you keep mentioning some elite faction

were talking about an event that according to truthers led to TWO WARS AND THE CREATION OF A SURVEILLANCE STATE

you dont think that an event of this magnitude would be planned out to the T ? you really think this was carried out by a very small group of people?

that bush and Cheney would rely on like 10 guys to carry this out?

Not true. The investigation into their connections and backgrounds was shoddy and rushed. They were trying to cover up and prevent something from being discovered. They let key witnesses with direct connections to the saudis on the planes leave the US. Go read Bob Graham's comments on this. They were covering up the direct connections to the Saudi government.

I don’t know his answer, but your question seems vague...


I am quoting you to determine what the fuk is in your avi?

Chit looks like a legend of Zelda tunic

That's a bunch of bull. Older analog phones were more powerful than digital phones and my digital phone works fine on airplanes, especially over the east coast where tower density is extremely high. The thing that kills cell signal is hills and mountains, if you are in the air there is nothing to block the signal, duh.

"A typical cellphone has enough power to reach a cell tower up to 45 miles away. Depending on the technology of the cellphone network, the maximum distance may be as low as 22 miles because the signal otherwise takes too long for the highly accurate timing of the cellphone protocol to work reliably."

That whole video is nothing but bullchit!

it's a negative of my torso those are tattoos

my original statement was that an event of this magnitude would require hundreds of planners to carry out and with that tons of documents plans etc.

something would have gotten out by now

I’m going to interject here and I’m not doing so because I was part of your original argument but I rather just because I know a little about wireless technology and... also the fact I’ve been on a plane over a hundred times and have never made a successful call...

Rf signal can CERTAINLY be impeded by many other things than just what you’ve suggested.

“The thing that kills cell phone signals hill and mountains.”

Absolutely wrong, I wasn’t the one who posted the video and I’ve never even heard that angle but the video was right when it talked about the way cell phone signals are handed off by towers and speed. Even if a single tower was handling the entirety of the call which would never be the case at the speed of 500+mph it would still cease to work because the way cellular technology functions and that’s on top of the handoff problem his video suggests. Hell even in the case of a signal tower would struggle at 200, not including the other factors.

In addition, weather can be a HUGE issue when speaking of transmission of RF frequency. Rain drops, clouds, fog, whatever. Hell even dust particulate can drastically effect RF efficacy, then add that onto the other factors?

I mean where did you get the information on anything that you posted. Cuz I’d love to see it, I didn’t get any of what I posted from a source but rather my college education. So if you’d like I’ll find you sources.

Cuz honestly having even the little bit of knowledge I do on rf transmission from college... this video compared to argument? Makes your argument seem like utter bull chit.

who ever said bush and cheney were in charge or calling the shots? they just had a part to play, and they played it very well (even though bush has made a couple of fk ups on camera when talking about it)

i can only speculate to the number of people involved, but you're suggesting that because no one has come forward with a confession that this automatically proves their innocence.

as for "100s of documents" and "something would have leaked by now" argument, it's pretty much the same result as above. i believe the PNAC document, or the operation northwoods document as being pretty damning evidence that the government is capable of a false flag.just think, the only reason this chit didnt happen was because JFK rejected it, and he was killed a year later. we'd be sitting here talking about some act of terrorism committed by the Cuban government, and you'd be fighting to the death that OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A THING AGAINST ITS OWN PPL!!1

no no no man, dont get me wrong, i didnt say the cia did 9/11 , just saying some things dont add up if you think logically about it , 2 planes intruding into one of the most important cities in the united states skies without being warned,threatened or shot down.

i mean during the cold war with next to nothing interms of tracking technology we managed to fend off ussr jet fighters trying to fly into our aerospace, or submarines trying to get into our coastal waters.... and during the heightened limits of our tech. advancements we couldnt zero in these two planes ?? the moment a plane goes under a threat they SOS , and these planes will be asked to follow a certain route or theyll be shot down, in our case aka 9/11 none of this happened. why?

but again what you are saying why would we need a 9/11 to justify an invasion, and your point makes sense to

Head of senate intelligence committee, telling you point blank that the government covered up key details of 911.


