What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[BADecker]

If you look over history you see that War is made for profit. So what profit did the USA have to make a false flag (if they did)? I already know but if you can find that out then you'll be ready to cash in when the government does on this. Their plans have been delayed because of ISIS but now they're retaking fallujah right now and then onto mosul. So stay tuned.

The United States needed a reason to go back into Iraq. "We" are after the oil, and world conquest. Oil is abundant in the Middle East, and Iraq and Afghanistan hold some supremely stubborn people who don't give in to conquest almost at all.

Americans are a sympathetic lot. "We" the people wouldn't allow government to attack the ME without having a good reason. That reason was artificially made with the 9/11 inside job.

The ME conquest isn't working very well. But 9/11 was one of the attempts that the U.S. government made to try again.

[1714645049]

1714645049

[1714645049]

1714645049

[1714645049]

1714645049

[Spendulus]

A. That 9/11 was an inside job;

.....Let the SHEEPLE out there think that two airplanes knocked down the Twin Towers. A truther knows better. The rest of you are so naïve, so easily led astray. Your wrongness is almost comical. I LAUGH AT YOUR IGNORANCE HAHAHAHAHA I BET YOU HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN LOOSE CHANGE YET. ....

A truther is a rabid devotee of horseshit—someone who can take any imperfection in a tragic narrative and construct an iron mountain of garbage from it. And they’ll probably end up dooming us all.

Oh, I am so shocked at your disrespectful attitude!

Thanks again, Spendy. You seek to focus on truthers rather than the 9/11 incident. And all you do is dishonor anything other than the official story, even though you can't seem to find any way to rebut the points that:
1. The Towers were built to withstand the plane crashes;
2. There is little evidence that jet fuel heat played any part in weakening the Towers;
3. The coming down of the Towers matches that of demolition projects.

So it’s important for you, the average American, to be able to identify a truther out in the wild. They’re relatively easy to spot. (At least, Pete Carroll is.) They come in many different shapes (round, oblong) and sizes (large, extra large, Texas beef large) and colors (white, off white, mauve, cream, eggshell) and ages (old, really old, older than they really ought to look). But each truther is insane in his or her own unique way. Keep this handy field guide with you anytime you spot one sitting in a tree in your backyard.

http://disinfo.com/2014/10/field-guide-american-truthers/

And I am proud to be classified along with truthers. I mean, truth, is what we all are looking for. The official story obviously doesn't match what truth can be.

Sorry, Spendy. But thanks again for showing us your barbarous, vicious attacks on people when you can't rebut truther truth. It helps give truther credibility much more validity.

The modern truther is more than a simple nutjob conspiracy theorist. Being a truther means believing your truth to such an extent that you shun anyone who dares question it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNAaDKZ-SuE

[BADecker]

A. That 9/11 was an inside job;

.....Let the SHEEPLE out there think that two airplanes knocked down the Twin Towers. A truther knows better. The rest of you are so naïve, so easily led astray. Your wrongness is almost comical. I LAUGH AT YOUR IGNORANCE HAHAHAHAHA I BET YOU HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN LOOSE CHANGE YET. ....

A truther is a rabid devotee of horseshit—someone who can take any imperfection in a tragic narrative and construct an iron mountain of garbage from it. And they’ll probably end up dooming us all.

Oh, I am so shocked at your disrespectful attitude!

Thanks again, Spendy. You seek to focus on truthers rather than the 9/11 incident. And all you do is dishonor anything other than the official story, even though you can't seem to find any way to rebut the points that:
1. The Towers were built to withstand the plane crashes;
2. There is little evidence that jet fuel heat played any part in weakening the Towers;
3. The coming down of the Towers matches that of demolition projects.

So it’s important for you, the average American, to be able to identify a truther out in the wild. They’re relatively easy to spot. (At least, Pete Carroll is.) They come in many different shapes (round, oblong) and sizes (large, extra large, Texas beef large) and colors (white, off white, mauve, cream, eggshell) and ages (old, really old, older than they really ought to look). But each truther is insane in his or her own unique way. Keep this handy field guide with you anytime you spot one sitting in a tree in your backyard.

http://disinfo.com/2014/10/field-guide-american-truthers/

And I am proud to be classified along with truthers. I mean, truth, is what we all are looking for. The official story obviously doesn't match what truth can be.

Sorry, Spendy. But thanks again for showing us your barbarous, vicious attacks on people when you can't rebut truther truth. It helps give truther credibility much more validity.

