberal democracy. The EU are a body of many people so it's hard to find a direct quote from them but the European politicians that support the EU wholeheartedly are in complete oppostion to the right-wing parties all over Europe, including Hungary, Italy, France, and the UK.

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

That sounds like Loki from the first avengers movie

He had a point. If we are too ignorant to see how we are being played every day then maybe we deserve slavery. We are the majority being ruled by a minority, but we love it. We love the lack of responibility that comes with independence and freedom. Everywhere I see idiots blindly accepting their fates, working their asses off when they're only here for a good 70 years. And I'm no better, because without money I'd have nothing to eat. And we all know that by the end of our lives we're gonna cry out to god for a second chance now that we've wasted our whole lives on menial bullshit and yet we do nothing now to appease that fact. We're no better than sheep, blindly following our instncts and the herd because we don't know anything else.

I feel that this is very true.

As long as nothing effects their immediate life. They still have a roof over their head, food on the table and the family is safe then lots of people are willing to turn their hand to the government for most things. At most they will whine on social media about it.

Until the government no longer needs those people, then they'l incite revolution and war and the people will follow along like has happened repeatedly throughout history. I feel a false flag is immenent in the near future, what do you think?

People don't actually give a shit.

disagree. i think people give a shit but they're too distracted (entertainment, social media, etc.) to respond in any kind of coherent, organized way.

This is gonna sound like a movie but what we call the "good" side is way too focused on the good to see the bad. We are focused on the new cool stuff we have instead of the possibility for tyranny that still exists and will always exist. It's always a constant struggle against evil or whatever you want to call it. And the worst part is that these so called evil people are very very organized.

American officials probably had foreknowledge and/or were working with the heretofore unnamed assailants.

That would depend on the resolve of the American people at the moment they admitted to it. I think they'll wait until everyone is as divided as they think they'll be, or they'll de-classify the information when everyone that remembers 9/11 is dead. We will always get bits and pieces, but never a sure-enough-thing to 100% receive condemnation of the US government from all Americans.

If this did happen, then I believe a few people would riot, some would organize and launch guerilla-style terror attacks, and, I really doubt this, but maybe we could have a full-blown revolution. This would cause the break-down of society, and people would rather just be snug as a bug in their shitty little houses, with their families, getting paid less and less each generation. They'll watch the same bullshit news, and eat the same bullshit food and get fat.

Nobody would want to overthrow the government. We're too divided, and could never agree on what to do next. But, America would break up into a bunch if smaller nations. Then people could have what they really want.

I’m down for a revolution

but then xbox live will go down

Yeah fuck that, bro.

Then how will children inform me they fucked my mom last night?

haha no.

That's why keeping us divided is so important.

Divided, and placated. Equally important.

And fat, can't forget fat.

We the people are the 3rd party.

I will never buy Nike or Coca cola again

Interesting concept.

If we all could somehow agree to boycott whole companies. Like even for a year......do you think we could have a noticeable change?

Say nike did something to piss us off. So everyone got together on social media and convinced one another. We - all americans! are boycotting nike.

Could we ever get enough people onbiard to hurt their bottom line?? *(i say probably not)

In theory. Yes. Of course in theory we could also collectively end world starvation and wars and save the environment.

I am from EU and I am willingly not buying Coca Cola anymore, since I’ve heard about their water manipulations.

Nestlé is also doing similar dastardly things with water. Nestlé are evil bastards.

I am not buying nestle either

The seldom mentioned shadowy super-corporation that owns the seldom mentioned shadowy super-corporation that owns Nike brand would feel a slight tickle.

Who’s going to punish the most capable nation in the world? No. It’s almost an unspoken acceptance that these events occurred via an inside job. Americans know it deep down, but we NEVER speak of such things. It’s pretty crazy really.

Denial is a very deep and wide river.

Americans will wh8ne a bit, then eat more freedom fries.

