War on terrorism , 9-11, Iluminati etc

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 9:15pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

clearly you have done very little research on 911 so ill end our conversation here and with this.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/22/usa.september11

enjoy the read if the guardian is a reputable enough source for you. peace

There's a lot, lot more here - http://www.911myths.com/index.php/ISI_funding_of_the_attacks

First, the core claim that Sheikh wired anything at all to Atta is not the proven fact that some would have you believe. Sources involved here may have their own agendas, and there is contradictory information about the evidence involved. We're maybe 51/49 in favour of a transfer occurring, but it's very uncertain.

Second, if there was a transfer, there’s far less confirmation of the idea that Mahmoud Ahmad was involved at all than is generally accepted. Many of the sources commonly cited are simply references to the original India Times story. There are other sources, but they often present new problems of their own.

Third, the stories that do say Ahmad was behind the transfer provide no clear explanation as to how they’ve done this. You can start with “Ahmad called Sheikh frequently around the time of the transfer”, but that’s not actually proof that “Ahmad ordered Sheikh to transfer $100,000 to Atta”, and definitely not the occasional interpretation that “Ahmad was the money man behind the 9/11 attacks”.

Fourth, even if we accept the “Ahmad ordered Sheikh...” claim, there’s no evidence to show that the decision to do this was made by anyone other than Mahmoud Ahmad himself. And if it’s claimed that Ahmad is more than a “rogue general” then such evidence will be necessary, especially as there are alternative accounts suggesting he was sympathetic to Islamist causes.

Fifth, attempts to suggest that “close links” between the ISI and CIA mean that the US must, or even are likely to have known what Ahmad was doing beforehand, are little more than conjecture and guesswork.

And sixth, while most discussions of Ahmad’s dismissal might leave you thinking he was the only one to leave, it seems many other hardline Islamist officers were removed at the same time. And so it’s not necessary to devise any special explanation for his departure, for example to prevent investigations into his supposed 9/11 links.

The impression we get from all this is of a story that gets considerably less reliable, as you move away from wire transfer itself.

Did Sheikh transfer money to Atta, for instance? That’s a definite possibility.

But was he ordered to do so by General Ahmad? We have Indian sources saying he did, although there’s no evidence to back that up. Confirmation elsewhere is slim.

Enjoy.

Saipanne · 29-01-2015 9:17pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

There's a lot, lot more here - http://www.911myths.com/index.php/ISI_funding_of_the_attacks

Enjoy.

Sick burn.

brandnewaward · 29-01-2015 9:33pm

BertMark wrote: »

Yeah, you've just totally dodged my question there. But you've still managed to strengthen my argument because you now claim it wasn't just one BBC reporter, it was "all sorts of first responders" also in on it. Where are these hundreds of clips? And I presume of these clips there's absolutely no plausible explanation other than a conspiracy? Like maybe bad information or panic amid chaos? Or perhaps the people sharing them as "proof" aren't being totally honest about the exact time they were filmed?

never said a low level BBC reporter was in on anything , just pointed out she obviously was singing from the hymn sheet she was given. as for all the first responder accounts , they were all completely ignored by the 9-11 commission report , plenty of literature out there. i know that the whole affair is a lie too big to hide ,but the story that a guy in a cave in Afghanistan , directed 19 guys to take over 4 jets with Stanley knives, outfox the most sophisticated air defense network and the worlds most intrusive intelligence agency , have 4 untrained pilots take control of large passenger aircraft , perform complex turns and precisely guide the jets to the targets, and two structures that were built to withstand multiple jet strikes (coincidentally , the only two steel structures to ever collapse due to fire) , fell within 20 minutes of each other........i think that's the conspiracy. actually , whatever happened to all the wreckage from the plane that hit the pentagon? i think the official line was that it was all vaporised..

Wurzelbert · 29-01-2015 9:40pm

brandnewaward wrote: »

[...]have 4 untrained pilots take control of large passenger aircraft , perform complex turns and precisely guide the jets to the targets[...]

so who did pilot them in? suicidal usaf volunteers? w. and dick themselves? rc?