The modern truther is more than a simple nutjob conspiracy theorist. Being a truther means believing your truth to such an extent that you shun anyone who dares question it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNAaDKZ-SuE

Notice how Spendy is making 9/11 truther info and thinking into a political thing rather than remaining even within 8th grade science?

What's the matter, Spendy? Truth hurts, doesn't it? It isn't supposed to. Why do you keep bashing your head against the wall of truther truth?

But thanks again for helping to prove the 9/11 inside job by not being able to back up your points with real science, or put down truther science with the same.

[yesiam6]

I dont think that it was an inside job
Imo it was just a terrorist attack

[Spendulus]

I dont think that it was an inside job
Imo it was just a terrorist attack

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2012/11/16/what_do_9_11_truthers_believe.html

9/11 truthers believe a lot of really stupid things that have either been debunked or are far beyond conceivable and always require that scores, hundreds or thousands of people, have successfully kept these things completely secret for more than a decade without a single whistle-blower coming forward.

WTC Collapse
9/11 truthers believe that there is some fundamental problem in explaining how the World Trade Center towers fell to the ground. "There wasn't enough jet fuel to weaken the steel." "There wasn't enough mass." "There wasn't enough fire."
mrogowsky

The analysis of the failure of the towers, however, explains what went wrong in great detail. I'm going to re-create most of this from memory—on purpose—to show you how easy it is to understand the collapse of those buildings.

Each tower gained most of its strength from a central core from which each floor was "hung," with additional strength provided from a series of smaller columns ringing each floor on the outside edge, not far from the windows.

The impact of an airplane would destroy a number of those outer columns immediately. Airplanes and their fuel are quite heavy, so the stress on the floor upon which the remaining fuselage and fuel-laden wings came to rest would be quite severe from a weight perspective. That wouldn't in and of itself destroy the floor, but it would put it under a great deal of stress.

Once some of the fuel caught fire and had plenty of material to burn through all the paper, office furniture, walls, etc., you'd have what amounted to an "endgame" for the buildings. Why? Because the fire would burn sufficiently hot enough to weaken the structural steel in enough of the remaining support columns on several floors. Over enough time, the attachment points joining the floors to the supports would give way and a small number of floors would collapse into the base of the fire where the plane wreckage already rested.

Now, you will have exceeded the weight capability of that base, also weakened by the fire. Once you have a critical mass of weight on any floor, the building is doomed. The overweight floor will fall to the next floor, making that floor similarly overweight, and so on, and so on. This "progressive collapse" will be catastrophic and nearly instant—as many witnessed on 9/11.

(It's important to realize that once any floor gives way, every single floor above it—and 100 percent of their mass—is now being accelerated by gravity. Once that package of stuff hits the floor below it, F=ma takes over and the time for the next floor to collapse goes from something to nothing. When you start to understand this, nonsensical theories about how "strong the lower floors had to be" make no sense whatsoever. You have 50 stories of building falling within just a few seconds and 80 stories of building falling seconds after that. The m in the equation is rising linearly and the F therefore is rising that much faster. By the time the 30th floor is compromised, well over half the mass of the tower is falling on it. By the time the lobby is compromised—which was a multi-story open space by the way—something north of 90 percent of the mass is falling on it. The strength of the floor below no longer provides resistance of any kind once the collapse is underway due to the ever-increasing mass approaching free-fall velocity.)

To the extent there is video footage of the collapse occurring, it completely backs up a version of events not dissimilar to this and aligned with what appears in the official reports. Structural engineers spent countless hours attempting to understand how the collapse could have occurred and how it happened so quickly.

The design of the WTC was reviewed to understand that the fire insulation was of a spray-on type that while sufficient for almost all normal events would likely have been almost instantly compromised by a plane crashing through the building. An actual understanding of the temperatures needed to weaken the steel would lead one to understand how the support columns could fail without one needing to prove there was some impossibly hot fire.

But 9/11 truthers don't bother with this. They explain simply: "The fire could not have done this, therefore it was done by bombs."

The Bomb Plot
The most ludicrous part of the 9/11 truther conspiracy theory is the inconsistency of it. It consists of numerous subspecies of nutjobbery involving foreign governments seizing the airplanes, missile strikes, etc. But since the WTC buildings unequivocally fell, the truthers have decided that they were brought down by "controlled demolition," presumably done by nefarious forces within our government.