The us government did not act unilaterally k. This action. It's obvious by which countries' media played along. Member when BBC announced the destruction of WTC7 before it had actually happened?

people please read into Judy Wood's work. She was a professor that was selected to analyze the fall of the twin towers. Her and her team determined that the manner in which the towers fell went against the laws of physics. She lost her job, funding, and became a author researching the 9/11 conspiracy and the free energy tech.

Please look into her.

Oh lord please no.

What do you mean? The government literally hired her to do the research and didn't like what her and her team came to.

What government hired her?

American, while she was still a professor at the college she used to teach at. I don't remember exactly what her team was called as she was censored from Wikipedia and i don't have the time to search through .gov archives. Someone definitely seemed to take the time to erase her from the internet besides labeling her a "conspiracy theorist" to discredit her.

But her interviews are interesting and the books are a good read if you're into it.

Judy Wood

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Judy_Wood

In a whole series of lectures and media appearances, Wood has maintained that the debris pile was nowhere near tall enough to account for the aggregate mass of the towers and their contents. Rather, she states, the towers were pulverized in mid-air and simply blew away on the breeze.

And the basements were completely collapsed. It was the only way to bring them down in the way they did, if the foundation was destroyed.

Is it easier to go through an open door or a closed door?

I wonder how it came to be that the basement and sub-levels were, literally, molten hot for weeks after 9/11. Running molten metal "like a foundry" the firemen were reporting.

Her and her team determined that the manner in which the towers fell went against the laws of physics.

They did fall, though. Probably wasn't against "the laws of physics" after all.

yeah free fall doesn't break any law when there's literally no mass in the way.

There were 7 buildings at World Trade Center plaza bruh...

the pain of this truth never gets old

never forget who did it

israel and republicans with saudi arabia as the fall guy

i will always be at war with the people responsible for this and i will always hold the people incapable of seeing this fact in intellectual contempt

Don't forget Obama did the whole OBL cover up and co tinues the same war monger policies that bush began albeit with his own flavor.

Point being is if you think oy half the government is compromised along ideogival ljnes, your being played.

What does republican or democrat have to do with anything? It's interesting to me that you blame the government but then turn around and join in their master plan of division. Right and left aren't real except for those of us in the population who believe it.

i believe hillary clinton is deeply involved in pgate and also mentally unfit, and a criminal, and a traitor, but i have absolutely no problem admitting the world would be a better place if she were president right now.

these operations and worst of everything is being driven out of the republican party headquarters, alec, the heritage foundation whores, and then sometimes from the democrats.

any equivalency is ultimately someone who is trying to help republicans, who have neither ideas, consitency, or ethics, at all whatsover.

democrats have some ethics they are at least fighting over, republicans don't have that, rather its worse, they openly contemplate and secretly practice outright evil, in the open.

if you cant see the difference i am kindof sorry for you, but really just don't think you are very capable of critical thought

It's cute that you try to be condescending while completely missing my point and even furthering it. Hilary and Trump and whoever else being republican and democrat are meaningless outside of dividing a country over which is less bad. The goal line for what counts as a democrat and republican aren't even real anymore, they get bounces around all over and anyone who doesn't agree with x version of it is labeled as something else so that they feel they're in a minority opinion and should change.

If you think that either party is fighting for any kind of ethics you're only lying to yourself. Do you really think that your apparent team did no evil and only tried to be the best they could be? I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or just desperately holding on to the idea that you belong to a group that doesn't give a shit about you.

bernie sanders is real

his supporters are real and most of my friends and family

we were robbed by hillary's dirty tricks and i will never forgive her

you are right we choose between two evils and not many people don't know that now, it's kindof inane to even say.

a choice doesn't imply the best of all possible choices, it could be the choice between a turd and a shit, but a choice it is

you're saying all this shit would have happened under hillary and im saying it wouldn't have.

since i know my friends and family and i know bernie for 20 years of public service, i believe he actually cares about the country and the people. and nothing you can say with that attitude and level of evidence is going to be able to do much about that.

