Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 3

[Exe Gesis]

Point remains that youre hanging on by a last thread to the collapsing woollen top that is 9/11. Youre about the only one left who still entirely believes the Official Story completely. 9/11 OS has already been debunked across a number of facets, and it wont be long before the entire event is disclosed officially as an inside-job with the Bushs etc complicit and some kind of result there.

When people point you to very specific single aspects of 9/11, asking you if you find them sus, find the OS sus, you haven't wavered, and maintain it all "nothing to see here".

Eg....shanksville hole, pentagon hole, wtc7 collapse, the money trail of the whole event who benefited and what info and trillions of dollars was lost, etc, explosions pre-planes in wtc1/2, etc, the confiscating of, doctoring of, info and video by TPTB to protect a cover-up, etc.

 

[Exe Gesis]

A genuine truthful person, or fan of 9/11 topic, would concede certain points, aspects. Would admit certain things are false....thus allowing the door open for a change of belief. Which the majority of the human race has done. So it is apparently disingenuous to see a person still clutching desperately to the notion that the entire OS is true, refusing to concede certain aspects are sus, dont comply with the logic of the OS but the logic of an inside-job.

 

[BustedWing]

Point remains that youre hanging on by a last thread to the collapsing woollen top that is 9/11. Youre about the only one left who still entirely believes the Official Story completely.

This is of course contradicted by the poll immediately above this post.

And you wonder why I insist on evidence from you and your ilk so doggedly, when you say nonsense like this, with something created by PRO CONSPIRACY people contradicting you immediately above your claim. I mean...it would be something you see every time you log in here, and yet, you just stated the exact opposite position as if it didn't exist...

It beggars belief at times, it really does.

9/11 OS has already been debunked across a number of facets, and it wont be long before the entire event is disclosed officially as an inside-job with the Bushs etc complicit and some kind of result there.

You've been saying this for years. Its all about to get exposed....just wait a little longer...we're still waiting...

When people point you to very specific single aspects of 9/11, asking you if you find them sus, find the OS sus, you haven't wavered, and maintain it all "nothing to see here".

Not true. When people see an inconsistency they don't understand, or get wrong, I correct them.

Eg....shanksville hole, pentagon hole, wtc7 collapse, the money trail of the whole event who benefited and what info and trillions of dollars was lost, etc, explosions pre-planes in wtc1/2, etc, the confiscating of, doctoring of, info and video by TPTB to protect a cover-up, etc.

Each of these examples you raise are issues people either dont understand, or dont have the full information on...or....dare I say it....just straight make stuff up.

How can we tell?

Ask for evidence. Ask for proof.

Take your first one, the shanksville crash site. People say "no plane", despite there being photos of wreckage, and of course, there is the little challenge of explaining where the plane that took off went, and where the people are, which they cant do of course (how inconvenient). Then they shift to "plane was shot out of the sky", which of course contradicts their first point (no plane), but this is now claimed in spite of a complete lack of evidence for this (no fighter jet, no missile etc), then they say "small fragments!, large area! Compare that to all these other plane crashes where there are big chunks of the plane left - very suspicious!", and they completely ignore the difference between a plane trying to avoid crashing, and the plane on 9/11 hitting the ground inverted nose first at close to the speed of sound.

 

[BustedWing]

A genuine truthful person, or fan of 9/11 topic, would concede certain points, aspects. Would admit certain things are false....thus allowing the door open for a change of belief. Which the majority of the human race has done. So it is apparently disingenuous to see a person still clutching desperately to the notion that the entire OS is true, refusing to concede certain aspects are sus, dont comply with the logic of the OS but the logic of an inside-job.

If evidence is shown to me, I will change my mind. I wont do it based just on your say so. Surely that's reasonable isn't it?

 

[Exe Gesis]

If evidence is shown to me, I will change my mind. I wont do it based just on your say so. Surely that's reasonable isn't it?

It is the inconsistency of evidence, contradictory evidence, of the OS that hurts itself and should open the door already for you. Like the hole in the pentagon.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It is the inconsistency of evidence, contradictory evidence, of the OS that hurts itself and should open the door already for you. Like the hole in the pentagon.

There are inconsistencies in the official version of events.
However they pale into insignificance when compared to any alternative version of events.

I've yet to even hear an coherent alternative version of events. At first they seem to make some sort of sense, but then there are glaring issues, and we end up using something from the Marvel Universe to make it all come together.

 

[Exe Gesis]

There are inconsistencies in the official version of events.
However they pale into insignificance when compared to any alternative version of events.

I've yet to even hear an coherent alternative version of events. At first they seem to make some sort of sense, but then there are glaring issues, and we end up using something from the Marvel Universe to make it all come together.