To be clear, this would have required the kind of explosives normally used to bring down buildings slated for demolition, but on a scale rarely (if ever) employed by mankind. So for this theory to be true, the government must have brought in explosives by the truckload for days or weeks into the WTC, positioned them on nearly every floor, and done this without anyone noticing it or reporting it.

While this would be extraordinary in almost any building, it would have been especially so in WTC, which had been bombed by terrorists before, in 1993. You are talking literally tons of explosives being prepositioned in the building, placed all over, and ignored. Since explosives are typically wired together in part to allow for the series detonation (if you've ever seen an "implosion," you know what this looks like), they also would have needed to be linked together across the 110-floor layouts of the buildings.

Now, having done this, the government then also arranged for two commercial airlines to fly into the buildings within about an hour of each other, two other commercial airlines to be hijacked, and then detonated these explosives to bring down the buildings. Presumably, these hijacking and crashed planes were there to cover up the detonations.

But the plan—even as conceived—was so poorly arranged that the "real target" World Trade Center 7—had no airplane and was merely bombed by the government later in the day because of some secret government evidence that needed to be destroyed in its basement.

[Spendulus]

You got all that? Not just bombs. Bombs and planes. Or just bombs. And some extra planes going elsewhere. All a bunch of diversions.

Oh, and the purpose of all this vs. what the rest of us actually believe from the "it was just Al-Qaida and airplanes" version? There is no material difference. In other words, even if the government was behind this, it was sufficient to hire 19 young Arab patsies and use the planes. So why this nonsense with the explosives?

The Pentagon Missile
Even though there were hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people who witnessed an American Airlines passenger jet crashing into the Pentagon, truthers believe a missile hit the Pentagon. This was among the least important parts of the Pentagon. And there is evidence that the plane may well have been targeting the White House but diverted to the Pentagon when it quite possibly could not locate the White House from above.

There is further evidence that the last plane may have been targeting the Capitol before crashing over Pennsylvania, yet no missile was fired at the Capitol. If you believe no plane actually crashed into the Pentagon and the plane that allegedly did somehow disappeared elsewhere (again, the idea that it never took off is so far beyond the realm of the possible, that even conspiracy theorists can't go there), you have to wonder why the missile that was targeting the building of Flight 93 wasn't fired anyway (and the Flight 93 debris field just covered up by the government).

I hope you are keeping this all straight. ... Planes clearly disappeared that day (again, even conspiracy theorists cannot dispute this fact), missiles were fired at one of the least important parts of the Pentagon, thousands of tons of explosives were used in 2 of the 3 WTC buildings targeted by airplanes that thousands of people watched crash into ...

Occam's Razor is a Riddle Wrapped Inside an Enigma Surrounded by a Conundrum / Don't Ask, Don't Tell
The simplest solution, according to truthers, is for the weak minded and only the most complex, convoluted solution must be correct, no matter how bizarre and impossible it must be.

According to truthers, this missile-firing, building-bombing, plane-disappearing plan that was 9/11 happened. Surely, it must have involved thousands of people, right? They don't bother with this detail, but we can presume so. Some kind of navy vessel or aircraft was used to fire the missile. Some kind of explosives team was required to move thousands of pounds of explosives into the buildings. Some kind of special ops was needed to make the "Pentagon plane" disappear without a trace. And not one of these people has blown the whistle. Not one has written an anonymous note to a news organization or WikiLeaks or committed suicide explaining their role in this plot.

Not only was this the most elaborate conspiracy ever (think of how easy it was to position a guy on the grassy knoll to "kill JFK" by comparison), but no one has talked. Perhaps they too were all killed? Yet no one has said, "Why was my loved one killed? I think it's cause he knew the real truth about 9/11!"

In short, 9/11 truthers believe things that there is absolutely no reason to believe contain any truth whatsoever and certainly no important truth. They take details from the official reports that they don't understand and try to inflate them into "evidence" of a coverup.

[BADecker]

I dont think that it was an inside job
Imo it was just a terrorist attack

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2012/11/16/what_do_9_11_truthers_believe.html

9/11 truthers believe a lot of really stupid things that have either been debunked or are far beyond conceivable and always require that scores, hundreds or thousands of people, have successfully kept these things completely secret for more than a decade without a single whistle-blower coming forward.