He is talking about here when they intentionally did not investigate the other Saudis who were living with and associated with the Saudi hijackers when they were in Florida. This is because they did not want to find direct evidence of the Saudi government funding the 911 attacks.

The point is that the USA and other such countries have always been able to find justifications for foreign excursions (and there's been loads of them). None of them carrying any risk. With this in mind, it makes no sense to do 9/11 on yourself.

You'd honestly have to be a nut case to arrange for the Twin Towers be taken down and a plane to fly into the Pentagon so that you can justify a war when you don't even need to. As in, the "elite" who people charge with doing it would have to be really, really stupid and reckless. far too reckless, in fact, to conduct the operation itself.

Maybe because our warning systems looking for external threats aren't actively searching for threats from domestic flights? I'm sure NORAD doesn't know within a moments notice when a civilian plane has deviated from its flight course.

And even if they did know they aren't in the business of shooting hijacked airliners out of the sky. This is far from the first hijacking. It was just the first weaponized one.

some good insight into what happened with air traffic control and NORAD that day, recommend everyone watch it.

this is the dumbest analogy. brb heats up a bar and bends it over. Did the towers heat up and bend over? No... To properly display this the heat would have to melt the bar quick enough to cause simultaneous drops in all sides powerful enough to crush the remaining 90% of the bar beneath it at a rate of free fall. Take note of the structure of the building and the perfect chain of events that would need to happen for the top 10% of the building to fall fast enough to crush the bottom 90% I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying this video is garbage

In 2001, Mullah Omar banned opium production. The global opium trade dropped by about 75%. Within just a few months, his regime was overthrown and the global opium trade was restored. All evidence aside, two results occurred due to 9/11. Opium trade was restored, and American freedoms were dramatically curtailed in the name of security. Whenever you look at political situations that are difficult to explain, it is prudent to look at who ultimately gained from the action. You will never find the evidence. It's similar to JFK's assassination. He was planning to reform the CIA, and outraged by the proposals, such as operation Northwoods, from his advisors. He was going for serious reform, and there is a famous speech of his where he directly warns against the shadow government and secret societies. Who gained from his death?

None of us will ever know what really happened. But note that Osama Bin Laden did not take credit for the event until much later. Also, look at the circumstances surrounding the invasion. Bush put boots on the ground while the Taliban was still trying to negotiate. They wanted to try him in Afghanistan and demanded evidence as is their sovereign right. Rather than follow international law, we chose to violate it and remove their sovereignty. It was not the Taliban that attacked the United States. And I believe it was some of the rogue Opium warlords in Al Qaeda that may have carried out the attack without the support of Bin Laden or Omar in an effort to overthrow Omar. I think it was all over Opium, and I think the members of our country's shadow government were elated over the power this would appropriate them. The NSA proceeded to completely annihilate any semblance of American freedom and was granted the authority to tap the major AT&T switchboards, and in a few years, the smartphone revolution hit the world. Tour was over after that, boyo.

All I am saying is to look at who gained and what changed. You will never find the evidence or money trail. The people involved aren't amateurs. And we are talking about acronym organizations who conspire for a living. It shouldn't surprise you at all.

Prior to the invasion, 99% of muslims in Afghanistan didn't give a fuk about the US, and just knew it was a faraway country who had helped them once in their fight against Russia. Those Muslims didn't want to kill us until we rolled in against international law and killed thousands of innocent civilians and ruined their cities. Would you invade the US over the actions of a splinter cell within the KKK? That is basically what happened to Afghanistan. And Iraq was even more of a chitshow.