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 9:53pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

There's a lot, lot more here - http://www.911myths.com/index.php/ISI_funding_of_the_attacks

Enjoy.

so a website set up specifically to debunk is acceptable proof? but mainstream media isnt.. isnt it normally the other way around with you guys? or is it only when the occasion suits?

also

Did Sheikh transfer money to Atta, for instance? That’s a definite possibility.

But was he ordered to do so by General Ahmad? We have Indian sources saying he did, although there’s no evidence to back that up. Confirmation elsewhere is slim.

so basically, it could have happened. so why wasnt it investigated more?

brandnewaward · 29-01-2015 9:55pm

Wurzelbert wrote: »

so who did pilot them in? suicidal usaf volunteers? w. and dick themselves? rc?

who knows?could very much be remote controlled. Operation northwoods 30 yrs previous called for military aircraft made to look like civilian aircraft to attack targets in Florida.im not offering answers here , just saying that the official story throws up far more questions than it explains anything

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 9:57pm

brandnewaward wrote: »

who knows?could very much be remote controlled. Operation northwoods 30 yrs previous called for military aircraft made to look like civilian aircraft to attack targets in Florida.im not offering answers here , just saying that the official story throws up far more questions than it explains anything

remote is a definite possibility, boeing had remote control before 911.

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 9:57pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

so a website set up specifically to debunk is acceptable proof?

So the opinion of one British MP expressed in 2004 is more authoritative than a site that explores everything in enormous depth? I'm not sure why you think that opinion pieces in the Grauniad are so authoritative.

And the site is also part of the conspiracy that you will not elaborate on?

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 9:59pm

brandnewaward wrote: »

just saying that the official story throws up far more questions than it explains anything

Unfortunately, the conspiracy theories throw up an infinity more questions, and expect you to swallow completely ludicrous ideas.

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 10:02pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

So the opinion of one British MP expressed in 2004 is more authoritative than a site that explores everything in enormous depth? I'm not sure why you think that opinion pieces in the Grauniad are so authoritative.

And the site is also part of the conspiracy that you will not elaborate on?

the site has debunked many myths. many i never believed in the first place.

but it doesnt debunk the general being involved. it says that it could have happened, it cites sources saying it did but says there is lack of evidence.. evidence a proper investigation may or may not have uncovered.

you have merely given me a piece of writing that comes to the same no-answer conclusion that i already have done.

ScumLord · 29-01-2015 10:02pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i know as much about what really happened as you do. ie, nothing.

For someone who says they know nothing your putting up a lot of information.

why was 80% of the evidence not examined?

Whos says only 20% of the evidence was examined? It seems like a strange number for the investigation team to come up with, although I could think of a number of reasons why the majority of it wouldn't be. They're hardly going to study every single brick and door handle they come across.

why was Pakistani General Mahmoud Ahmad on capital hill as a guest of the US government ON the morning of sept 11th, after wiring $100,000 to lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta?

WEll as it's already been pointed out there's no actual prove he did wire the money and outside of that I'd assume he was there doing his job.

why were the pages on Saudi Arabia redacted when most of the hijackers were Saudi?

NAtional security I'd imagine.

why did Dick Cheney refuse to give an intercept order when the 'plane' was about to hit the pentagon? and why was that left out of the official report?

Did he actually refuse, did someone suggest he should shoot down a passenger plane? At that time hijackers weren't exactly known for flying planes into things so he wouldn't have been expected to shoot it down.

why is it, when some high body count events happen, the authorities happen to be running a similiar training scenario that just happens to excuse the lack of response? 911. london bombings, boston marathon..

Authorities tend to run training programs constantly, that one was running around the time of heightened security alerts isn't at all surprising.

You also seem to be making the mistake of judging security measures of the time (Pre 9/11) by security measures that were set up because of 9/11 that we have today. It was a lot easier to fly on planes and travel pre 9/11. It's not surprising that security was lax back then.

EDIT: On untrained pilots flying planes, just go out and buy yourself microsoft flight simulator and you too can learn how to fly planes.

