9/11 Conspiracy Thread

#1,804
#1,804
Rasputin_Vol said:
Doesn't change the fact that the majority of attackers were Saudis.

This is a convenient time to dribble this alleged theory out here, since we are now heating up tensions with Iran. What better way to draw in more support for any future military actions (whether by the USA or Israelis) than to create a 911 narrative that includes Iran?

Odd that Israel and Saudi Arabia are not officially recognized as being involved, yet Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran were supposedly neck deep in the plot.

I'm not buying this Iran story.
Click to expand...
Gone back through this thread a little bit this morning.

What do you think happened on 9/11 then, if you don't buy the official story?

- The Twin Towers/Building 7...controlled demo? If so, who wired the buildings? How'd they do it with nobody knowing? In the rubble, wouldn't someone have found the charges or some type of physical evidence indicating it was wired and brought down? Such an operation would require hundreds of people...they all stay quiet?
- MIHOP or LIHOP? In either case, what was the motive? Some have posited it was so they could invade Iraq. If so, why were most of the hijackers and the head of the organization behind it Saudis? Why have guys from an "ally" of the United States pull off, or be framed, for the attack?
 
#1,805
#1,805
05_never_again said:
Gone back through this thread a little bit this morning.

What do you think happened on 9/11 then, if you don't buy the official story?

- The Twin Towers/Building 7...controlled demo? If so, who wired the buildings? How'd they do it with nobody knowing? In the rubble, wouldn't someone have found the charges or some type of physical evidence indicating it was wired and brought down? Such an operation would require hundreds of people...they all stay quiet?
- MIHOP or LIHOP? In either case, what was the motive? Some have posited it was so they could invade Iraq. If so, why were most of the hijackers and the head of the organization behind it Saudis? Why have guys from an "ally" of the United States pull off, or be framed, for the attack?
Click to expand...

I don’t know what “really” happened and neither do you.

I don’t believe the official story. Someone dropped the ball at .gov
 
#1,806
#1,806
Obsessed said:
I don’t know what “really” happened and neither do you.

I don’t believe the official story. Someone dropped the ball at .gov
Click to expand...
C'mon, that's no fun. "Someone dropped the ball at .gov." That can be said about everything single thing the government has done in its history. Not believing the official story is different from believing in a conspiracy. I'm not really sure anybody believes the "official story" word for word. There is a lot of CYA in the 9/11 Commission Report, and the involvement of Saudis in the plot, either from people officially representing their government or people connected to them, is downplayed or ignored.

That's why I asked Ras the question because throughout the thread he strongly seems to indicate he believes in a controlled demolition, but when pressed he backs off and says he doesn't really know what happened, or wants to stop talking about Tower 1 and 2 and talk about Building 7 instead.

I know nothing about engineering and am not versed enough in the topic to discuss the collapse of the buildings from either the official or conspiratorial perspective. Just logically speaking, it seems like something that would be impossible to pull off. And if you wanted a false flag to invade Iraq, couldn't they have come up with a plot with much fewer moving parts and just directly framed Saddam? Orchestrating 9/11 or letting it happen seems like a very inefficient and roundabout way to get what they were after, if that was the case.
 
#1,810
#1,810
05_never_again said:
Gone back through this thread a little bit this morning.

What do you think happened on 9/11 then, if you don't buy the official story?

- The Twin Towers/Building 7...controlled demo? If so, who wired the buildings? How'd they do it with nobody knowing? In the rubble, wouldn't someone have found the charges or some type of physical evidence indicating it was wired and brought down? Such an operation would require hundreds of people...they all stay quiet?
- MIHOP or LIHOP? In either case, what was the motive? Some have posited it was so they could invade Iraq. If so, why were most of the hijackers and the head of the organization behind it Saudis? Why have guys from an "ally" of the United States pull off, or be framed, for the attack?
Click to expand...

The military industrial complex.

Research Operation Northwoods.

Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia

WTC 7 was absolutely controlled demolition. No other explanation. It fell at free fall speed and was reported live on BBC by a reporter on location in NYC to have fallen approximately 20 minutes before it actually fell.

Larry Silverstein video interview where he talks of the decision to "pull it" when discussing WTC 7. Later tries to explain he meant pulling everyone (emergency personnel, etc) out of the building.

Mossad (Israeli intelligence) were posed as art students living/working in WTC1 for approximately 1 year prior to the attack.