BTW anyone who believes the official story that the US government could never have foreseen this, as told to us by president Bush, secretary Rice, etc seem to be unaware that there were documented military contingency exercises for precisely that event about a year prior to the attack. So they did foresee it, and they lied.

not arranged it themselves, more of a prior knowledge hijackings were going to happen and did nothing to stop them

americans literally have previous form doing the exact same thing with pearl harbour to enter ww2 and the tonkin incident to enter vietnam war

The Maine for the Spanish American war and the Lusitania from WW1. Lots of false flags in history. Also the USS Liberty was an aborted false flag almost used to pull the US into the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Two examples from over 100 years ago and one, often repeated example where the US said, yeah this whole false flag thing is a terrible idea so we're not going to do that, and you think that's proof that the US routinely engaged in false flags.

Great logic.

repped

Typical CT post. Connect a few timelines and argue the former events were calculated to lead to later.

If the purpose behind 9/11 was to increase opium production it was a massively expensive and convuluted way to go about doing it. Especially since the US then spent billions on eradicating poppy fields in Afghanistan at the cost of hundreds of American soldiers

What's easier, faking an international terrorist incident that claims the lives of thousands of Americans and costs over a trillion dollars, or just paying off members of All Queda, the Taliban, or anyone else to kill Mullah Omar.

If the US ever got caught paying some terrorist to kill another terrorist in a country most Americans didn't know existed, literally no one would care.

the moment an SOS is sent , all flights get grounded and all flying ones will be asked to land or rerouted
if an airliner is a threat it will get showdown, no matter what

Eradicating?

Last I checked, according to wikileaks, we helped transport tons of Opium, and they still grow it there. The trade was restored, not eradicated. And again, look at what was gained in terms of power to curtail American freedoms. Those American soldiers didn't die "eradicating the poppy fields" bro.

https://www.politifact.com/global-ne...py-growth-way/



That's pretty funny "eradication" man. Note the year 2001.

cia clandestine and directorate of operations pay for chit. inb4 special skills operator pays me a one-time visit.

Are you honestly saying the US didn't literally burn fields and fields of poppies?

They did, but they also went ahead and enabled the growth and distribution of far more. Look at the numbers.

Which leads back to my first point.

Nothing about the incident was "faked." It clearly happened. I explained in my post the possible motivations as to why it happened. Killing Omar would solve nothing since he had a LOT of supporters. Destabilizing his entire regime would. And you can't just pay some of these people off. If you read about Omar's history and rise to power, you will understand that his regime was a radical reaction to the corrupt warlords who seized power in the wake of the war with Russia. That man fought to free women and children and united the people under their religious banner. If you read more about Omar, you would understand that he was a principled man. Money probably wouldn't mean chit to him.

If you could set aside your emotional argument about the fallen soldiers and instead look at the numbers and look at what happened, you would see.

[QUOTE=GravityLee post_id=1566859721]Because the heat made the metal soft enough to give. It didnt melt it, it didnt liquify it, but it did get the metal hot enough to give and bend. That plus weight of upper floors.

[youtube]FzF1KySHmUA[youtube][/QUOTE]Structural welder checking in.[u]THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS.[/u]


[QUOTE=Xgamer791 post_id=1566859921]I get that but as far as I know the third building didn’t suffer fire damage to the extent that the tower did before it came down.[/QUOTE]So what was the point of destroying the 3rd building? Just for fun?

b b b but the cia keep you safe y y you should trust government they know whats best for you those people were baddies

Hear me out:

Have any of you seen a building collapse due to sustained fire? They rarely collapse evenly and neatly. Given the plane hits the building, jet fuel and the fire load ( furniture/paper etc ) the beams in and around the impact zone would be considerably weaker than the beams on the opposite side, therefore the building would not collapse equally unilaterally and pretty like it did.

Someone's passport... was in the cockpit of a plane, went through the windshield upon impact, survived the explosion/fire and landed on the streets below and was still readable. Really?

How could someone who could barely fly a Cessna fly a huge jet liner into the Pentagon? Legit flew a plane 10 feet above the ground at max speed into a building. The amount of skill to navigate the instrument panel as well as fly the plane with absolutely NO professional guidance is questionable.

And lol at people getting mad because they can't comprehend 9/11 was an inside job. But there's a paper trail but someone would have snitched.... no, they'd be killed before they could.

C'mon maaaannnnnnn

Shanksville plane was supposed to hit it