Wurzelbert · 29-01-2015 10:02pm

brandnewaward wrote: »

who knows?could very much be remote controlled. Operation northwoods 30 yrs previous called for military aircraft made to look like civilian aircraft to attack targets in Florida.im not offering answers here , just saying that the official story throws up far more questions than it explains anything

okay, yeah, rc technically no prob of course...but all the passengers? the folks at the airport?

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 10:07pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

the site has debunked many myths. many i never believed in the first place.

but it doesnt debunk the general being involved. it says that it could have happened, it cites sources saying it did but says there is lack of evidence.. evidence a proper investigation may or may not have uncovered.

you have merely given me a piece of writing that comes to the same no-answer conclusion that i already have done.

You cannot prove a negative.

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 10:08pm

Wurzelbert wrote: »

okay, yeah, rc technically no prob of course...but all the passengers? the folks at the airport?

Maybe all their relatives are fake too, like the conspiracy theorists say every time there's a mass killing in the US...

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 10:16pm

ScumLord wrote: »

For someone who says they know nothing your putting up a lot of information.

ive put up questions with information that ive backed up. reading an article doesnt make me 'know' but it will make me question.

Whos says only 20% of the evidence was examined? It seems like a strange number for the investigation team to come up with, although I could think of a number of reasons why the majority of it wouldn't be. They're hardly going to study every single brick and door handle they come across.

the link i gave cites the ny times as source.

WEll as it's already been pointed out there's no actual prove he did wire the money and outside of that I'd assume he was there doing his job.

again, we'd know this had it been investigated. there was enough question on the matter to warrant it.

NAtional security I'd imagine.

very easy to tag anything under national security. the gulf of tonkin incident was hidden behind 'national security' for a very long time.

Did he actually refuse, did someone suggest he should shoot down a passenger plane? At that time hijackers weren't exactly known for flying planes into things so he wouldn't have been expected to shoot it down.

the towers had already been hit. he had orchestrated moving the president to a safe location (as is his job). he knew that a plane hurtling towards the capital was up to something fishy.

but norman mineta can explain it better than i ever could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

Authorities tend to run training programs constantly, that one was running around the time of heightened security alerts isn't at all surprising.

and all 3 that i mentioned just happened to be running the same excercise, as the event that happened on the day. there's stretching it and there's streeetccching it!

You also seem to be making the mistake of judging security measures of the time (Pre 9/11) by security measures that were set up because of 9/11 that we have today. It was a lot easier to fly on planes and travel pre 9/11. It's not surprising that security was lax back then.

i dont think it was tough at all. i think the lax security is exactly how the hijackers got thru security.

]EDIT: On untrained pilots flying planes, just go out and buy yourself microsoft flight simulator and you too can learn how to fly planes.

MS flight sim is about as real as playing CoD.. cmon man, you really saying that you'd be happy taking a passenger jet up after a few hours infront of ms flight? even with a fancy flight hardware joystick?
i know plenty of pilots use MS flight for route planning/learning in advance. not to learn to fly an actual aircraft.

brandnewaward · 29-01-2015 10:19pm

ScumLord wrote: »

EDIT: On untrained pilots flying planes, just go out and buy yourself microsoft flight simulator and you too can learn how to fly planes.

ah here , one of the flight instructors that one of the alleged hijackers took lessons from said he completely incompetent in a Cessna......and flying a Cessna is not in the slightest bit difficult.
as for microsoft flight sim ,to go from that to flying an actual jet for nearly an hour around the state on the first time behind the controls to navigating to a precise target , i wouldn't swallow that at all

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 10:19pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

MS flight sim is about as real as playing CoD..

Seriously??

Edit: Sample answer from Reddit 'Flying' sub-reddit:

I actually had a flight recently with a friend who used to play a lot of MSFS. Had joystick and all. So we went up in a DA40 one day, and this was his first flight in a real GA plane.

He was able to hold altitude and heading. Did few turns without significant altitude change. Rollouts were close to a target. I decided to have him try turn around a point. He almost nailed it. There was no wind, so he did not have to think when to bank more and when to bank less. But he was able to complete almost entire turn. At certain point he started to decrease his altitude and I took it over.

