Hold on let me apply your logic

If you’re going down a river at 2mph and your canoe loses a wheel, how much pancake mix would you need to re-shingle your roof?

This is true. I was a fan of his show. Watched every night. Tucker is very entertaining and makes his points funny. Even when he's trying to be serious with his guests from all different walks of life. I agreed with a lot of his views. But...

He cost his employer more money than he brought in.

It's really a simple calculation.

How did this thread shrink?

Could have sworn this thread was at page 10.

Ya and the network is also being boycotted and lost 65% of its viewership.

Smart move now he cost them 100-400 million in actuality but if you fire him you lose the network.

So they chose to lose the network.

Tucker doing God’s work.

Lol. You blockheads were saying that when O'Reilly got shiitcanned. Nope - the sun still came up the next day. No one person makes a network, son. If he really is going to cause the loss of the network, they'll just hire him back and give him double the money. But... that's not going to happen, son.

Ughh bruh you are like wrong again bruh

Better learn how to math kid

https://www.salon.com/2023/04/28/its...ucker-carlson/

I think people get offended when too many questions are asked because it kind of assumes the other persons reality is wrong.

9/11 made such a huge impact on the psyche for many Americans, to insinuate it somehow wasn't how they experienced it, would be off putting, and likely not good for ratings/views. Unless there's like - hardcore evidence - but everything that has been presented is far more unlikely than the official story.

Also, I prefer the story about the foreign terrorist #1 most wanted, getting assassinated by navy seals, than high ranking officials in the United States government intentionally slaughtered thousands of Americans, for a few extra zeros in their bank accounts.

Yeah, show me the stats 3 months from now, son. You guys cried wolf when O'Reilly was shiitcanned and Tucker moved into the slot and was more successful. Rinse and repeat. Learn from history, son.

I'd imagine a company like Fox had analysts with spreadsheets calculating everything. So maybe not a an easy calculation but an easy decision, especially if they factored in any future lawsuits.

He exaggerated a lot of his points and when he's slandering big companies, the companies will fight back, but not against him. They fight back against Fox. So Fox had enough

There is no way US intelligence agencies didn't know something was going on. And they probably had help from Mossad too

And no these "CTs" aren't debunked. Maybe certain aspects of them but there are holes in the official narrative too.

No plane hit building 7
Bin Laden worked for the CIA
Jeb Bush's security contract for the WTC buildings ended on 9/10/01
PNAC document calls for a pearl harbor 2.0


If you think any of this means we should have done an internal investigation before jumping headfirst into decades of war, patriot act, etc then you hate america and love terrorism

Big shout out to operation able danger btw

of course the media doesn't want people talking about 9/11

becausetheydid it







its easy to think this is a game.. like it wont happen to you or someone you know. Thats probably what the people in those buildings thought.

these zionists are willing to kill you, your family , everyone you know if it means Israel will be the world capitol. These people are not ****ing around.

The official story of the OKC bombing also makes no sense and was contradicted many times.

[QUOTE=ColdandChilly post_id=1681875693]There is no way US intelligence agencies didn't know something was going on. And they probably had help from Mossad too

And no these "CTs" aren't debunked. Maybe certain aspects of them but there are holes in the official narrative too.

[img]https://img.ifunny.co/images/8a1aec37598deca9e23cb198c0e1fff3aa773e865e66384a95 c6fc6c7d8f5fa3_1.webp[/img[/QUOTE]The problem with CTs is that there are often thousands of possible explanations for the same event. Many are mutually exclusive. So by default even if I told you a "CT theory about 9/11 is true" your odds of picking the correct one are slim to none.

Take that lucky larry story you just posted. Did you know that almost all business insurance policies are renewed ANNUALLY? So renewing a policy just WEEKS before means absolutely nothing. There was always an insurance policy in place. Now if you tell me his old policy was drastically different from his new policy I am listening, but it looks like you put 1+1+1+$ = together to formulate a conclusion when $ was never related at all.

For me the most interesting part about Lucky Larry is how he and all of his family who worked at the WTC all happened to be absent that day for various reasons. Quite the lucky coincidences.

You’re a ****ing moron. He bought the buildings a month before, he built trade center 7 in the 80’s, Neil bush contract ends 9/10. Then there is the pull it comment he made which a firefighter Chief says he never even had with him and pull it means bring a building down he then tried to say he meant pull the fire fighting operation.

Neh neh neh neh I’m a bitch look at me.

It's easy to see that the official story is bullchit but it's nearly impossible to know what story is actually true.

Yep exactly. People attack CTs because there's really no way to get the actual truth, the important thing to know is the official story is bullchit.

This is one of the least likely theories. The bold sounds like some middle age scapegoat hysteria tbh.