My point is that if one were to acknowledge there tons of inconsistencies and contradictions in the OS, that should push someone to lean toward inside-job (even if there isnt clear cut sufficient evidence) because at the very foundation it fits the LOGIC of the inside-job theory far more than the OS story. We are ALL bereft of clear cut evidence for inside job, but theres still evidence for it. And all the evidence for OS is laughably illogical, and shows clear signs of a cover up. That therefore should be the mainstream stance (leaning to inside job, and not implicitly trusting the OS entirely). My issue with BustedWing and people like him is that they refuse to budge and admit the inconsistencies and contradictions -- are not open to having their world belief being wrong

 

[BustedWing]

There are inconsistencies in the official version of events.
However they pale into insignificance when compared to any alternative version of events.

I've yet to even hear an coherent alternative version of events. At first they seem to make some sort of sense, but then there are glaring issues, and we end up using something from the Marvel Universe to make it all come together.

Agree, but there is a world of difference between an inconsistency, and an argument from incredulity from someone not qualified.

The hole in the pentagon is one such argument - it begins and ends with “it looks funny to me”.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[SaintsSeptember]

My point is that if one were to acknowledge there tons of inconsistencies and contradictions in the OS, that should push someone to lean toward inside-job (even if there isnt clear cut sufficient evidence) because at the very foundation it fits the LOGIC of the inside-job theory far more than the OS story. We are ALL bereft of clear cut evidence for inside job, but theres still evidence for it. And all the evidence for OS is laughably illogical, and shows clear signs of a cover up. That therefore should be the mainstream stance (leaning to inside job, and not implicitly trusting the OS entirely). My issue with BustedWing and people like him is that they refuse to budge and admit the inconsistencies and contradictions -- are not open to having their world belief being wrong

I don't necessarily agree with that.
Inside job is perhaps less likely than , "covering up incompetency" after the fact. ( Something relatively common in many governments ).

 

[BustedWing]

I don't necessarily agree with that.
Inside job is perhaps less likely than , "covering up incompetency" after the fact. ( Something relatively common in many governments ).

I strongly disagree - and I would argue that an inside job is FAR FAR less likely than "covering up incompetency".

That argument actually has some strong indicators IMO...quite possibly people in the government tried to cover their ass after the fact (as its clear the US governments protection strategy was woefully incompetent).

Thats a world away from Inside job!

 

[Nothing]

My point is that if one were to acknowledge there tons of inconsistencies and contradictions in the OS, that should push someone to lean toward inside-job (even if there isnt clear cut sufficient evidence) because at the very foundation it fits the LOGIC of the inside-job theory far more than the OS story. We are ALL bereft of clear cut evidence for inside job, but theres still evidence for it. And all the evidence for OS is laughably illogical, and shows clear signs of a cover up. That therefore should be the mainstream stance (leaning to inside job, and not implicitly trusting the OS entirely). My issue with BustedWing and people like him is that they refuse to budge and admit the inconsistencies and contradictions -- are not open to having their world belief being wrong

I've asked here before and got no response. I'd like someone like you (anyone) who thinks it was all off to come out with their timeline of events and outcomes.

Something like:
2 planes were hijacked but they were CIA operatives. This was a cover for the explosives that had been preset into the building.
These 2 were crashed into the WTC1 and 2.
The other two planes never existed. The Shanksville site was a hoax and a digger came in and spread rubbish there to make it look like a crash. The Pentagon was a cruise missile fired from a sub.
WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. We know this because it didn't have a plane fly into it. There was no damage to the external building so it was an implosion to crash it.

Now, all of those sub parts I've read here (and a lot more). I'd just like someone who thinks it sthinks to lay out their entire view of the day (preferably with evidence but not essential).

I'm happy to be swayed, but until there are coherent arguments, I'm stuck with "never attribute to conspiracy that which can be accounted for with incompetence."

 

[Exe Gesis]

I've asked here before and got no response. I'd like someone like you (anyone) who thinks it was all off to come out with their timeline of events and outcomes.

Something like:
2 planes were hijacked but they were CIA operatives. This was a cover for the explosives that had been preset into the building.
These 2 were crashed into the WTC1 and 2.
The other two planes never existed. The Shanksville site was a hoax and a digger came in and spread rubbish there to make it look like a crash. The Pentagon was a cruise missile fired from a sub.
WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. We know this because it didn't have a plane fly into it. There was no damage to the external building so it was an implosion to crash it.

Now, all of those sub parts I've read here (and a lot more). I'd just like someone who thinks it sthinks to lay out their entire view of the day (preferably with evidence but not essential).

I'm happy to be swayed, but until there are coherent arguments, I'm stuck with "never attribute to conspiracy that which can be accounted for with incompetence."

