Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some sheep will never get it.:D
Shit even this bloke got some slack cut because the BBC reported WTC 7 collapsed...20 minutes before it happened LOL

Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

http://www.sott.net/article/266268-UK-man-wins-court-case-against-BBC-for-911-cover-up
 
topjars said:
Some sheep will never get it.:D
Shit even this bloke got some slack cut because the BBC reported WTC 7 collapsed...20 minutes before it happened LOL

Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

http://www.sott.net/article/266268-UK-man-wins-court-case-against-BBC-for-911-cover-up
Click to expand...

And then did he use the chewbacca defense?

I mean wtf?

The whole argument in the above article is absolutely ridiculous and makes no sense at all!

That should be the first clue that it might be bollocks.

The second tip is if you go to the link and read the comment below the article, it reveals there may be just a tad bit of misrepresentation of what the court's findings actually were.

Seriously though, I don't know why I keep being astounded by this continual failure of applied logic. You people are sufficiently credulous to believe this kind of guff yet without a second thought, dismiss the 911 report as hogwash ...

The irony is palpable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
GG said:
Tbh im shocked there are still people out there who believe the o/s. Its a dying breed.
Click to expand...

Not that it makes any difference to your argument, but I'd love to see this backed up with real statistics.

Tip: I don't think you'll find them on YouTube so you may have to broaden your search parameters.

Oh well. never mind


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Glacier said:
Oh my goodness
Appearing from the depths of ignorance and still unable to answer without scorn is this guy
Just answer the ******* questions or disappear for another 12 months wingnut
Click to expand...

Lol

Show me where I'm wrong Glacier. Which part of my assessment of your impartial search for the truth is incorrect?

Your questions have been covered over, and over yet you still come back bleating that they have never been addressed. These are not smoking guns. They are for the most part factually incorrect misrepresentations and are easily referenced and cleared up with a two minute google search. But here you are, after how many years, still asking the same ridiculously tired questions that were debunked long ago. Let's face it, this is where you'll be in another two years too. I guarantee it.

You Glacier, are the very definition of closed minded ignorance my friend. Don't kid yourself because it's not fooling anyone else. You are searching for anything that will confirm what you believe and ignore anything that doesn't.

I hope one day you finally do open your eyes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
Show me where these questions have been answered ?
Not once in 500000 pages of topping and froing have they been
Not once
Otherwise they still wouldn't be asked
Tell me Kellythatsit , have you been to ground zero ?
Have you seen or talked to or listened to the anguished families and loved ones who still, after 12 years, turn up day after day and ask questions and are treated with nothing but scorn and contempt by people such as you ?
Nah, yeah ?
You tell me how these people are supposed to move on?

Sent from my iPhone using my right index finger
 
topjars said:
Some sheep will never get it.:D
Shit even this bloke got some slack cut because the BBC reported WTC 7 collapsed...20 minutes before it happened LOL

Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

http://www.sott.net/article/266268-UK-man-wins-court-case-against-BBC-for-911-cover-up
Click to expand...

Steady on, I would not assume a low level magistrate from traffic court counts as a judicial review
 
Glacier said:
G'day mate
Legitimate questions that many ask that have never been answered
As for " facts" in this subject who really knows what is fact and what isn't
Click to expand...

No what I mean is that there is a premise to many of these types of questions, that requires acceptance of a factual base case to begin with

Its this base case that often falls short under scrutiny, which means there is no question to answer.

For example: why did BBC show footage of towers crash 20mins before it happened?

The question is only legitimate if in fact it was broadcast 20 mins early. Without proof of that underlying base case its not a valid question if its based on a fiction

In conspiracy situations its usually this:
Why did XYZ happen or how do you explain XYZ? When as often as not XYZ never happened so there is justification or explanation needed.
 
It's acceptance if the official version of events without question that is the the issue Sanders
If one were to look at the " facts" as we know them, the " facts" themselves are the pre cursor to more questions
For instance, if someone were to say to me that a plane hit the Pentagon and I answer " did it? Hell, I don't know and if so where is the plane" , if the answer is " I saw the wreckage and its official a plane hit the Pentagon and its proven and to suggest otherwise you are a nut, well the original need for proof still stands " show me wreckage of a plane"
You can show me a hole, you can show me fire, you can show me the official version, shit you can show me a dozen eye witnesses that say a plane hit, but I can show you photos, I can quote eye witnesses, I can show you no wreckage that shows a plane hit
Therefore, has it been proven that a plane hit?
No, not by a long shot
And with every " fact" about 9/11 that is held as gospel by some, there are many questions and evidence that at the very least puts those " facts" into question
 
Glacier said:
Show me where these questions have been answered ?
Not once in 500000 pages of topping and froing have they been
Not once
Otherwise they still wouldn't be asked
Tell me Kellythatsit , have you been to ground zero ?
Have you seen or talked to or listened to the anguished families and loved ones who still, after 12 years, turn up day after day and ask questions and are treated with nothing but scorn and contempt by people such as you ?
Nah, yeah ?
You tell me how these people are supposed to move on?