WTC Collapse
9/11 truthers believe that there is some fundamental problem in explaining how the World Trade Center towers fell to the ground. "There wasn't enough jet fuel to weaken the steel." "There wasn't enough mass." "There wasn't enough fire."
mrogowsky

The analysis of the failure of the towers, however, explains what went wrong in great detail. I'm going to re-create most of this from memory—on purpose—to show you how easy it is to understand the collapse of those buildings.

Each tower gained most of its strength from a central core from which each floor was "hung," with additional strength provided from a series of smaller columns ringing each floor on the outside edge, not far from the windows.

The impact of an airplane would destroy a number of those outer columns immediately. Airplanes and their fuel are quite heavy, so the stress on the floor upon which the remaining fuselage and fuel-laden wings came to rest would be quite severe from a weight perspective. That wouldn't in and of itself destroy the floor, but it would put it under a great deal of stress.

Once some of the fuel caught fire and had plenty of material to burn through all the paper, office furniture, walls, etc., you'd have what amounted to an "endgame" for the buildings. Why? Because the fire would burn sufficiently hot enough to weaken the structural steel in enough of the remaining support columns on several floors. Over enough time, the attachment points joining the floors to the supports would give way and a small number of floors would collapse into the base of the fire where the plane wreckage already rested.

Now, you will have exceeded the weight capability of that base, also weakened by the fire. Once you have a critical mass of weight on any floor, the building is doomed. The overweight floor will fall to the next floor, making that floor similarly overweight, and so on, and so on. This "progressive collapse" will be catastrophic and nearly instant—as many witnessed on 9/11.

(It's important to realize that once any floor gives way, every single floor above it—and 100 percent of their mass—is now being accelerated by gravity. Once that package of stuff hits the floor below it, F=ma takes over and the time for the next floor to collapse goes from something to nothing. When you start to understand this, nonsensical theories about how "strong the lower floors had to be" make no sense whatsoever. You have 50 stories of building falling within just a few seconds and 80 stories of building falling seconds after that. The m in the equation is rising linearly and the F therefore is rising that much faster. By the time the 30th floor is compromised, well over half the mass of the tower is falling on it. By the time the lobby is compromised—which was a multi-story open space by the way—something north of 90 percent of the mass is falling on it. The strength of the floor below no longer provides resistance of any kind once the collapse is underway due to the ever-increasing mass approaching free-fall velocity.)

To the extent there is video footage of the collapse occurring, it completely backs up a version of events not dissimilar to this and aligned with what appears in the official reports. Structural engineers spent countless hours attempting to understand how the collapse could have occurred and how it happened so quickly.

The design of the WTC was reviewed to understand that the fire insulation was of a spray-on type that while sufficient for almost all normal events would likely have been almost instantly compromised by a plane crashing through the building. An actual understanding of the temperatures needed to weaken the steel would lead one to understand how the support columns could fail without one needing to prove there was some impossibly hot fire.

But 9/11 truthers don't bother with this. They explain simply: "The fire could not have done this, therefore it was done by bombs."

The Bomb Plot
The most ludicrous part of the 9/11 truther conspiracy theory is the inconsistency of it. It consists of numerous subspecies of nutjobbery involving foreign governments seizing the airplanes, missile strikes, etc. But since the WTC buildings unequivocally fell, the truthers have decided that they were brought down by "controlled demolition," presumably done by nefarious forces within our government.

To be clear, this would have required the kind of explosives normally used to bring down buildings slated for demolition, but on a scale rarely (if ever) employed by mankind. So for this theory to be true, the government must have brought in explosives by the truckload for days or weeks into the WTC, positioned them on nearly every floor, and done this without anyone noticing it or reporting it.

While this would be extraordinary in almost any building, it would have been especially so in WTC, which had been bombed by terrorists before, in 1993. You are talking literally tons of explosives being prepositioned in the building, placed all over, and ignored. Since explosives are typically wired together in part to allow for the series detonation (if you've ever seen an "implosion," you know what this looks like), they also would have needed to be linked together across the 110-floor layouts of the buildings.

Now, having done this, the government then also arranged for two commercial airlines to fly into the buildings within about an hour of each other, two other commercial airlines to be hijacked, and then detonated these explosives to bring down the buildings. Presumably, these hijacking and crashed planes were there to cover up the detonations.

But the plan—even as conceived—was so poorly arranged that the "real target" World Trade Center 7—had no airplane and was merely bombed by the government later in the day because of some secret government evidence that needed to be destroyed in its basement.