The argument could be made the Israelis contributed to the "Saddam has wmd's" false intel fiasco. And that the Israelis directly benefitted, initially, from the war in Iraq by having one of their arch enemies hung. But theirs wasn't the only Intel community claiming Saddam was a threat. Plus, in the end, the power vacuum that was created from the war in iraq shifted the balance of power towards their #1 foe in the region, Iran. So taking out Saddam was kind of a wash for the Israelis because it inevitably made Iran stronger. Still, it's very possible they helped influence the war with iraq.

But to choreograph the largest terrorist attack in history, against the hand that feeds them, so a 20 year war is fought against entities that are thousands of miles away from Israel and pose no direct threat to them, so they would be "the capital of the world" (?) is a very weak proposal.

Maybe if the claim was Hizbulla executed 9/11, I could see a connection, but any indirect benefit they realized from the war in Afghanistan is loose, and a far stretch to be considered a motive.

If the official story is false, it's far more probable the US intel establishments had their hand in it to expand US hegemony or fuel the MIC. Because that's what actually happened as a result. Israel is not even close to being a world capital. Nor would America fighting the Taliban somehow achieve that for them.

Still, 20+ years later and not even one whistleblower or solid piece of evidence linking anyone but the most likely suspects, so I'm gonna stick with the official story for now.

Dancing Israelis

So man buys building and takes insurance policy on said building??? How much did he net on this transaction? I would bet money almost all of it went to paying the loan to whoever financed the deal.

So then you throw more chit on to the pile. What would have Neil Bush lost had the security contract still been in play? Nothing? or are you assuming the target was WTC because they didn't renew?You need to be careful with that. What happens when the official story is MOSTLY true, but with inconvenient facts replaced? (Note: this is the way most government coverups take place)

This thread is mostly related to building 7 and fair enough, but on the other one on main misc people are talking about how a plane never hit the Pentagon...

The building 7 argument has been done a lot and I don't care to rehash it, but the video feed of the damaged side of building 7 warping and bending for several minutes prior to collapse was good enough for me to show it was about to come down. How it came down is weird, but it is weird for an office fire to burn for hours without being fought. It is also weird for fire suppression systems to be down. But those last things aren't weird when we look at the circumstances involved.

Tucker lulz

The ones that went on David Letterman? That's not incriminating evidence of anything other than they are bafoon's.

middle age hysteria? whadya mean..?
destabilizing Israel's enemies which is the whole middle east doesn't benefit them? what? lol.

the top 3 foreign aid beneficiaries are Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

We pay Jordan and Egypt billions - with 1 caveat - that they DO NOT attack Israel.


Do you know why USA joined WW1?
it was the balfour declaration, zionism.

Germany would have won, they were kicking the brits asses, if not for the balfour declaration.

A deal made between the zionists from Germany, and the british war cabinet.

Germany would have won ww1, they already were and were they were encouraging the British to make peace deals with them, when , instead the zionists (from Germany) went to the British war cabinet with the plan that they could bring USA into the war to help the British. The deal was that the British would give the zionists some land in palestine (current day Israel) in exchange for bringing America into ww1.

All of the sudden our news papers, who were mostly pro-German, all of the sudden were printing up that the Germans were throwing babies up on bayonets.

we sent ships into hostile waters so that they would be blown up to garner anti-German sentiment.

the point of me saying this is that these people are willing to kill 1000's of goyim if it can benefit them in any way. So its not out of line to assume that they did 9/11.
maybe look up the Lavon affair.

also


1996 clean break memo, written by the perveyors of 9/11 and its completely zionist response.

I'm pretty sure when they demolish a building there's several detonations before the final collapse to take out the supporting structure, so the building warping and bending before the collapse could also be because of that. The entire collapse just looks ridiculous to my untrained eyes.

Regarding pentagon stuff. I don't believe they've ever shown conclusive evidence of there being a plane near the pentagon that day. No clear video evidence and just some photos of supposed airplane debris. You say you worked for some kind of intelligence, right? What would the FBI or CIA or whoever have as a reason not to release clear evidence of a plane hitting? Now if you go down the conspiracy ladder there's a lot of steps.

Did an airplane piloted by that incapable goat herder (don't remember that type of info like names from the top of my head) fly into the pentagon, while following the officially claimed flight path? Hell no, he could have never flown the plane like that.

Did a commercial airplane hit the pentagon that day, while following the officially claimed flight path? It's possible but the pilot would have needed to be extremely capable. The real pilot of the plane would never do it and would just crash it before even thinking about flying it into the building. A hijacker being that capable (or lucky?) seems unlikely so I still find that somewhat hard to believe.

Did an object looking like an airplane hit the pentagon that day? Likely yes, there's plenty of eye witnesses seeing an airplane. When you go further down there's theories of missiles hitting and hologram and chit, which I find pretty ridiculous.

The problem with any alternative theories is the amount of unanswered questions. If the plane they claim wasn't used, then what happened to the original airplane and those people on it? So on one hand it's pretty obvious who the US government claims was the hijacker couldn't have flown the plane like that, but on the other hand it's almost impossible to prove any theories that differ a lot from the official story.