[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still think that AQ did 9/11 you should be in adult day care.
Before you bother with linking a video, I suspect whatever you plan on showing will be adequately addressed by this: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-91....
But the clip posted to Instagram was edited deceptively. A longer version of McIntyre’s report makes clear that he did, in fact, see airplane debris at the Pentagon itself.
To push their global warming agenda, to punish a state for going against them, to grab land, etc.
One day everyone will soon realize the world wasn't being run by who they thought it was. It's not all roses and cherries out there.
Who had pb2k pegged as a wokester?
Planes don't land lol. We've lost another one to the cia guys.
I don't know how big it was, I'm not an expert in that type of analysis but I'm an expert in flying an airplane and all I'm saying is it's extremely unlikely the plane flew in the trajectory that's shown in the video. You can't get that low to the ground an continue flying on the ground (whether he geared in or if the gear was extended it doesn't matter). The object in the video clearly came from the ground, not the air. A plane would of al
Maybe, we certainly cant tell what the condition of the aircraft is on that particular frame - it could have touched down and was in the process of coming apart. I don't know for sure but I think there may had been some skid marks prior to impact.
But either way, throwing out the entire premise of a plane hitting the pentagon all together because of a single frame pic of an object that looks like ... well, a plane, and replacing it with the idea that maybe we had some F14s firing off airliner sized missiles at the pentagon would also seem questionable.
Why would it be necessary to go to all the risk and complication to blow up the towers? I think they could have won sympathy for the US and gotten the wars they wanted and the patriot act and stuff just with the planes hitting the towers and a ton of people dying horribly.
9/11 was a great day for Bush, Biden and co because it expedited their ability to do those things, but I don't think that means they orchestrated it. They simply took advantage of the opportunity. And, they would have gotten what they wanted eventually, I think. There's an endless list of things that both parties do over the objection of like 70% of voters. Obama didn't need a false flag to attack Libya. Most Americans thought the first Iraq war was a hoot. Remember those fun video game images of Iraqis being killed? Why not do it again?
Like with the school shooting theories, if you have the power and will to go to such extremes, it seems like you could just get your desired legislation passed rather than stage some tragedy and hope that it compels people to pass the legislation on their own. If you can orchestrate 9/11 or Sandy Hook, why can't you bribe a Senator or manipulate elections?
I also think it would be too much of a level to not be Islamists. They struck a military target in The Pentagon. Targeting Congress makes a lot of sense and a lot of people would see this as somewhat justified. They kind of screwed up hitting the WTC though. Yes, it's an icon of capitalism and in the mind of a fanatic, those people were participating in an evil system and were guilty. But the vast majority of people realize that these are just random schmucks trying to feed their families. It would be kind of interesting if the third target had been more legitimate. But the WTC made America sympathetic to most people.
That all just seems incredibly nuanced and subtle for the CIA or whomever to have done it, especially as they killed some people from within their own community. I feel like if the CIA were to do something like this--and while I have a very low opinion of the CIA I feel like there are people there who would object to this--they would simply do something like set of some truck bombs at 4th of July parades in middle America. The story they are pushing, after all, is that these crazy foreigners hate us for no reason. Not that they have valid grievances against our elites, but took things too far.
It would also be much easier to pull that off. Fewer people would need to be on board. There would be less evidence of the conspiracy. It would be harder for it to go wrong.
All I know is that from my experience with you and the Wikipedia article, is if you say that there is an absence of information on or evidence of something, then that's a pretty good indication that there is a plethora of it.
Again you are using secondary cues to form your beliefs. With you it's about who says it, not what is said. But ok so after 20 years of believing AQ did the 9/11 attacks based on nothing but authority you finally click on a wikipedia article, not to learn anything (no need to learn when you pre-opt to obey) but to try to own some 9/11 heretic . My problem with it is that it doesn't cite government sources or open sources that I've seen so far. So the actual source would be a level removed and require purchasing propaganda. Let's take a look at what you cited by quote.
In mid-1998, Atta worked alongside Shehhi, bin al-Shibh, and Belfas, at a warehouse, packing computers in crates for shipping.[44] The Hamburg group did not stay in Wilhelmsburg for long. The next winter, they moved into an apartment at Marienstrasse 54 in the borough of Harburg, near the Hamburg University of Technology,[45] at which they enrolled. It was here that the Hamburg cell developed and acted more as a group.[46] They met three or four times a week to discuss their anti-American feelings and to plot possible attacks. Many al-Qaeda members lived in this apartment at various times, including hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi, Zakariya Essabar, and others.