You got all that? Not just bombs. Bombs and planes. Or just bombs. And some extra planes going elsewhere. All a bunch of diversions.

Oh, and the purpose of all this vs. what the rest of us actually believe from the "it was just Al-Qaida and airplanes" version? There is no material difference. In other words, even if the government was behind this, it was sufficient to hire 19 young Arab patsies and use the planes. So why this nonsense with the explosives?

The Pentagon Missile
Even though there were hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people who witnessed an American Airlines passenger jet crashing into the Pentagon, truthers believe a missile hit the Pentagon. This was among the least important parts of the Pentagon. And there is evidence that the plane may well have been targeting the White House but diverted to the Pentagon when it quite possibly could not locate the White House from above.

There is further evidence that the last plane may have been targeting the Capitol before crashing over Pennsylvania, yet no missile was fired at the Capitol. If you believe no plane actually crashed into the Pentagon and the plane that allegedly did somehow disappeared elsewhere (again, the idea that it never took off is so far beyond the realm of the possible, that even conspiracy theorists can't go there), you have to wonder why the missile that was targeting the building of Flight 93 wasn't fired anyway (and the Flight 93 debris field just covered up by the government).

I hope you are keeping this all straight. ... Planes clearly disappeared that day (again, even conspiracy theorists cannot dispute this fact), missiles were fired at one of the least important parts of the Pentagon, thousands of tons of explosives were used in 2 of the 3 WTC buildings targeted by airplanes that thousands of people watched crash into ...

Occam's Razor is a Riddle Wrapped Inside an Enigma Surrounded by a Conundrum / Don't Ask, Don't Tell
The simplest solution, according to truthers, is for the weak minded and only the most complex, convoluted solution must be correct, no matter how bizarre and impossible it must be.

According to truthers, this missile-firing, building-bombing, plane-disappearing plan that was 9/11 happened. Surely, it must have involved thousands of people, right? They don't bother with this detail, but we can presume so. Some kind of navy vessel or aircraft was used to fire the missile. Some kind of explosives team was required to move thousands of pounds of explosives into the buildings. Some kind of special ops was needed to make the "Pentagon plane" disappear without a trace. And not one of these people has blown the whistle. Not one has written an anonymous note to a news organization or WikiLeaks or committed suicide explaining their role in this plot.

Not only was this the most elaborate conspiracy ever (think of how easy it was to position a guy on the grassy knoll to "kill JFK" by comparison), but no one has talked. Perhaps they too were all killed? Yet no one has said, "Why was my loved one killed? I think it's cause he knew the real truth about 9/11!"

In short, 9/11 truthers believe things that there is absolutely no reason to believe contain any truth whatsoever and certainly no important truth. They take details from the official reports that they don't understand and try to inflate them into "evidence" of a coverup.

I respect that you believe what you suggest you believe. And that you believe it sincerely. This little forum isn't going to be enough to present the points necessary to prove things one way or another. Even the official story isn't sufficient enough for that... lacking facts, and making assumptions.

Opposition to the official story doesn't prove anything either... except that the official story is supposed to be based on fact, but it isn't. Because of this, the opposition has a great big head start in showing that the official story is wrong, if indeed it is wrong as it appears to be.

Let me repeat. The official story isn't based in fact, but those who accept it as truth say it is, while the opposition shows that it isn't. The opposition doesn't have the facts either, but the thing that they show is that the official story isn't factual, even though the "officials" say that it is factual.

This means that the opposition is one major step ahead.

[tvbcof]

I respect that you believe what you suggest you believe. And that you believe it sincerely. ...

Bull.  Spendy doesn't personally believe the shit he's spewing.  If you 'respect' him it is almost certain that he doesn't respect you.  We are left to elucidate why he does what he does, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter much as this forum and Spendy and you and I and the rest of us are little specs of dust in a dusty corner of the net/matrix here.

[BADecker]

I respect that you believe what you suggest you believe. And that you believe it sincerely. ...

Bull.  Spendy doesn't personally believe the shit he's spewing.  If you 'respect' him it is almost certain that he doesn't respect you.  We are left to elucidate why he does what he does, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter much as this forum and Spendy and you and I and the rest of us are little specs of dust in a dusty corner of the net/matrix here.

Oh, you are right. Spendy was playing on my honest nature, and I was falling for it. Thanks for straightening me out.