So from this example, I would say yes, excellent MSFS player will be able to handle the airplane. But that's all you get. He won't recognize emergencies, out of ordinary situations, won't scan for another aircraft, will have no ADM, and so on. But with some training, pure mechanical aspects of flying, he will pick up very fast.

Go Tobban · 29-01-2015 10:20pm

No, what are talking about ?

I'm generally not one for conspiracy theories but the collapse of building 7 does look suspect

There's actually interesting footage from a Dutch tv channel where they asked a well respected demolition expert(Danny Jowenko) what he thought of the collapse and he straight away said it was a controlled demolition. When they told him that the building had collapsed on 9/11(he apparently thought he was just watching random demolition videos)

Actually just found the vid but can't link as I don't have enough posts. But it's the 4th vid down when you put his name into youtube

Obviously this isn't evidence for an inside job or anything like it but interesting nonethless

Danny Jowenko actually died in a 1 car accident 3 days after giving an interview about building 7. Probably a complete coincidence but you never know! Stranger things have happend

ScumLord · 29-01-2015 10:21pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

MS flight sim is about as real as playing CoD.. cmon man, you really saying that you'd be happy taking a passenger jet up after a few hours infront of ms flight? even with a fancy flight hardware joystick?

I'd be happy enough to turn off the autopilot and turn the plane. What flight sims have you played? There's some pretty detailed ones out there on PC, you shouldn't judge them by stuff you find on the consoles.

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 10:22pm

Go Tobban wrote: »

I'm generally not one for conspiracy theories but the collapse of building 7 does look suspect

There's actually interesting footage from a Dutch tv channel where they asked a well respected demolition expert(Danny Jowenko) what he thought of the collapse and he straight away said it was a controlled demolition. When they told him that the building had collapsed on 9/11(he apparently thought he was just watching random demolition videos)

Actually just found the vid but can't link as I don't have enough posts. But it's the 4th vid down when you put his name into youtube

Obviously this isn't evidence for an inside job or anything like it but interesting nonethless

Danny Jowenko actually died in a 1 car accident 3 days after giving an interview about building 7. Probably a complete coincidence but you never know! Stranger things have happend

was looking for this one earlier, couldnt remember his name. thanks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 10:24pm

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd be happy enough to turn off the autopilot and turn the plane. What flight sims have you played? There's some pretty detailed ones out there on PC, you shouldn't judge them by stuff you find on the consoles.

i dont have a console. i play fsX on a pc (i actually prefer older dog fight stuff myself.. or dambusters, thats my all time fave). my young lad is mad into it. we've both flown a twin seater cessna (only the once for me unfortunately).

Jake Rugby Walrus666 · 29-01-2015 10:28pm

i dont know what happened at the twin towers. but i found the return of the king easy enoughto follow

donegaLroad · 29-01-2015 10:30pm

sorry if this has been brought up before. The thing that always puzzled me about the 911 attacks is this:

The nationalities of the hijackers were 15 Saudis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese and two from the Union of Arab Emirates (UAE).

None were Iraqi.

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi national.

Also, Saddam Hussein was despised by Osama bin Laden.

Despite these facts, a poll 2 years after 911, and six months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, 70% of Americans believed Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Why did the USA invade Iraq if Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks?

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 10:31pm

donegaLroad wrote: »

sorry if this has been brought up before. The thing that always puzzled me about the 911 attacks is this:

The nationalities of the hijackers were 15 Saudis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese and two from the Union of Arab Emirates (UAE).

None were Iraqi.

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi national.

Also, Saddam Hussein was despised by Osama bin Laden.

Despite these facts, a poll 2 years after 911, and six months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, 70% of Americans believed Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Why did the USA invade Iraq if Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks?

because the bush family.

Wurzelbert · 29-01-2015 10:31pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

was looking for this one earlier, couldnt remember his name. thanks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

now i do not speak dutch...but one question would be how many such buildings, comparable in size and design and all, danny has done in his career...not your everyday demolition job...