What is this really saying that you think is so strong? I looked up the wikipedia page for bin al-Shibh. Here is an excerpt
In the mid-1990s, bin al-Shibh moved as a student to Hamburg, Germany, where he allegedly became close friends with Mohamed Atta, Ziad Jarrah and Marwan al-Shehhi. Together, they are suspected of forming the Hamburg cell and becoming central perpetrators of the September 11 attacks.
Emphasis mine. If you look back over Russiagate, like say somehow you grew a spine and actually objected to the elites lying to your face constantly about things that affect your life, you would find similarly careful language, crafted that way for legal reasons. This means we aren't certain that it's true. Recall that absolutely nothing about Russiagate turned out to be true after all the allegedly this and "suspected" that. . All these relationships and groupings are inferences and insinuation.
Again you are using secondary cues to form your beliefs. With you it's about who says it, not what is said. But ok so after 20 years of believing AQ did the 9/11 attacks based on nothing but authority you finally click on a wikipedia article, not to learn anything (no need to learn when you pre-opt to obey) but to try to own some 9/11 heretic . My problem with it is that it doesn't cite government sources or open sources that I've seen so f
Lol. Why did you cite like 10% of what I actually posted? Was it the only 10% you could reasonably say was ambiguous enough to make your case, because it uses the words "allegedly" and "suspected"? You said we are going "quote by quote", yet we only looked at one quote. Did you get to the second one and realise you were full of ****? Go ahead, carry on going quote by quote so you can prove yourself wrong and save everyone a lot of time and energy having to explain to you how to read.
Lol. Your issue with it is that it doesn't cite government sources. The same government you'll say is lying if they're cited and have been saying are lying in every post you make ITT?
Lol. There are 121 ****ing footnotes in that article. None of which are this stupid ****ing book you have a stick up your ass about. You have honed in on one item in the "bibliography" section and said that referencing it would require "purchasing propaganda". Stop being such a disingenuous little ****.
Lol. Russiagate has nothing to do with this. You might think that "I claim some people lied to you about this thing therefore this also supports my case that some other people lied to you 20 years prior about another thing because both groups used the word 'suspected'" makes perfect sense, but it doesn't to anyone who has the slightest understanding of how logic works.
It's entirely obvious to any marginally reasonable person reading this thread that you are a total assclown. Carry on embarrassing yourself, it's very entertaining.
Deuces, now that your erroneous belief that there were only a "few" drums' worth of fuel has been corrected, have you revised your views on the feasibility of the buildings collapsing due to fire? I am very skeptical that you are capable of processing new information and incorporating into your thought process, change my mind.
Maybe, we certainly cant tell what the condition of the aircraft is on that particular frame - it could have touched down and was in the process of coming apart. I don't know for sure but I think there may had been some skid marks prior to impact.
But either way, throwing out the entire premise of a plane hitting the pentagon all together because of a single frame pic of an object that looks like ... well, a plane, and replacing it with the
Theres not enough concrete evidence to prove that it was an aircraft that hit the pentagon. You asked if I thought an airplane really hit the towers which is why I said it looks more like the other two incidents were questionable, even though that's what we were told on the news and via fact checkers. When you search for it and see a million fact checkers disclaiming it, that's usually a sign that the opposite is true especially since the fact checkers and our media are all owned and controlled by the same entity that may have potentially did it so of course they're gonna say it's not true (just like when they said Hunter's laptop is Russian disinformation and MKUltra isn't real). The fact checkers are the ones that need to be fact checked. Just because a fact checker said so, people automatically accept that to be hard evidence.
Hey Playbig, why do you constantly ignore posts that call out your bullshit and point out that what you're saying isn't true? Never mind, rhetorical question. You, Deuces, all you conspiratards are the same - make a bunch of claims, then run and hide when someone shows that you're spewing bald faced lies.
Global Warming... Terra-farming.
Operation Greenhouse was an entire SERIES of tests in 1951...
Spoiler
Why would it be necessary to go to all the risk and complication to blow up the towers? I think they could have won sympathy for the US and gotten the wars they wanted and the patriot act and stuff just with the planes hitting the towers and a ton of people dying horribly.
Maybe there was a confluence of circumstances which made it feasible. The scale of the money involved is trillions. Maybe they just wanted to be sure that the effect of the "new Pearl Harbor" was up to the scale of the military mobilization and new legal regime. I mean, the civil rights we had pre 911 were crafted over centuries of struggle. I don't know if people would curtail them so substantially over a few plane crashes. I don't think the planners of this had any exact formula for the exact amount of terrorist spectacle needed to achieve their ends. They probably wanted to err on overdoing it given the risks involved. The greed mongers are known as risk takers but, in reality, they are the most risk averse people around and they probably just wanted to be sure they maxed out the spectacle and the fear it generated.