[techgeek]

If you look over history you see that War is made for profit. So what profit did the USA have to make a false flag (if they did)? I already know but if you can find that out then you'll be ready to cash in when the government does on this. Their plans have been delayed because of ISIS but now they're retaking fallujah right now and then onto mosul. So stay tuned.

The United States needed a reason to go back into Iraq. "We" are after the oil, and world conquest. Oil is abundant in the Middle East, and Iraq and Afghanistan hold some supremely stubborn people who don't give in to conquest almost at all.

Americans are a sympathetic lot. "We" the people wouldn't allow government to attack the ME without having a good reason. That reason was artificially made with the 9/11 inside job.

The ME conquest isn't working very well. But 9/11 was one of the attempts that the U.S. government made to try again.

This is pretty much how US history does international trade.

I mean you can look back on how we did in world war 2 - esp making a trade route with the british help only based on certain conditions met. Which is what we already did in iraq and kuwait.

The nature of giving enough probable cause to the mass - for a reason war being acceptable is the medias part and problem which promotes all this as well.

[BADecker]

If you look over history you see that War is made for profit. So what profit did the USA have to make a false flag (if they did)? I already know but if you can find that out then you'll be ready to cash in when the government does on this. Their plans have been delayed because of ISIS but now they're retaking fallujah right now and then onto mosul. So stay tuned.

The United States needed a reason to go back into Iraq. "We" are after the oil, and world conquest. Oil is abundant in the Middle East, and Iraq and Afghanistan hold some supremely stubborn people who don't give in to conquest almost at all.

Americans are a sympathetic lot. "We" the people wouldn't allow government to attack the ME without having a good reason. That reason was artificially made with the 9/11 inside job.

The ME conquest isn't working very well. But 9/11 was one of the attempts that the U.S. government made to try again.

This is pretty much how US history does international trade.

I mean you can look back on how we did in world war 2 - esp making a trade route with the british help only based on certain conditions met. Which is what we already did in iraq and kuwait.

The nature of giving enough probable cause to the mass - for a reason war being acceptable is the medias part and problem which promotes all this as well.

Do you have any idea when they are going to revalue the Iraqi Dinar like they did the Kuwaiti Dinar? Few people knew about the coming Kuwaiti Dinar revaluation back then. But when it came, they had invested, and became rich(er). We have been waiting for like 15 years for the Iraqi Dinar revaluation. And there's a lot more investors this time.

When?

[Spendulus]

http://extruther.blogspot.com/

...The truthers' misrepresentation of Silverstein's quote is one of the most popular "facts" to spit out, but in doing so, you are effectively in agreement that firefighters were not only involved in the controlled demolition of WTC7, but they are also aiding and abetting in the government's cover-up. Yeah, every firefighter who was out there on 9/11 is going to be complicit in the MURDER OF 343 OF THEIR FALLEN BROTHERS! To quote Loose Change co-creator Jason Bermas, "the firefighters are paid off."

This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, "mutha fuckin bitch ass money." Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach.

Some may think that this is just a big personal attack, and that I'm not presenting enough facts. I honestly don't give a fuck because the information is out there. I love how all the truthers, myself included for a time, brag about how they've done all the "research." Well my friends, research doesn't involve looking exclusively at other 9/11 conspiracy sites! Research involves looking at things from both sides of the spectrum, and making your own decisions. Check out the links I've listed above, or google "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" and "Screw Loose Change."

Controlled demolitions: absolute bullshit....

[Nevis]

More than 15 years passed after 9/11 disaster.
After 9/11 Coalition Forces occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. More than 1,5 million people died. Iraq regime collapsed with Saddam's dicta.
Coalition Forces encashed even every single bullet's price from Iraqi Puppet Government.
If we think today,  who get benefit from 9/11 and who lost, i leave it to your imagination and mind.
It was a terrorist attack?
There are many suspicious points
What about flight number 11, 175 and number 73 passengers hit Pentagon?
There are so many questions
Are you satisfied for explanations?
Actually what, happened there?

I dont believe that it was a terrorist attack. It was all planned by America to make those mentioned Arab countries take the blame. After which they could attack those countries and take over while their main intention is taking their oil and become a shadow government to those countries.

[BADecker]

<>

Controlled demolitions: absolute bullshit....

Controlled demolition is the ONLY way buildings EVER collapse into their own footprint, especially at near free fall rates of speed. And especially buildings as tall as the Towers. This is reasonably common knowledge.