Sent from my iPhone using my right index finger
Click to expand...

Perhaps I could also shift a piano for you.

Nope not this time Glacier, I'm tired of doing the heavy lifting for you guys - especially when it will simply be ignored again.

Furthermore, it is incredibly disingenuous to assert that your questions have not been answered once when even a casual observer of any of the voluminous threads can see this is simply not true.

I suspect that what you actually mean is that they have not been answered - to your satisfaction. However in any criminal case there are always loose ends, things that don't seem to fit. Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of living in a Hollywood movie where all the loose ends are tied up in the end.

Whether I've been to ground zero or not makes no difference to the facts nor do emotional references to the victims families. It is unfortunate that some family members aren't satisfied with the conclusions of the 911 commission. But this is to be expected - especially with something as devastating as this. Someone referenced Jill Meagher earlier. Her family still has a lot of questions which I suspect will go unanswered, despite her murderer actually being in custody and locked away. As I said there are always questions and there is probably a lot of rage about the failures that occur.

However, none of this in any way affects the argument at hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
It's got nothing to do with my satisfaction Kelly, what I want is beyond what will ever happen
See, that's where you get me wrong
I want the questions answered( and don't give the usual crap " but they have they have " because to not have the truth, regardless if which way the truth lies, does not let the event be history, no matter how painful
You on the other hand don't want the murky depths delved into because the simple fact is that what MAY be found would rock the world as you see it and as you have learned it
You don't want to have to maybe confront the idea that terrorists in our world who seek to kill and maim and hurt don't always necessarily wear headscarves and shriek verses from the Koran
They may also be the very people who promise to keep us safe
 
Glacier said:
It's got nothing to do with my satisfaction Kelly, what I want is beyond what will ever happen
See, that's where you get me wrong
I want the questions answered( and don't give the usual crap " but they have they have " because to not have the truth, regardless if which way the truth lies, does not let the event be history, no matter how painful
You on the other hand don't want the murky depths delved into because the simple fact is that what MAY be found would rock the world as you see it and as you have learned it
You don't want to have to maybe confront the idea that terrorists in our world who seek to kill and maim and hurt don't always necessarily wear headscarves and shriek verses from the Koran
They may also be the very people who promise to keep us safe
Click to expand...

I see. The evidence for this is . . . where exactly?

And that is where you get me wrong. I was once a believer. The idea that this was indeed an inside job was incredibly intriguing. It is an explosive story where heroes become villains and villains become heroes. The machinations to put the whole plan into place, let alone the cover up after the fact and the evidences supplied to back them up seemed irrefutable. Even when I looked further into it and found that these evidences were maybe not so irrefutable, and that in fact they were quite easily debunked I still clung to my belief. I was sure this was an inside job, Kennedy was assassinated by the military industrial complex and Billy the Kid actually lived until he was in his late 80s with a Mexican wife. Somehow it made the world more interesting, more complex. It made me feel like I was an insider, privy to information that the morons in the everyday world never even bothered to look into. I was kidding myself.

I realised one day that what I was actually doing was exactly what I accused the morons of doing, dismissing the huge weight of evidence pointing to what I didn’t want to see. I was clinging to inconsistencies, gaps and loose ends around which I tried to place a narrative - however this would lead to even more loose ends and questions. It became a scenario so huge and ridiculous that I would almost have accused my next door neighbour of having some involvement (he was a police officer after all).

So I have been there. I have delved the murky depths. I realised the only reason it was so murky was because of all the crap that I had thrown into the pool. When I cleaned it out it was a lot clearer - sure it's a little cloudy and it still stinks - but at least I can actually see the bottom.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The truth will eventually come to the surface. People were calling people crazy for thinking Diana was murdered, which it turns out may of been the case.

the most unexplained thing to me is the pentagon. the worlds most secure building, yet only has 1 camera that captured the so called plane that penetrated several layers of concrete reinforcment and left no trail of its prior existance. Also did they find the trillions of dollars of pentagon defence debt that was announced the day before the 'attacks'? Add this to the whole weapons of mass destruction story that has proven to be a lie, and it is simple to see that the events of that day were a means to establish American dominance in the middle east over the oil and the currency it is traded under
 
1st time posting in this thread so apologies if I repeat something that's already been mentioned in this thread. I still can't believe there are people who still believe the official 9/11 report.