Well there it is..

Wow you're so woke my bad

agreed

How many flight hours did these guys log at the Florida flight schools?

I read this from the bottom to the top paragraph after paragraph and it still made sense.

Dancing Israelites dancing Israelites!!

Mossad mossad mossad!

They told the lady "this is good for us, this is good for you and your country too".

Don't forget the weird "artists" called the Gelatin Group. They did a weird stunt on one of the tower months before.

I'm just gonna say that a good 50% of 9/11 conspiracy theories are fueled by the inability of Americans to reckon with the fact that they got their shit rocked not by some world superpower but by some previously-unknown-to-the-public terrorists. Same exact reason why Americans still can't come to terms with losing Vietnam to """rice farmers""".

Neither rice farmers nor cave dwellers can hijack a plane with box cutters and do 320 or so degree turns going around 300 mph in commercial aircrafts after flying single engine Cessnas

Again, it's basically American exceptionalist hubris at work. If an American pilot pulled off a crazy manoeuver in a war he'd be a hero.

Add a dash of American "my layman understanding is all I need" thinking and this is how you get the Steel Beams meme, with every chump thinking they're a structural/materials engineer now.

What's the alternative explanation if a commercial aircraft couldn't pull off that move at all? The plane and all passengers were disappeared and it was a missile instead?

FWIW my opinion is that 9/11 was not an inside job, but it sure as fuck was cynically exploited. May have even ignored warnings of an attack because they wanted an excuse for war.

What was the training exercise at NORAD that happened at the same time?

You can rationalize one at a time, but if you rationalize everything to fit a narrative being pushed by a bunch liars, then your opinion is really not worth typing.

The air traffic tapes from 9/11 are a fantastic listen.

They are unsure if what they are seeing/hearing is part of the drill, and have to ask and be reassured multiple times that it is not part of the drill.

This drill led to massive confusion in the air traffic towers, not to mention led to a majority of the response aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean, massively slowing down the intercepting of the highjacked crafts.

Bad coincidence, or meticulously planned...?

Yooo I never heard about that, it’s like fitting pieces to a puzzle I thought was finished.

There were several exercises going on, one was about a hijacking but others were about Russian bombers and nuclear command and control.

How does NORAD doing a training exercise even fit in to the conspiracy theory?

You can claim one thing at a time is connected, but if you try to connect everything into a grand narrative you might be bad at critical thinking.

We are talking about able danger, where Cheney was present, simulating the same attack that was happening in real life.

Coincidence, surely.

You certainly are useful.

Truth. So much truth.

It was missiles like I’ve said multiple times in thread, the “planes” wouldn’t have been going fast enough for aluminum to be able to penetrate steel without the damn thing exploding on impact and most of it falling to the ground or it be hanging halfway of the building. Try shooting a soda can at a semi trailer and see what happens. Ok, yes not the same thickness or exact replica but you get the point, it’s a decent representation of what would happen. You think the government has a problem with grounding planes and murdering the passengers? They wouldn’t bat an eye in the name of “freedom” or whatever sick justification they have. But you won’t listen to that, you think we’re all just paranoid and don’t think the government could pull it off. You know, not like they had trillions of dollars “missing” to play with or anything. But be naive. When the day comes and they betray you, we’ll be ready.

Definition of chump thinking they're a structural/materials engineer. Listen to yourself talking about soda cans lmfao.

strawman. When did I say I was an engineer? I gave an example of how I don’t have to be an engineer to know it’s not possible.

Yeah, that’s it. You nailed it bro

You don't think the national mythos of impenetrable American strength, the country who hasn't fought a war on its soil in 200 years, was profoundly shaken up by 9/11?

While this reads as being pretty crazy, you could make any version or theory of the events of 9/11 sound equally, or even more insane. It was a crazy fucking incident.