[Spendulus]

I dont believe that it was a terrorist attack. It was all planned by America to make those mentioned Arab countries take the blame. After which they could attack those countries and take over while their main intention is taking their oil and become a shadow government to those countries.

Actually what the US people have done in the last 15 years, with little help from their government, was to develop fracking technology which is what puts the US in a unique position regarding oil today.

Regardless, "taking their oil" is a silly proposition.  Oil is fungible and is sold on the world market on a competitive bidding basis.  There were no long lines of tankers going to IRAQ from the USA to load up on "the oil the US took."

I'm certain there are enough real things to dislike about the USA without having to make some up.

[BADecker]

I dont believe that it was a terrorist attack. It was all planned by America to make those mentioned Arab countries take the blame. After which they could attack those countries and take over while their main intention is taking their oil and become a shadow government to those countries.

Actually what the US people have done in the last 15 years, with little help from their government, was to develop fracking technology which is what puts the US in a unique position regarding oil today.

Regardless, "taking their oil" is a silly proposition.  Oil is fungible and is sold on the world market on a competitive bidding basis.  There were no long lines of tankers going to IRAQ from the USA to load up on "the oil the US took."

I'm certain there are enough real things to dislike about the USA without having to make some up.

In the same way that the 9/11 inside job is coming out into the open for what it is, even so the oil glut is coming out into the open for what IT is. Neither of these inside-job conspiracies are remaining hidden.


Stunning Map: Oil Supply Glut Leads To Massive Tanker Traffic Jam...

While oil prices have jumped about 50% in recent weeks, there appears to be no real reason for the move other than pure speculation and billion-dollar market cash infusions from unknown plunge protection teams.

But as the mainstream media continues to tout non-existent reduction agreements between oil producing nations, the following evidence suggests that the world remains awash in oil, so much so that there is no space to store it… anywhere on earth.

The following report from Zero Hedge explains just how much oil is currently sitting in limbo while suppliers try to figure out what to do with it:

Last week we revealed what we thought was a "shocking photo" of nearly 30 oil tankers caught in a traffic jam off the Iraqi coast, an indication of just how much excess oil is currently parked offshore.

Read more at http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/stunning-map-oil-supply-glut-leads-to-massive-tanker-traffic-jam-would-stretch-for-25-miles_04142016.

[BADecker]

I dont believe that it was a terrorist attack. It was all planned by America to make those mentioned Arab countries take the blame. After which they could attack those countries and take over while their main intention is taking their oil and become a shadow government to those countries.

Actually what the US people have done in the last 15 years, with little help from their government, was to develop fracking technology which is what puts the US in a unique position regarding oil today.

Regardless, "taking their oil" is a silly proposition.  Oil is fungible and is sold on the world market on a competitive bidding basis.  There were no long lines of tankers going to IRAQ from the USA to load up on "the oil the US took."

I'm certain there are enough real things to dislike about the USA without having to make some up.

In the same way that the 9/11 inside job is coming out into the open for what it is, even so the oil glut is coming out into the open for what IT is. Neither of these inside-job conspiracies are remaining hidden.

<>

Read more at http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/stunning-map-oil-supply-glut-leads-to-massive-tanker-traffic-jam-would-stretch-for-25-miles_04142016.

Further, everything that is being done on worldwide scales is to further the big banking Ponzi scheme that rules the world.

No longer are there enough people in the world, that if they ALL simply entered the Ponzi and started to use debt money, that they could keep the Ponzi afloat. To remedy this, the world banks use all kinds of behind-the-scenes deals to create new money for the Ponzi. The whole 911/Iraq/Afghanistan thing, the whole potential-war-with-foreign-nations thing, all have to do with keeping the banking Ponzi from crashing.

As long as nobody is really hurt from the Ponzi things might be okay. The problem is, masses of people are being hurt. Look at all the people killed in the 9/11 plot. And there are more and more people being hurt or killed all around the world, just so the bankers can keep their Ponzi going, and migrate into positions of direct dictatorship around the world, if at all possible.

Well, their Ponzi is failing. It is going to crash. The question is, how much turmoil will it all cause? How many more people will be hurt and killed? Prepare while you can. Money won't matter when the crash comes. Get yourself some fertile land with good water, and some true friends with lots of guns and ammo, all working together to protect each other on the land.

[Spendulus]

I dont believe that it was a terrorist attack. It was all planned by America to make those mentioned Arab countries take the blame. After which they could attack those countries and take over while their main intention is taking their oil and become a shadow government to those countries.