World Trade centres:
- Many workers who survived the attacks say they heard an explosion in the basement before the planes hit.
-The owner of the World trade centre got insurance for "Terrorist attacks" just days before.
-He, his son and daughter (Who both worked at the WTC) all mysteriously didn't show up at the WTC on 9/11
- The WTC were renovated and re-painted months before the attacks. Many people believe that a special paint that has gun powder was painted on, thus why the buildings collapsed!
-They said that they didn't recover any of the black boxes (never happened before), yet a guy who was working on the recovery said that all the boxes were found.
-They recovered the passports of the terrorist!! how is that even possible?? You're telling me that they found a piece of paper that should have been burned into ashes??
-The terrorist all all alive and they were framed by the US Government.

Pentagon -
There were Dozens upon dozens of security cameras that captured the attack on the pentagon, yet they only release one video??
- The video that they did release actually show that there wasn't a f***ing plane
- even if there was a plane, the impact zone doesn't look like a plane went through it. It should have resembled the shape of a plane but it didn't.
- it's impossible to fly the plane that low and accurate. Not even the best of the best can fly a plane like that. The 'pilot' would have had to fly past power lines and trees to hit into the pentagon. IMPOSSIBLE.

There's more but just can't think of any more now.
 
strung_out7 said:
The truth will eventually come to the surface. People were calling people crazy for thinking Diana was murdered, which it turns out may of been the case.
Click to expand...

Of course it was, because ...

(This is the bit where you provide evidence to back up the assertion, end further speculation and refute the null hypothesis)

strung_out7 said:
the most unexplained thing to me is the pentagon. the worlds most secure building, yet only has 1 camera that captured the so called plane that penetrated several layers of concrete reinforcment and left no trail of its prior existance.
Click to expand...

Rumsfeld loaned all the cameras out for the day. They were making a Hollywood movie close by and they needed a few extras.

I don't have any evidence for this but clearly it is not needed on this thread.

strung_out7 said:
Also did they find the trillions of dollars of pentagon defence debt that was announced the day before the 'attacks'?
Click to expand...

The relevance being ...?

strung_out7 said:
Add this to the whole weapons of mass destruction story that has proven to be a lie, and it is simple to see that the events of that day were a means to establish American dominance in the middle east over the oil and the currency it is traded under
Click to expand...

... Because they had no influence before

Oh I see, so because event A happened therefore hypothesis Z must be true

It all makes sense now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
I recommend the documentary 'Loose Change'. Basically it's a documentary proving why 9/11 was an inside job. It talks about both WTC and Pentagon attacks.
 
I just wrote this whole massive rebuttal but then deleted it because I couldn't believe I was even getting angry about some of the shit people believe here. I say 'some' shit because some of it's quite interesting but the vast majority of it just nuts.

For what it's worth, I'm open to a conspiracy but only if it involves it being run by a splinter cell of people. You couldn't organize the 1000's of people to set up bombing of buildings and demolitions without anyone knowing - like the 10'000's of people that work around there all day. I mean all the bomb experts and scaffolding guys and engineers....they would tell their wives/friends/parents I mean literally 1000's of people feeling guilty for killing innocents. It's just ridiculous.

Actually, now I think about it - it could really only be done by a group of terrorists that hi-jacked some planes. Is that a conspiracy theory yet?

 
Glacier said:
It's acceptance if the official version of events without question that is the the issue Sanders
If one were to look at the " facts" as we know them, the " facts" themselves are the pre cursor to more questions
For instance, if someone were to say to me that a plane hit the Pentagon and I answer " did it? Hell, I don't know and if so where is the plane" , if the answer is " I saw the wreckage and its official a plane hit the Pentagon and its proven and to suggest otherwise you are a nut, well the original need for proof still stands " show me wreckage of a plane"
You can show me a hole, you can show me fire, you can show me the official version, shit you can show me a dozen eye witnesses that say a plane hit, but I can show you photos, I can quote eye witnesses, I can show you no wreckage that shows a plane hit
Therefore, has it been proven that a plane hit?
No, not by a long shot
And with every " fact" about 9/11 that is held as gospel by some, there are many questions and evidence that at the very least puts those " facts" into question
Click to expand...

But that comes down to credibility & access to source data. You can't point to photos & know their origin, you can't point to "witnesses" and even know their authenticity.

You are too far away, too removed from any source material. Without that its just incredible Walter mitty stuff
 
Kellythatsit said:
It is unfortunate that some family members aren't satisfied with the conclusions of the 911 commission. But this is to be expected - especially with something as devastating as this.
Click to expand...


Unfortunate !! (that's a cheap shot) wouldn't cut it if my loved ones were killed and a F L A W E D investigation was conducted after much, much protest.

“We lost our son Bobby on September 11, 2001. The death of a child is a pain like no other, compounded by the fact that this wonderful young man was murdered. When a crime as heinous as this takes place, it is assumed that justice will be served and the perpetrators will be discovered and punished. Much to our dismay, this has not taken place. We only want the truth.” Bob Mcilvane
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top