So crazy bro how did the sand nigga pull that off

Removed. Rule 1

Careful, made it to r/all

Only at 1k upvotes?

Great, another week of nothing but political bullshit posts to make sure the sub is properly narrating.

Whoops nah just showed up in my feed-forgot I subscribed to this sub my b

Well, when you put it like that, it seems awfully fucking fishy.

Sry Dancing With The Stars is on, can’t be bothered with this

/s

This is the best thing I’ve read in a while. If anyone believes this than idk.

Original by James Corbett = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

YouTube & Google changed their search algorithms to make it harder to find the best conspiracy sources it seems.

So what was that 2.3 trillion used for?? Any guesses? Couldn’t have possible just gone into peoples bank accounts right? More sinister reason for the theft of that massive amount cash, right?

I read the transcript of Dumsfeld's speech. What he's getting at is the fact different departments in the Pentagon are using outmoded and incompatible systems so they can't track payments from one area to another.

This is pretty common in any large bureaucracy whether public or private. I can't think of a single place I've worked where multiple systems were operated and there weren't discrepancies and mismatches and admin headaches for everyone who had to pick it up at the coalface.

Does the Pentagon have large, undeclared black budgets used from who knows what? Absolutely, but that's not what Rumsfeld was talking about here.

Im guessing they laundered it through Haliburton. a billion here, a billion there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35138-2005Mar14.html

penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world

Yeah, airliners aren't considered hostile aircraft, so this is false.

military combat-trained pilots

Huh? Got a source? Cause that's a bunch of BS. My best friend is a commercial airline pilot with 0 combat training, even in 2018.

4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor

We don't shoot down commercial airlines with American citizens on-board for going off course. Who knows how long it was until one of the passengers was actually able to get a call out notifying anyone.

BUTTTT I do agree with the remaining points and everything suspicious about it. Why not release the images of dead bin laden? WE are SCARED of another attack if they're released? Please.

a half factual and slightly dramatized series coming out in probably 30 years will be epic.

So good to see this being upvoted. I posted this about 5 years ago and was downvoted to oblivion. Maybe people are waking up? One can hope.

Because the implications, if you allow yourself to question the narrative, is paradigm shattering. Which is why large crimes like this are gotten away with . If the cruelty defies imagination they will tend not to be seen (see pedophilia, esp organized). It's easier to see no evil. This is how the holocaust happened. People saw their neighbors suddenly disappearing in the dead of night one after the other, but could not entertain the possibility that a civilized society would brook such a thing even though it was whispered about.

Ironically watching the official 9/11 story on National Geographic made me a conspiracy theorist. I did not listen to a single 9/11 conspiracy before then and it never crossed my mind.

I mean, when you put it that way...

By the way... The X-files/Lone Gunmen writing team also was able to imagine the plane flying into the wtc....

So I mean you could say “Nobody could have possibly imagined it...” but you could also say “Literally almost everybody could possibly imagine it.”

Awesome post by the way.

Operation Northwoods in real time

Yeah, it's a bit annoying how anyone who questions the awfully elaborate story is 'crazy'

Don’t forget the unprecedented destruction of air traffic control tapes on 9/11.

A quality-assurance manager at the center destroyed the tape several months after it was made, crushing the cassette in his hand, cutting the tape into little pieces and dropping them in different trash cans around the building, according to the report.

I’m sure in had nothing to do with the Global Guardian warfame going on that same day which involved a side-game called “Vigilante Guardian” which was a simulated hijacking of commercial passenger jets.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Guardian

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 188258}

It says in the very wiki that it wasn't a simulated hijacking exercise but rather a Russian bombing exercise, that when NORAD heard there were hijackings, confused them as to whether it was a part of the exersise.

The Russian bomber simulation was Global Guardian.

