Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 3

What's your opinion regarding the 9/11 attacks?

  • The official story makes the most sense

    Votes: 48 40.7%

  • The attacks were allowed to happen

    Votes: 28 23.7%

  • Inside job by US/shadow Government

    Votes: 42 35.6%
  • Total voters
    118

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

ablett said:
If your not convinced after watching this that you’ve been stooged , then it’s off to the looney bin for you

Click to expand...

There's footage from 24 other angles of the plane hitting the tower that day.
Too bad the guy didn't show those.
He only shows the ones where the cameraman misses the impact, as if that was the only footage taken that day.
What a crock.
 
Ed_Gein said:
Was on a Discord server when someone brought up saying 9/11 was an inside job which led to him saying the WTC towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. I said if it was an inside job it would have come from the government because a controlled demolition doesn't look likely to me. He countered by saying my statement is invalid because the government is not a function, whereas a controlled demoltion is a function/method. I asked him to explain it to me and he basically said if I didn't know the difference then he couldn't converse with me.

So, am I dense? What was he trying to say?
Click to expand...

Similar method of argument that a lot of gender pay gap people use.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Standard practise also if you query why something is perceived as racist, sexist or just generally 'offensive', when it is not obviously so.

'Well, if you don't understand why, I'm not going to discuss it with you'. Meaning 'I've decided to be offended, and I'm not going to justify why'.
 
Present Not Past said:
There's footage from 24 other angles of the plane hitting the tower that day.
Too bad the guy didn't show those.
He only shows the ones where the cameraman misses the impact, as if that was the only footage taken that day.
What a crock.
Click to expand...

All the footage your complaining about that isn’t showed is holograms which is what your paid to defend.
No go back to Shill HQ to plan another distraction
 
ablett said:
All the footage your complaining about that isn’t showed is holograms which is what your paid to defend.
No go back to Shill HQ to plan another distraction
Click to expand...

What technology was used to project those holograms in the sky? How is it that these alleged "Holograms" appear the same from all different angles? My experience of holographic images is they tend to appear different according to the angle of view.

I'd really like to hear a clear and concise technical explanation of how a hologram of a plane could realistically be created in mid air above the skies of NY and what physical evidence there is of the machinery used to create these "holograms". Examples are photos of the machinery being moved around, witness reports of it being used etc etc.

I assume you know all this with your clearly well thought out theories on plane holograms being utilised on 9/11.

I await your well reasoned and thought out response.
 
Zidane98 said:
What technology was used to project those holograms in the sky? How is it that these alleged "Holograms" appear the same from all different angles? My experience of holographic images is they tend to appear different according to the angle of view.

I'd really like to hear a clear and concise technical explanation of how a hologram of a plane could realistically be created in mid air above the skies of NY and what physical evidence there is of the machinery used to create these "holograms". Examples are photos of the machinery being moved around, witness reports of it being used etc etc.

I assume you know all this with your clearly well thought out theories on plane holograms being utilised on 9/11.

I await your well reasoned and thought out response.
Click to expand...
Well thought out response???

Please don't hold your breath, in fact, I would challenge anyone to find a well thought out post, response or otherwise, from the conspiracy side anywhere in this dumpster fire of a thread.
 
tigertigertiger said:
Why did America attack taliban instead of al queda straight after 9/11?
Click to expand...

This is from Wiki

U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda; bin Laden had already been wanted by the FBI since 1998. The Taliban declined to extradite him unless given what they deemed convincing evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks[5] and ignored demands to shut down terrorist bases and hand over other terrorist suspects apart from bin Laden. The request was dismissed by the U.S. as a meaningless delaying tactic and it launched Operation Enduring Freedom on 7 October 2001 with the United Kingdom. The two were later joined by other forces, including the Northern Alliance troops on the ground.[
 
ablett said:
Research Judy Wood , she has all the answers your seeking plus more.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, Dr Judy was in on it to find the truth about 9/11 wasn't she. Was she?

A petition claimed by Dr Judy Wood that:
"Those who performed work and received payment from NIST are alleged to have engaged in scientific fraud by petitioner, Dr. Wood, a materials engineering scientist, based upon a process of fraud documented by Dr. Wood’s original source research and findings that concluded that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed by an unconventional energy weapon that can be directed and thus is referred to as a form of what are called “directed energy weapons” (DEW)."

She consistently declines to speculate about the exact nature of the weapon involved, where it was situated or who operated it

"Dr. Wood has demonstrated that the Twin Towers did not burn up nor did a significant portion of them crash down; they turned to powder in mid air and fire cannot turn a quarter-mile tall building to powder in 8-10 seconds. The respondents herein knew or should have known this and they therefore engaged in actionable fraud within the meaning of the False Claims Act.
"Dr Judy Wood potentially stood to cash in big-time if her petition had succeeded, since successful qui tam relators are normally granted 15-25% of the final settlement. In fact, in this case, since the Attorney General declined to intervene, the relator's share could have been boosted to as much as 30%".

Oh dear :(
 
Boston tiger said:
This is from Wiki

U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda; bin Laden had already been wanted by the FBI since 1998. The Taliban declined to extradite him unless given what they deemed convincing evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks[5] and ignored demands to shut down terrorist bases and hand over other terrorist suspects apart from bin Laden. The request was dismissed by the U.S. as a meaningless delaying tactic and it launched Operation Enduring Freedom on 7 October 2001 with the United Kingdom. The two were later joined by other forces, including the Northern Alliance troops on the ground.[
Click to expand...
In a long roundabout way you’re saying that the US didn’t have any evidence!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top