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 10:34pm

Wurzelbert wrote: »

now i do not speak dutch...but one question would be how many such buildings, comparable in size and design and all, danny has done in his career...not your everyday demolition job...

as someone who is considered europe's top demolition expert, i would suggest his opinion is a lot more valid than most.

also remember, building 7 was big but nowhere near the size of the towers.

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 10:36pm

donegaLroad wrote: »

sorry if this has been brought up before. The thing that always puzzled me about the 911 attacks is this:

The nationalities of the hijackers were 15 Saudis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese and two from the Union of Arab Emirates (UAE).

None were Iraqi.

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi national.

Also, Saddam Hussein was despised by Osama bin Laden.

Despite these facts, a poll 2 years after 911, and six months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, 70% of Americans believed Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Why did the USA invade Iraq if Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks?

Oil, plus neo-con fantasies about bringing democracy to the Arab world.

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 10:38pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

as someone who is considered europe's top demolition expert

Who says he is (presumably was? unless there's another conspiracy at play here?) Europe's 'top demolition expert'? Or is he just a guy who worked in the demolition industry?

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 10:39pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

Oil, plus neo-con fantasies about bringing democracy to the Arab world.

this baffles me.

you can see that the neo-cons had an agenda to invade iraq, despite them having nothing to do with 911. you know they publicly tagged bin laden to saddam so that the public would be ok with it.

but you cant see how those meglomaniac ideas could stretch to either pulling an inside job or looking the other way when it suited their neo-con agenda?

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 10:42pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

this baffles me.

you can see that the neo-cons had an agenda to invade iraq, despite them having nothing to do with 911. you know they publicly tagged bin laden to saddam so that the public would be ok with it.

but you cant see how those meglomaniac ideas could stretch to either pulling an inside job or looking the other way when it suited their neo-con agenda?

Exactly.

So you do have a theory?

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 10:42pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

Who says he is (presumably was? unless there's another conspiracy at play here?) Europe's 'top demolition expert'? Or is he just a guy who worked in the demolition industry?

well i can only go by the internet. i dont personally know him or anyone he works with or anyone in the demolition industry..

but you can either google, or believe that ive already googled it. either or.

by the way, he died 3 days after giving that interview...

http://www.dailypaul.com/172140/danny-jowenko-is-dead-3-days-after-sabrosky-interview-implicates-cia-mossad-in-911

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 10:45pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

Exactly.

So you do have a theory?

yup, my theory is that the 911 commision was a stitch up to placate an angry public.

thats where my theory ends, after that im left with supposition and conjecture.

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 10:47pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

was looking for this one earlier, couldnt remember his name. thanks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

In trying to find any evidence that this guy was the 'top' demolition expert in Europe (no success so far), I have learned that this guy said that the destruction of the twin towers was NOT a controlled demolition.

Odd that nobody mentioned it.

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 10:49pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

In trying to find any evidence that this guy was the 'top' demolition expert in Europe (no success so far), I have learned that this guy said that the destruction of the twin towers was NOT a controlled demolition.

Odd that nobody mentioned it.

because he was referenced in relation to building 7, not the towers.

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 10:50pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

because he was referenced in relation to building 7, not the towers.

It would appear to be relevant though, no?

Saipanne · 29-01-2015 10:51pm

donegaLroad wrote: »

sorry if this has been brought up before. The thing that always puzzled me about the 911 attacks is this:

The nationalities of the hijackers were 15 Saudis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese and two from the Union of Arab Emirates (UAE).

None were Iraqi.

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi national.

Also, Saddam Hussein was despised by Osama bin Laden.

Despite these facts, a poll 2 years after 911, and six months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, 70% of Americans believed Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Why did the USA invade Iraq if Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks?

Because the corporations were acting all corporationy.

Wurzelbert · 29-01-2015 10:51pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

as someone who is considered europe's top demolition expert[...]

says who? blank on him as a pro on the web it seems...only in conspiracy context...