Vigilant Guardian was the high jacking:

In contrast to the 9/11 Commission Report - Michael Ruppert has characterized Vigilant Guardian as "a hijacking drill, not a cold war excercise". He cites direct quotes from participants which indicate "that the drill involved hijacked airliners rather than Russian Bombers". General Arnold, Tech. Sgt. W. Powel and Lt. Col. Dwane Deskins have stated that when they first were informed about hijacked airliners they thought it was "part of the excercise" [1].

This goes along with the hiding and taunting of Bin Laden:

I had a middle school substitute back in 2008, older gentleman, with a son who toured after 9/11 happened. Very decorated.

This man told us as middle schoolers that his son relayed information to him that Bin Laden was actually killed back in 2003 and they were not releasing it to the public.

As I cannot obviously confirm validity of the claim, has anyone else heard similar?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MBTd5QNGB0

What would be the reason fir not releasing the information for so long?

Two reasons. 1. If OBL was still "alive" he would remain a boogeyman that would justify the war in afghanistan. 2. When he died it was a big coup for obama. Almost defined his presidency. I will add a 3. That is controversial. Some think they announced bin ladens death because it distracted from the obama birther debate

Dayum

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/theempireunmasked/222771045

Worth EVERY penny.

Download it and try to debunk it.

I know Edgewood did human experiements. It may have technically been under a different program name but I imagine the tests were part of a larger campaign to better understand and control human minds. I'd have to look more closely at it but it smells like MK ultra to me.

Yo let's suck Saudi dick like me

I forgot who was the journalist but the OBL in abottabad was setup by USA government and Pakistan intelligence. Basically Obama used the situation to get relected without telling Pakistan and throwing the government under the bus. 9/11 changed data and intelligence gathering around the world and we losing every aspect of our freedom everyday.

I have relatives from not so far back that were Nimibian tribesman. They happen to have fought lions just to become warriors. I don't know what you know about lions but they aren't like your average cat. I bet you would absolutely shit yourself if you ever saw a real life lion, especially if you were only holding a sharpened stick and you were naked. Come talk to me when some of your family members have gone on the Zambutu bibjano; A.K.A. the trial of life. Until you have done half the shit that they have maybe you shouldn't even talk like this. I know you think you're hard and shit but guess what pal, you aren't. Now go grow some Namibian genes and we'll talk about this shit for real.

So what happened on 9/11? Throwing spaghetti at a wall doesn't explain anything.

Yes, this all happened, so?

determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.

In 1990-91, I was a college student. I recall a major hijacking, maybe in Singapore?

At any rate, I was a bit annoyed with the concept of 'kidnapping a plane' and flying it to Beirut, or wherever. My quote, as a 19 or 20 year old kid:

"If these groups really want to have publicity on an international stage, they shouldn't bother with these hijackings like this. They should hijack a plane, and fly it into the damn World Trade Center or something."

A somewhat intelligent 20 year old knew that this was possible.

I remember reading about terrorists flying planes into government buildings in a Tom Clancy book a few years earlier.

Debt of Honour was the book

A JAL 747 flown into the Capitol building.

Book is kind of shitty but there's plenty of military tech jerking off. Which I kind of enjoy reading.

Clancy is a guilty pleasure.

Yup, it was very easy to hijack airplanes before they made the doors like vaults and beefed up metal detractors and scanners. Sorry

This is why I started to support gun rights!

What was the story behind Jessica lynch ?

You had me at hello.

Video is better

Mossad and its American associates are the obvious culprits behind 9/11. Who benefits from the crime? The attacks against the twin towers started at 8:45 a.m. and four flights are diverted from their assigned air space and no air traffic controller sounds the alarm. And no Air Force jets scramble until 10 a.m. That also smacks of a small scale Air Force rebellion, a coup against the Pentagon perhaps? Radars are jammed, transponders fail. No IFF -- friend or foe identification -- challenge. Even in Pakistan, if there is no response to IFF, jets are instantly scrambled and the aircraft is shot down with no further questions asked. This was clearly an inside job. Bush was afraid and rushed to the shelter of a nuclear bunker. He clearly feared a nuclear situation. Who could that have been? Will that also be hushed up in the investigation, like the Warren report after the Kennedy assassination?