 

[Exe Gesis]

Sorry, i was trying to type....

An over-arching story isnt so important, because the parts of the sum are enough to convince that it wasnt incompetence.

Eg, if you grant shanksville as a hoax, theb why was the govt and media reporting it so heavily as a hijack plane? So much so they fabricated cell calls abd passenger names etc. It was a concerted EFFORT

Eg, Pentagon....no way did a plane hit it, clear evidence it was a missile. So who fired the missile? Could only be USA. So thats not incompetence but a concerted effort to deceive the truth, to go along with the narrative of a terrorist attack on Wtc1/2....if we assume those were genuine, then the other parts are far from incompetence but INVOLVED in the plot.

Especially complicit given on purpose they sent all military fighters out of NY and Pentagon airspace (which never happens), so they aided and abetted a genuine terrorist attack if we assume wtc1/2 was legit.

Why did they cont.demo wtc7? Thats not attributed to incompetence but again to validate the false narrative

Eg, why did they destroy all the metal from ground zero, a crime scene? Obviously to hide scientific analysis that would show sabotage instead of terrorist attack.

 

[BustedWing]

I've asked here before and got no response. I'd like someone like you (anyone) who thinks it was all off to come out with their timeline of events and outcomes.

Something like:
2 planes were hijacked but they were CIA operatives. This was a cover for the explosives that had been preset into the building.
These 2 were crashed into the WTC1 and 2.
The other two planes never existed. The Shanksville site was a hoax and a digger came in and spread rubbish there to make it look like a crash. The Pentagon was a cruise missile fired from a sub.
WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. We know this because it didn't have a plane fly into it. There was no damage to the external building so it was an implosion to crash it.

Now, all of those sub parts I've read here (and a lot more). I'd just like someone who thinks it sthinks to lay out their entire view of the day (preferably with evidence but not essential).

I'm happy to be swayed, but until there are coherent arguments, I'm stuck with "never attribute to conspiracy that which can be accounted for with incompetence."

You've asked for something very reasonable, and look at what you got in return....sigh...

 

[Nothing]

Sorry, i was trying to type....

An over-arching story isnt so important, because the parts of the sum are enough to convince that it wasnt incompetence.

Eg, if you grant shanksville as a hoax, theb why was the govt and media reporting it so heavily as a hijack plane? So much so they fabricated cell calls abd passenger names etc. It was a concerted EFFORT

Eg, Pentagon....no way did a plane hit it, clear evidence it was a missile. So who fired the missile? Could only be USA. So thats not incompetence but a concerted effort to deceive the truth, to go along with the narrative of a terrorist attack on Wtc1/2....if we assume those were genuine, then the other parts are far from incompetence but INVOLVED in the plot.

Especially complicit given on purpose they sent all military fighters out of NY and Pentagon airspace (which never happens), so they aided and abetted a genuine terrorist attack if we assume wtc1/2 was legit.

Why did they cont.demo wtc7? Thats not attributed to incompetence but again to validate the false narrative

Eg, why did they destroy all the metal from ground zero, a crime scene? Obviously to hide scientific analysis that would show sabotage instead of terrorist attack.

Maybe someone else will accept the challenge of laying out their version of events.

I'll do a very brief version of how I see it.
4 planes hijacked.
2 crashed into WTC 1/2, 1 into Pentagon and 1 into a field in Shanksville.
The impact of the planes on WTC 1 and 2 caused enormous fires (as seen from billowing smoke). Eventually, these fires caused the buildings to collapse.
The collapse of these buildings caused massive plumes of dust and debris over lower Manhattan. As a result of this, other buildings collapsed, including WTC7.
The Pentagon crash was caused by a plane, because a cruise missile makes no sense. It would have had to fly over some of the most densely populated areas of the US for 40 minutes before making a U-turn over Arlington to impact the west side of the Pentagon. There's also plenty of reports of a plane and debris of a plane at the crash site.
I have no firm opinion on Shanksville.
The US authorities had some information but didn't act in a timely matter/consider the risk sufficient. I'm going with incompetence.

There might have been holograms and there might also have been shape-shifting lizard people (or I might have been on acid) other areas I've considered.

 

[BustedWing]

Sorry, i was trying to type....

An over-arching story isnt so important, because the parts of the sum are enough to convince that it wasnt incompetence.

Eg, if you grant shanksville as a hoax, theb why was the govt and media reporting it so heavily as a hijack plane? So much so they fabricated cell calls abd passenger names etc. It was a concerted EFFORT

Eg, Pentagon....no way did a plane hit it, clear evidence it was a missile. So who fired the missile? Could only be USA. So thats not incompetence but a concerted effort to deceive the truth, to go along with the narrative of a terrorist attack on Wtc1/2....if we assume those were genuine, then the other parts are far from incompetence but INVOLVED in the plot.