9/11 was a great day for Bush, Biden and co because it expedited their ability to do those things, but I don't think that means they orchestrated it. They simply took advantage of the opportunity. And, they would have gotten what they wanted eventually, I think. There's an endless list of things that both parties do over the objection of like 70% of voters. Obama didn't need a false flag to attack Libya. Most Americans thought the first
No politicians orchestrated 9/11. That would be outside of all practicality. I believe they did take advantage, but were guided, broadly, in how to do so.
There is a not-so-fine line between operations which cost American lives and those which don't. Kennedy left people hanging and essentially sabotaged the bay of pigs invasion because, while he was totally fine with any covert action, he wasn't going to just start an open hot war with Cuba. That made so many high powered people so angry and probably led to him getting killed. The planners knew the invasion wouldn't work without air support. They figured they would get JFK pot committed and he would renege on his position ruling out air support. But JFK didn't want to cross that line. The Libya attack did not involve ground forces. It seems, historically, if our guys are going to invade and going to get killed, America needs a casus belli up to the sacrifice. If you have counter examples I'd be interested.
I also think it would be too much of a level to not be Islamists. They struck a military target in The Pentagon. Targeting Congress makes a lot of sense and a lot of people would see this as somewhat justified. They kind of screwed up hitting the WTC though. Yes, it's an icon of capitalism and in the mind of a fanatic, those people were participating in an evil system and were guilty. But the vast majority of people realize that these
They struck a portion of the Pentagon under construction and not heavily occupied. That always struck me as unnaturally auspicious.
It's another whole vista to open, but lawmakers were attacked with anthrax. In fact the two most prominent Democrats, the exact people who could mount a formidable resistance to war, were targeted with anthrax directly. Not only that, but direct threats were made against the president in ways which could only be done by those with highly restricted access to the president. That's why they flew Bush to the middle of the country in the middle of the shitstorm. In my opinion, the anthrax attacks and the threats to the president were made by the same syndicate who executed the plane attacks and the demolitions. Even PBS was basically saying we don't know who carried out those anthrax attacks. They can't be pinned on AQ because the anthrax came from a U.S. defense lab. Recall how they clumsily tried to pin it on some guy initially. The government ended up settling for millions after he sued. Then they said some lab rat did it and the guy ends up killing himself (of course). There was never any evidence produced against this second guy, Bruce Ivins.
That all just seems incredibly nuanced and subtle for the CIA or whomever to have done it, especially as they killed some people from within their own community. I feel like if the CIA were to do something like this--and while I have a very low opinion of the CIA I feel like there are people there who would object to this--they would simply do something like set of some truck bombs at 4th of July parades in middle America. The story they
No government agency could have done this. That's just not how the world works. 9/11 was an expression of private power in my opinion. Once you figure out how to rig the Boeings into drones
you are halfway there. Whereas if you are AQ you've got to get 19 guys into the country, sustain them, sustain their morale, finance them, all from overseas while being a heavily surveilled terrorist outfit who was actively involved in targeting the U.S. military overseas. And then so much depends on these guys flying jets they've never flown before with fine precision, all before it was even proven that they could even learn how to fly in the first place. None of them, with their impoverished backgrounds. are going to get a taste of America and decide not to blow themselves up for Islam? Given what we know about people, how they follow incentives based on material benefit, comports with the alleged behavior. And then there is no evidence of their planning this in all their stuff? It's way to much to ask, the government's conspiracy theory. It just doesn't hold up from any angle.
Imagine a few drums of fuel bringing down an entire building skyscraper. That's you think happened. But actually you don't even have your own thoughts. You think that whatever the CIA says happened happened, even though you don't know exactly what they said happened, and so it had to be explained to you what you believe by those you oppose (who do know what the CIA says happened and disagree).
You clearly have no idea how many gallons of fuel are on a normal 747 commercial plane.
First you give analogies of a few cans and now a few drums of gasoline - you are not even close.
The first of the four planes to depart was American *Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767-200ER. It was 159 feet and two inches long, with a sixteen-foot-six-inch-wide body that allowed for two aisles. The plane made daily flights between Boston and Los Angeles, and when it took off at 7:59 a.m. on the morning of the eleventh, it carried only 81 passengers in its 158 seats. Forty-seven minutes later, it crashed into the North Tower at 440 mph, carrying 9,717 gallons of jet fuel, 14,000 gallons under capacity.
