Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Building 7 had been evacuated. There were no deaths from the fire. A controlled demolition by the FD would make sense if the building had been condemned. The theory of setting up the explosive charges prior to the crash date doesn't make sense.
It will only take 2 or 3 minutes, you should read the article the OP posted. Take what you will from it but you should read it. it contradicts what you say. Notice who he says had almost the entire building rented. CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: 'We Blew Up WTC 7 On 9/11'
Perhaps some aren't aware of the gold and silver vaults below the WTC complex. Adds another interesting twist to the entire situation. Mainstream media didn't mention it much except in NYC.
I could go on and on with links. Sure the fact thousands of people were killed by terrorists on 9/11 got more attention than $200 million in gold and silver under the WTC which was recovered and returned to Comex despite the fake news that it was stolen.
Modern day conspiracy nuts were probably the first to scream "witch!", back in the day.
I disagree. I think it's just as likely that they were the ones first questioning the mainstream "witch" narrative that the masses had been fed.
--------------------------------------
I would just point out that the official story is itself a conspiracy theory. The theory is that 19 Saudies conspired to hijack jetliners.
--------------------------------------
Anyway, I'm more concerned with the soft conspiring that takes years and extends into the future and hides behind the guise of benevolent social engineering and the Internet of Things and security.
The nut cases will soon be telling us there was a pizza joint in the WTC that Hillary Clinton was using for her human trafficking for a child sex ring and that the people who worked in the towers knew about it and were all taken out by the Clintons' death squad in one fell swoop so they could not expose it.
I disagree. I think it's just as likely that they were the ones questioning the mainstream "witch" narrative that the masses had been fed.
--------------------------------------
I would just point out that the official story is itself a conspiracy theory. The theory is that 19 Saudies conspired to hijack jetliners.
--------------------------------------
Anyway, I'm more concerned with the soft conspiring that takes years and extends into the future and hides behind the guise of social engineering and the Internet of Things.
It stopped because the masses tired of it. Accusations typically seem to have come from vindictive people, with an axe to grind -conspiracy nuts.
Your use of theory in the second sentence, isn't correct -it was a conspiracy, but there is no theory about it.
I disagree. I think it's just as likely that they were the ones first questioning the mainstream "witch" narrative that the masses had been fed.
--------------------------------------
I would just point out that the official story is itself a conspiracy theory. The theory is that 19 Saudies conspired to hijack jetliners.
--------------------------------------
Anyway, I'm more concerned with the soft conspiring that takes years and extends into the future and hides behind the guise of benevolent social engineering and the Internet of Things and security.
It is healthy to have skepticism and question things. But the combination of being gullible and paranoid is not.
I could go on and on with links. Sure the fact thousands of people were killed by terrorists on 9/11 got more attention than $200 million in gold and silver under the WTC which was recovered and returned to Comex despite the fake news that it was stolen.
Hey Jack - wow, you dug around and found some stories online. If I walked down the street and asked 20 random people (or even my friends) whether they knew about gold vaults under the WTC, I guarantee you a total of 0 or 1 would say they knew that. So, I stand by what I said. It was not covered widely.
And I stated nothing about it being stolen. Rather, LOL, clearly it had been removed. How convenient was that?
Everyone is along a spectrum, right? Everyone is in-between "...aliens, 9/11 was an inside job, illuminati..." and "...the government has never and would never lie or obfuscate or deceive and is completely transparent about everything..."
Right? We're all somewhere in the middle of these two extremes? Is there anyone here who believes we have all the information about everything at every point and that there's no such thing as state collusion to meddle or experiment or bring about an outcome that isn't revealed explicitly to the populace?
So assuming you're not, how do you personally pick and choose what to think and believe about what is real and true? No, of course falling hook, line, and sinker for every crazy combination of words that contends something without requiring a preponderence of evidence and sufficient thought is not rational. But neither is dismissing every idea completely out of hand with disparaging words and a seeming unassailable trust that we know everything.
I don't have a strong opinion on 9/11 (other than that it has been the catalyst / wedge for some awful changes and increases in state power in this country and the Western world in general). And there's a decent chance this deathbed confessional didn't happen. But beyond that, all I'm saying is that I think going further to demonize someone who's pondering this or some other activity with caustic or sneering language is a little much.
Everyone is along a spectrum, right? Everyone is in-between "...aliens, 9/11 was an inside job, illuminati..." and "...the government has never and would never lie or obfuscate or deceive and is completely transparent about everything..."
Right? We're all somewhere in the middle of these two extremes? Is there anyone here who believes we have all the information about everything at every point and that there's no such thing as state collusion to meddle or experiment or bring about an outcome that isn't revealed explicitly to the populace?
So assuming you're not, how do you personally pick and choose what to think and believe about what is real and true? No, of course falling hook, line, and sinker for every crazy combination of words that contends something without requiring a preponderence of evidence and sufficient thought is not rational. But neither is dismissing every idea completely out of hand with disparaging words and a seeming unassailable trust that we know everything.
I don't have a strong opinion on 9/11 (other than that it has been the catalyst / wedge for some awful changes and increases in state power in this country and the Western world in general). And there's a decent chance this deathbed confessional didn't happen. But beyond that, all I'm saying is that I think going further to demonize someone who's pondering this or some other activity with caustic or sneering language is a little much.
Conspiracy nuts don't seem to ponder though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