The whole world already knows this. This is a simple restatement of what everybody already knows.

Everywhere except in America, where Jewish dominated media envelops everyone in a poisoned darkness, everybody knows that Jewish kingpins pulled off 9/11 as an excuse for making war on every obstacle to their world financial hegemony, and killing as many non-Jews as possible in the process to further consolidate their domination of the whole world.

This widening war on the Islamic world, already responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths, is a direct result of the 9/11 hoax, everything based on false spin concocted by Jewish strategists not for U.S. best interests, but for the demonic master plan of the Jewish Sanhedrin, which rules the Jewish moneymen who buy the presidents and the generals, to kill or enslave the rest of the world. They control you, whether you want to admit or not. They control your bank account. And they make you support their insane war program by all this wall-to-wall patriotic spin.

The totally Jewish-controlled U.S. media have long ago suspended their journalistic capabilities in favor of blatant cheerleading about their favorite subject - Muslim terrorists. Every day they urge you to kill them. If there ever was a systemic hate crime, this is it.

Yet, as the infamous list of the 19 hijackers was released by the FBI two days after the infamous event, and except for two feeble-minded patsies, no other perpetrator has ever been arrested for the greatest crime in American history, what kind of conclusions are we to draw from the fact that all of the people who were in charge of America when this dark day happened, instead of being fired for incompetence, were promoted and allowed to continue their criminal activity?

What does all this say about the American mind?

It is not functioning, thanks to the poisoned blanket of U.S. media, and a deliberately twisted educational system that has produced killer Jewish robots instead of fully invested philosophically clean humans.

Every cop in the world should be brought up on charges of willful obstruction of justice for not blowing the whistle on President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and all their Jewish handlers - in the White House, in the Congress, in the media, and most especially in the banks) for their stunningly criminal behavior in both lying about the events and implementing a totally illegal coverup of the crime scenes.

But the Jewish judges atop the U.S. legal system said it was all OK, and the media, led by the New York Times and CNN, never mentioned all those Jewish fingerprints visible in the pyroclastic dust covering the disintegrated corpses in the rubble of the Twin Towers.

In an interview only a mere weeks after 9/11, Hamid Gul - former head of Pakistani intelligence (ISI) from 1987-1989 - told Arnaud de Borchgrave, United Press International, of who he thinks was behind the attacks. Here are a few exceprts from the transcript:

De Borchgrave: So who did Black Sept. 11?

Gul: Mossad and its accomplices. The U.S. spends $40 billion a year on its 11 intelligence agencies. That's $400 billion in 10 years. Yet the Bush Administration says it was taken by surprise. I don't believe it. Within 10 minutes of the second twin tower being hit in the World Trade Center CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That was a planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators. It created an instant mindset and put public opinion into a trance, which prevented even intelligent people from thinking for themselves.

https://www.upi.com/UPI-interview-with-Hamid-Gul/60031280349846/

Immediately after the attacks Bin Laden was interviewed by Pakistani newspaper Ummat. When asked if he was involved in the attacks he stated:

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

He went on to say:

"In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other U.S. President, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United States? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks."

He further goes on to state:

"I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the [U.S. Government] system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in the control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid down by them. So the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word."

You know all this is true. You know you are living a lie every day, by accepting what the TV robots tell you is true.

Yet you wring your hands and kvetch that you don't know what to do, when in fact you do. You just don't have the courage to do it, because you're a robotized American dreckdroid, who goes out and kills other people for reasons simply because you have been ordered to by those who control you. Despicable. You are despicable, because you don't have the courage to say what you clearly know, even though you are about to lose everything you ever loved because of your failure to say what you know and confront the beast. And now it's too big to stop.