United Flight 175, also a Boeing 767-200ER, was the second. Like American Airlines 11, it was scheduled to fly between *Logan and LAX. When United 175 took off at 8:14 a.m., it was even lighter than the American flight: Only 56 out of 168 seats were occupied. When it crashed into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m., traveling 540 mph, it had 9,118 gallons of fuel in its tanks.
American Airlines Flight 77 was the third plane to take off that day, a Boeing 757-200. AA77 left Washington, D.C., at 8:20 a.m. bound for Los Angeles. It was two-thirds empty, with 58 passengers in its 176 seats, and its tanks were 4,000 gallons under its 11,500-gallon capacity. It crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m., *flying 530 mph.
The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was also a 757-200. It was delayed for 42 minutes past its *scheduled 8 a.m. departure from Newark bound for San Francisco. When it finally took off, it carried only 37 *passengers—its capacity was 182—and it was loaded with a little over 7,000 gallons of fuel. It crashed at 560 mph into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:03 a.m.
The two models—the 767 and the 757—were introduced within a year of one another in the early eighties, when Boeing was fighting lackluster sales, dwindling cash reserves, and a surging European rival, Airbus. The company marketed the planes to airlines as cost-savers, emphasizing their fuel efficiency and their modified cockpits, which allowed two pilots to do the work of three. Crews testing both aircraft gave them high marks for precise handling.
Deleted my post about 747s because I totally forgot they weren't 747s.
I posted how much a 767 can carry, #1090. Looks like per jj's post above they were at about 1/2 capacity, which is still >200 drums of fuel, a bit more than "a few".
Here's one small red flag. How could the passports of the alleged hijackers be found and readable in all the ruins of the world trade center to identify them while the whole building was turned into dust? There are not even any recognizable human bodies but the passports (not just one passport, all of them) miraculously survived and were totally readable?
There's not even any steel left. This is a picture of all that's left. There were two verly large towers like the biggest in the world. The steel should be piled like maybe a quarter (being conservative) of the amount that they were originally. There was a lot of steel used to build them. Where did it all go? Only this little tiny portion of it survived. Where's the rest? This was solid steel (oh **** almost forgot, a fact checker said it desintigrated, sorry nvm).
How could the passports of the alleged hijackers be found and readable in all the ruins of the world trade center to identify them while the whole building was turned into dust?
a) the whole building was not turned into dust. That's an absolutely absurd claim. It's easily disproven by looking at literally ANY video or photo from that day. This is why no one takes you seriously.
b) because everything is not disintegrated in the event of a crash. There were entire suitcases recovered, completely intact. the 9/11 museum is filled with personal effects of the victims: metrocards, glasses, shoes, keys, wallets, etc. This isn't even slightly confusing.
Quite incorrect. You can google this, but I STRONGLY recommend against it. It's a highly unpleasant experience.
but the passports (not just one passport, all of them) miraculously survived and were totally readable?
This is also incorrect. Do you ever get anything right?
Hilarious. "There's no steel left. Here's a picture of the steel that was left." The picture also COMPLETELY debunks your ridiculous claim that the whole building was turned to dust, but literally every picture from that day does that.
What are you even trying to do here?
No building in our history has ever collapsed simply due to fire and being douced with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.
Theres not enough concrete evidence to prove that it was an aircraft that hit the pentagon. You asked if I thought an airplane really hit the towers which is why I said it looks more like the other two incidents were questionable, even though that's what we were told on the news and via fact checkers. When you search for it and see a million fact checkers disclaiming it, that's usually a sign that the opposite is true especially since th
But try to see it from my side for sec - as I really am arguing in good faith with you here.
We've got a single frame, showing an object that is clearly larger than a missile, we've got supposed witnesses, collapsed power lines, and two buildings in new york that were hit by commercial airliners within the hour. It would require a lot of imagination to assume all of that to be fake + the govt firing a missile at a coincidental time that two airplanes crashed into the wtc towers + doctored pic, fake witnesses, knocked over the polls, all for the purpose to go to war and sow hatred when it could of all been done anyway, and with the best evidence supporting that theory being hunter's laptop, MKultra and that a million fact checkers saying one thing would usually be a sign that the opposite was true?
Are you able see how I could struggle to adopt this particular theory?
But try to see it from my side for sec - as I really am arguing in good faith with you here.
We've got a single frame, showing an object that is clearly larger than a missile, we've got supposed witnesses, collapsed power lines, and two buildings in new york that were hit by commercial airliners within the hour. It would require a lot of imagination to assume all of that to be fake + the govt firing a missile at a coincidental time that two
Don't forget his expert opinion that planes can't fly that low. Although he has still yet to explain to us how thousands of them do it every day in order to land.
So douched then?
Lol. A+