Especially complicit given on purpose they sent all military fighters out of NY and Pentagon airspace (which never happens), so they aided and abetted a genuine terrorist attack if we assume wtc1/2 was legit.

Why did they cont.demo wtc7? Thats not attributed to incompetence but again to validate the false narrative

Eg, why did they destroy all the metal from ground zero, a crime scene? Obviously to hide scientific analysis that would show sabotage instead of terrorist attack.

All of this nonsense falls apart before it even begins, just by asking a really simple question...

Why?

Why would "they" do the things you allege, like faking phone calls, like firing a missile, and calling it a plane, like demo WTC7, instead of...jeez, I dont know, fire a missile?

Why? Why would they do these really convoluted things, things easily "found out by the truthers" and make it look like something simpler? Why would they do it this way?

There is no answer that makes any sense....

 

[JackOutback]

Sorry, i was trying to type....

An over-arching story isnt so important, because the parts of the sum are enough to convince that it wasnt incompetence.

Eg, if you grant shanksville as a hoax, theb why was the govt and media reporting it so heavily as a hijack plane? So much so they fabricated cell calls abd passenger names etc. It was a concerted EFFORT

Eg, Pentagon....no way did a plane hit it, clear evidence it was a missile. So who fired the missile? Could only be USA. So thats not incompetence but a concerted effort to deceive the truth, to go along with the narrative of a terrorist attack on Wtc1/2....if we assume those were genuine, then the other parts are far from incompetence but INVOLVED in the plot.

Especially complicit given on purpose they sent all military fighters out of NY and Pentagon airspace (which never happens), so they aided and abetted a genuine terrorist attack if we assume wtc1/2 was legit.

Why did they cont.demo wtc7? Thats not attributed to incompetence but again to validate the false narrative

Eg, why did they destroy all the metal from ground zero, a crime scene? Obviously to hide scientific analysis that would show sabotage instead of terrorist attack.

Actually, an overarching story is very important. You appear to be arguing 'the fruit of the poisonous tree', in that if you think one element is fake, then it all must be fake. Much more likely is that if all other elements are credible and unable to be undermined, then maybe you are wrong about the one element you think is fake.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I'm amazed that everyone knows exactly what the impact from a cruise missile looks like.

Large opening , much bigger than the size of a cruise missile.

Nothing at all like this obvious hoax video, showing a small opening followed by a massive explosion.

 

[Lebbo73]

I’ve been asked this a couple of times in the past.

Who am I? Who am I really?

just a guy. I don’t work for the government. I’m not a troll, here to ruin people’s day. I’m just a regular dude. Not sure what else you might want from me on this point...


Its true, I mostly post here, and rarely (not never, but certainly rarely) elsewhere. If you dig into my post history (slightly creepy by the way I might add), you’ll find some posts about footy, but I find it so hard to get engaged there, because the sheer volume of posts means it’s nigh impossible to have a conversation. I see a topic I like, I comment, and before you know it three more pages of posts have appeared, and the conversation you were trying to have with someone is long lost. It’s not a conversation there mostly, more just a message board. That’s not for me.

I want to have a conversation. It’s easier to do that here given the far less traffic.

Where else have I posted? on the moon landing, some of pizzagate, some on port Arthur, some on sandy hook, and a smattering in the travel pages.

why 9/11? Why post about my knowledge of it here?

I was fascinated by it, and I like to converse and debate. Simple as that really. Wish I had a better answer for you, but there you go.

Really? You only post about 911. Your last 200 known posts are on this subject.

 

[BustedWing]

Really? You only post about 911. Your last 200 known posts are on this subject.

Which is inconsistent with my post you quoted, how exactly?

Hardly surprising you struggled with research and comprehension in this instance too, isn’t it...


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Lebbo73]

Which is inconsistent with my post you quoted, how exactly?

Hardly surprising you struggled with research and comprehension in this instance too, isn’t it...


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

You said you mostly post here. 200 out of the last 200 posts that we know about isn’t mostly.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Really? You only post about 911. Your last 200 known posts are on this subject.

No one will pay him for any other posts .

 

[BustedWing]

You said you mostly post here. 200 out of the last 200 posts that we know about isn’t mostly.

Do you need to have the difference between never and rarely explained to you?

Would it be easier for you if it was in crayon?

 

[Zidane98]

No one will pay him for any other posts .

Shill work is perfectly suited to lockdown. Hopefully I can pick up a few extra shifts from the Illumnati.

 

[BustedWing]

Shill work is perfectly suited to lockdown. Hopefully I can pick up a few extra shifts from the Illumnati.

Ive put in my application for the 5G covid connection disinformation unit...no response yet.