In the period leading up to 9/11, a group of Israelis (non-U.S. citizens) managed to secure “temporary construction” passes to perform work on the 91st floor of Larry “pull it” Silverstein’s leased WTC 1. These passes gave them access to the entire WTC complex. The pretense was an art project called the “B-Thing” and the group is called Gelatin.
Click to expand...

World Trade Center’s Infamous 91st-Floor Israeli ‘Art Student’ Project

If you still believe that an aluminum frame airplane and jet fuel can cause those 2 buildings (both designed specifically to withstand a direct impact from a commercial airliner) to fall in the way that they fell (near freefall speed) then there is likely nothing I can say to change your mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#1,811
#1,811
05_never_again said:
C'mon, that's no fun. "Someone dropped the ball at .gov." That can be said about everything single thing the government has done in its history. Not believing the official story is different from believing in a conspiracy. I'm not really sure anybody believes the "official story" word for word. There is a lot of CYA in the 9/11 Commission Report, and the involvement of Saudis in the plot, either from people officially representing their government or people connected to them, is downplayed or ignored.

That's why I asked Ras the question because throughout the thread he strongly seems to indicate he believes in a controlled demolition, but when pressed he backs off and says he doesn't really know what happened, or wants to stop talking about Tower 1 and 2 and talk about Building 7 instead.

I know nothing about engineering and am not versed enough in the topic to discuss the collapse of the buildings from either the official or conspiratorial perspective. Just logically speaking, it seems like something that would be impossible to pull off. And if you wanted a false flag to invade Iraq, couldn't they have come up with a plot with much fewer moving parts and just directly framed Saddam? Orchestrating 9/11 or letting it happen seems like a very inefficient and roundabout way to get what they were after, if that was the case.
Click to expand...

Aren't you conveniently forgetting how long US troops have been deployed to Afghanistan?

Aren't you also conveniently forgetting the resulting legislation that reduced American citizens freedom due to fears stoked by the fires of the "war or terror"?

The patriot act was a key objective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#1,817
#1,817
AirVol said:
These pilots by no means were amateurs. Even pilots with more flying hours on these particular airframes have stated the odds of these pilots flying at 500mph and hitting their targets the first time with precision is nearly impossible.
Click to expand...



True, but the planes were not traveling at 500mph , that’s not possible at sea level, not at all, ask any commercial pilot.
The planes were flown by remote control, not an unexpierienced piper pilot
 
#1,818
#1,818
photovol said:
Kerosene doesn’t turn steel trusse’s into powder in mid air, wake up people
Click to expand...

Nano-thermite cuts through steel like a hot knife through butter.

Amazing how all of the dust at ground zero is full of nano-thermite and spores of molten iron.

Temperatures required to melt steel approaching 2500 F.

Jet fuel burns between 800 and 1500 F.

There was molten steel at ground zero. How did it get there? The molten steel smoldered through December of 2001. This isn't in dispute. What caused the steel to melt?
 
#1,819
#1,819
ajvol01 said:
Nano-thermite cuts through steel like a hot knife through butter.

Amazing how all of the dust at ground zero is full of nano-thermite and spores of molten iron.

Temperatures required to melt steel approaching 2500 F.

Jet fuel burns between 800 and 1500 F.

There was molten steel at ground zero. How did it get there? The molten steel smoldered through December of 2001. This isn't in dispute. What caused the steel to melt?
Click to expand...


The steel trusses were covered in aluminum and when melted would show as thermite, because that’s what thermite is, iron particles and aluminum particles mixed
Some think a directed energy weapon was responsible for the collapse, but
It was unequivocally, not from kerosene, but Americans can’t come to terms that 9/11 was an inside job, because it hurts to even conceive such a tragedy could be from our own government
 
#1,823
#1,823
ajvol01 said:
Nano-thermite cuts through steel like a hot knife through butter.

Amazing how all of the dust at ground zero is full of nano-thermite and spores of molten iron.

Temperatures required to melt steel approaching 2500 F.

Jet fuel burns between 800 and 1500 F.

There was molten steel at ground zero. How did it get there? The molten steel smoldered through December of 2001. This isn't in dispute. What caused the steel to melt?
Click to expand...
The steel doesn’t have to melt to lose a significant amount of its structural rigidity
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321 and InVOLuntary
#1,824
#1,824
Carl Pickens said:
The steel doesn’t have to melt to lose a significant amount of its structural rigidity
Click to expand...

I'm not saying steel has to melt to lose strength/rigidity.

I'm asking for someone to explain how some of the steel from WTC 1 and 2 became molten on 9/11.

What caused some of the steel to melt?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top