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 10:52pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

It would appear to be relevant though, no?

how? we're talking about building 7. a totally different building.

the towers and building 7 were 5 hours apart coming down. is it not possible to look at them as two seperate events within the one big one?

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 10:54pm

Ok, so here is where we stand now with DT's conspiracy:

WTC7 was brought down by a controlled explosion, as some guy who is claimed by conspiracy theorist websites to be an expert on demolition said so.

The Twin Towers, however, were brought down by planes. It seems to me it would have been easier to just demolish them the same way and let that be the 'terrorist attack', but hell, I don't know how these crazy masters of the universe think.

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 10:55pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

the towers and building 7 were 5 hours apart coming down. is it not possible to look at them as two seperate events within the one big one?

So it makes sense to demolish one with explosives, and the other two with planes...because...?

whatstherush · 29-01-2015 10:55pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

this baffles me.

you can see that the neo-cons had an agenda to invade iraq, despite them having nothing to do with 911. you know they publicly tagged bin laden to saddam so that the public would be ok with it.

but you cant see how those meglomaniac ideas could stretch to either pulling an inside job or looking the other way when it suited their neo-con agenda?

Any yet the very same megalomaniacs couldn't dump a few WMDs out in the desert to give credence to their reason for going into Iraq.

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 10:56pm

im out, your line of conversation is just all over the place.

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 11:03pm

whatstherush wrote: »

Any yet the very same megalomaniacs could dump a few WMDs out in the desert to give credence to their reason for going into Iraq.

Yeah, but that's what they want you to think, isn't it?

Wurzelbert · 29-01-2015 11:03pm

whatstherush wrote: »

Any yet the very same megalomaniacs could dump a few WMDs out in the desert to give credence to their reason for going into Iraq.

regarding saddam's wmd back then i recommend - as a semi-neutral source - the interview with bill clinton in time magazine from june 28, 2004 (p. 36-37) among other things..."unaccounted for"...

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 11:03pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

im out, your line of conversation is just all over the place.

Your conspiracy is in bits, face it.

If you analyse any event in minute detail, you'll find coincidences and inconsistencies. Analyse a Cork-Dublin train journey, a big wedding, a corporate takeover. It tells you nothing about conspiracies, but it says a lot about how the human mind works and how we react to 'amazing' coincidences and things we can't immediately explain.

Edit: And I should add, you're not just analysing the event, you are analysing what thousands of people are saying about it, thousands of sources, many conflicting, talking about things you frankly have no expertise in (aviation, engineering, terrorism, Pakistani politics, neo-con planning, and a thousand other things). The idea that you won't turn up some inconsistencies in something like this is incredibly naive.

Look at it this way: you throw a thousand marbles onto the wooden floor in a big room. What happens? Do the marbles spread themselves evenly around the floor, as they 'should'? No. They will clump together in loads of marble coincidences - in some parts of the floor there will be no marbles, other areas will be covered with them. Amazing coincidence? Not really. That's just how the world works.

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 11:11pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

Your conspiracy is in bits.

yup it sure is, well done! now i can see the truth

RecordStraight · 29-01-2015 11:18pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

yup it sure is, well done! now i can see the truth

So you can acknowledge that millions of amateur sleuths, all looking at parts of an incredibly complex picture, and all pre-programmed by nature to detect false positives, are never going to agree that the simplest explanation - the official version of events - is free of problems?

Grand. But the simplest explanation is still the likeliest one.

chewed · 30-01-2015 12:57pm

Wurzelbert · 30-01-2015 1:42pm

chewed wrote: »

a load of bs...who is this jim marrs guy anyway? a novelist and former newspaper journalist...gee wiz, he must really be in the know...and to call the collapse of the wtc “one of the biggest disasters in world history” is textbook american hubris and ignorance...

Martha_Mae · 30-01-2015 1:44pm

yes, yes and yes. It's proven that 9-11 was an inside job, we are being governed by the New World Order, but the whole Illuminate story is a bit fairy-talish and if you don't believe that ISIS is real I'm sure that lots of our soldiers who are currently in Syria will be able to convince you of the opposite..

War on terrorism , 9-11, Iluminati etc

Comments