Right. Just another organic conspiracy enthusiast with a 7 year old account that only began commenting within the last 24 hours.

So your response to this whole fantastic story of media complicit is to trust the press and the conspirators.

Most of the issues mentioned in the post were lied about in press conferences.

i believe hillary clinton is deeply involved in pgate and also mentally unfit, and a criminal, and a traitor, but i have absolutely no problem admitting the world would be a better place if she were president right now.

these operations and worst of everything is being driven out of the republican party headquarters, alec, the heritage foundation whores, and then sometimes from the democrats.

any equivalency is ultimately someone who is trying to help republicans, who have neither ideas, consitency, or ethics, at all whatsover.

democrats have some ethics they are at least fighting over, republicans don't have that, rather its worse, they openly contemplate and secretly practice outright evil, in the open.

if you cant see the difference i am kindof sorry for you, but really just don't think you are very capable of critical thought

If it's going fast enough, it can.

It's my understanding that at a high enough velocity it could be possible. Like how you can do some serious damage with a ping pong ball if it's going fast enough.

That being said, I agree. The outter steel structure of the WTC, and the fact that the architect specifically stated that the building would be able to withstand a (commercial?) plane impact, makes me super suspicious.

What if you’re slicing off tumors?

Ah, you've been using those wrong! You're supposed to do the slicing.

AFAIK is was built to withstand a smaller aircraft.

it's only a flesh wound

Divided, and placated. Equally important.

The context around the first attack alone should’ve made it clear we were the aggressors and it was self defense for them. That whole war was started because they wanted the war to happen.

Are you really trying to justify USA for trying to invade another country? The vietnamese didnt do shit at first.

Are you incapable of responding to people without calling them idiots?

Context is everything thpugh. This is a vifeo directed at a specific audience

My belief is it was missiles that were made to look like planes to ground civilians and the news footage tampered with(you can find some good yt breakdown vids on this). They could have, but would probably just bend the steel/break the glass and most likely be hanging halfway out of the buildings.

The same thing can be said for any isntitution, take school for exampke. Are you telling me it's healthy to send our kids to a place where they have to raise their hands just to speak for themselves and have to sit in a metal fucking chair for 8 hours a day and if they can't we just drug them until their braindead. How have we let this go on during the formative years of a child's life. I'll tell you why. The government needed mommy and daddy to go away for work but needed someone to baby sit the kids. That's where school comes in. The ultimate waste of time during the most important years of a person's life where they should be exploring and questioning everything.

That's different if true.

All good points. I think the most interesting aspect of flight 93 conspiracy is it doesn't imply deeper more wide spread conspiracies. Its possible that flight 93 was shot down by our military and they just didn't want to explain that to the American public. That doesn't imply a widespread inside job.

Which is very different from something like building 7. Controlled demolition means foreknowledge, planning, and execution on a massive scale.

Flight 93 could just be a PR stunt on an already sad day for the United States. If we shot it down, it would be questioned hard by media and public, even if it was the right thing to do. Instead the PR story of heroism and crash oozes nationalism and keeps us marching towards full retaliation to whatever enemy they choose.

The story is plausible. Could have been shot down. Maybe the passengers charged the cockpit, particularly if they found out what their fate would be - assuming it was commercial airliners that hit the building and not something else. That would beg greater questions of course and that's probably what bothered me most, there are some questions about whether the planes themselves were commercial or not and some compelling photographic/video evidence to suggest they were not(i.e. the nose of the airplane igniting into something pre tower contact, a flame, it's hard to say as it's a single frame just before it strikes the tower. I don't remember if it's the first or second plane. What did it look like? That the nose of the aircraft was exploding before it hit the tower). If this was true though, where ever are the people from 93? Where did the flight actually go?

Either way, the pictures they offered up as a 'crash sight' don't look like a crash sight, this much to me is fair to say.

Let's not get carried away. No one credible has suggested that the buildings got rigged to blow during the chaos of the day. That is not the alternative.