Actually what the US people have done in the last 15 years, with little help from their government, was to develop fracking technology which is what puts the US in a unique position regarding oil today.

Regardless, "taking their oil" is a silly proposition.  Oil is fungible and is sold on the world market on a competitive bidding basis.  There were no long lines of tankers going to IRAQ from the USA to load up on "the oil the US took."

I'm certain there are enough real things to dislike about the USA without having to make some up.

In the same way that the 9/11 inside job is coming out into the open for what it is, even so the oil glut is coming out into the open for what IT is. Neither of these inside-job conspiracies are remaining hidden.


Stunning Map: Oil Supply Glut Leads To Massive Tanker Traffic Jam...

While oil prices have jumped about 50% in recent weeks, there appears to be no real reason for the move other than pure speculation and billion-dollar market cash infusions from unknown plunge protection teams.

But as the mainstream media continues to tout non-existent reduction agreements between oil producing nations, the following evidence suggests that the world remains awash in oil, so much so that there is no space to store it… anywhere on earth.

The following report from Zero Hedge explains just how much oil is currently sitting in limbo while suppliers try to figure out what to do with it:

Last week we revealed what we thought was a "shocking photo" of nearly 30 oil tankers caught in a traffic jam off the Iraqi coast, an indication of just how much excess oil is currently parked offshore.

Read more at http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/stunning-map-oil-supply-glut-leads-to-massive-tanker-traffic-jam-would-stretch-for-25-miles_04142016.

Nothing at all unusual about tankers (or container ships) parked at sea.

[Semidetached]

If you look over history you see that War is made for profit. So what profit did the USA have to make a false flag (if they did)? I already know but if you can find that out then you'll be ready to cash in when the government does on this. Their plans have been delayed because of ISIS but now they're retaking fallujah right now and then onto mosul. So stay tuned.

The United States needed a reason to go back into Iraq. "We" are after the oil, and world conquest. Oil is abundant in the Middle East, and Iraq and Afghanistan hold some supremely stubborn people who don't give in to conquest almost at all.

Americans are a sympathetic lot. "We" the people wouldn't allow government to attack the ME without having a good reason. That reason was artificially made with the 9/11 inside job.

The ME conquest isn't working very well. But 9/11 was one of the attempts that the U.S. government made to try again.

To think it is the oil the US is after is naive. There are bigger things at play than some oil reserves, although they are significant.

[BADecker]

If you look over history you see that War is made for profit. So what profit did the USA have to make a false flag (if they did)? I already know but if you can find that out then you'll be ready to cash in when the government does on this. Their plans have been delayed because of ISIS but now they're retaking fallujah right now and then onto mosul. So stay tuned.

The United States needed a reason to go back into Iraq. "We" are after the oil, and world conquest. Oil is abundant in the Middle East, and Iraq and Afghanistan hold some supremely stubborn people who don't give in to conquest almost at all.

Americans are a sympathetic lot. "We" the people wouldn't allow government to attack the ME without having a good reason. That reason was artificially made with the 9/11 inside job.

The ME conquest isn't working very well. But 9/11 was one of the attempts that the U.S. government made to try again.

To think it is the oil the US is after is naive. There are bigger things at play than some oil reserves, although they are significant.

Right.

First, it is not the U.S. It is some crooked bankers and the people they control who are using government.

Second, here's what they are after, from a post of mine three posts up:

<>

Further, everything that is being done on worldwide scales is to further the big banking Ponzi scheme that rules the world.

No longer are there enough people in the world, that if they ALL simply entered the Ponzi and started to use debt money, that they could keep the Ponzi afloat. To remedy this, the world banks use all kinds of behind-the-scenes deals to create new money for the Ponzi. The whole 911/Iraq/Afghanistan thing, the whole potential-war-with-foreign-nations thing, all have to do with keeping the banking Ponzi from crashing.

As long as nobody is really hurt from the Ponzi things might be okay. The problem is, masses of people are being hurt. Look at all the people killed in the 9/11 plot. And there are more and more people being hurt or killed all around the world, just so the bankers can keep their Ponzi going, and migrate into positions of direct dictatorship around the world, if at all possible.

Well, their Ponzi is failing. It is going to crash. The question is, how much turmoil will it all cause? How many more people will be hurt and killed? Prepare while you can. Money won't matter when the crash comes. Get yourself some fertile land with good water, and some true friends with lots of guns and ammo, all working together to protect each other on the land.