Jump to content

The Facts of WTC PLANNED & CONTROLLED DEMOLITION


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 440
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

911 was a huge scam. Regardless of the precise details. We all agree it was an orchestrated scam... Don't trust your Government. That we can agree on. Full stop.   

WTC Building 7 Primed for Demolition Prior to the day of September 11th 2001.   There is a video of "Lucky Larry" Silverstein, the owner of the WTC Complex, where he says he had a conversati

By elephant in the room I mean exactly what you're saying in regards to people like Silverstein and his pals. Most normies don't talk about that stuff, they just post jet fuel can't melt steel beam me

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

THE NO PLANES " THEORY "

 

How many people were in on this?

 

It's not important. What matters is whether or not the theory makes sense in terms of Occam's Razor. For example, the simplest explanation for the long detours that took the aircraft through radar dead spots was that they were swapped out, so no planes from the MSM account actually crashed as described.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, theo102 said:

 

It's not important. What matters is whether or not the theory makes sense in terms of Occam's Razor. For example, the simplest explanation for the long detours that took the aircraft through radar dead spots was that they were swapped out, so no planes from the MSM account actually crashed as described.

 

 

It matters a great deal. People are very useless at keeping secrets and the numbers required for a no-plane "scenario" are absolutely absurd. People died so they are all accessory to murder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

Don't direct me what to do, shill.

 

It wasn't a direction but a suggestion and I'm not a shill - is there money available to do this? 

 

17 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

NO PLANES. Have a smashing life. 

 

PLANES - you too.

 

17 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

Ciao amigo.

 

https://youtu.be/xRad4Y3FPdM?t=53

 

I take it you can't explain the inward exploding outer columns, the ones that are soooooo strong a plane can't go through them, but so weak, magic explosive charges can suck them inwards.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

It matters a great deal. People are very useless at keeping secrets and the numbers required for a no-plane "scenario" are absolutely absurd.

You have no way of knowing how many people have successfully kept secrets from you.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, theo102 said:

You have no way of knowing how many people have successfully kept secrets from you.

 

Right there is a fundamental issue. Neither do you. But precedent and personal experience tells most people that human beings gossip, even to a spouse, a deathbed confession to a solicitor. Or a sudden overwhelming conscience decision. Isn't it a basic claim that the BBC reporters had "prior knowledge" of WTC7, rather than just shite misreporting. As if those reporters are not going to tell anyone.

 

Go back to that list and guesstimate how many would be needed. It needs a team of people to come up with this no-plane gibberish and can you seriously not here the derision at a suggestion of it??

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Right there is a fundamental issue. Neither do you. But precedent and personal experience tells most people that human beings gossip, even to a spouse, a deathbed confession to a solicitor. Or a sudden overwhelming conscience decision. Isn't it a basic claim that the BBC reporters had "prior knowledge" of WTC7, rather than just shite misreporting. As if those reporters are not going to tell anyone.

 

None of this affects the point that we don't know how many people have secrets about 9/11, so the argument that the original planes did not crash as reported because somebody would have said something doesn't fly.

 

If you think that flight paths going turning around near radar holes is gibberish then you're best off abandoning this discussion.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, theo102 said:

None of this affects the point that we don't know how many people have secrets about 9/11

 

No we don't. But we do know that a ludicrous number of people would be needed just to set up this ridiculously unfeasible operation!

 

4 minutes ago, theo102 said:

so the argument that the original planes did not crash as reported because somebody would have said something doesn't fly.

 

Yes it does and it is staggering that you cannot see that. It is a ridiculous number of people just doing minor jobs who would see 911 and all the deaths. If you really think they wouldn't put 2 and 2 together and have some conscience issues then you are kidding yourself.

 

4 minutes ago, theo102 said:

If you think that flight paths going turning around near radar holes is gibberish then you're best off abandoning this discussion.

 

Why do you assume the perpetrators were imbeciles? Is it even remotely feasible that they would bother to research areas where radar is less effective to hide their intentions???

 

If you want to bale out, feel free....but that list is not getting answered and is always the 50ft elephant in the room. Did you read this?

 

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6719039&postcount=1

 

or this, briefly putting one scenario (far, far less complex than no planes) into perspective...

 

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9725182&postcount=11

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Comedy Time said:

But we do know that a ludicrous number of people would be needed just to set up this ridiculously unfeasible operation!

What's ridiculously unfeasible about swapping out a plane over a radar null zone? You take over the plane with BUAP and have the transponder and radio turned off at about the same time and place as you turn on the transponder on your modified plane.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, theo102 said:

What's ridiculously unfeasible about swapping out a plane over a radar null zone?

 

Nothing whatsoever, I was referring to the no planes or full inside job operation. It was totally obvious as well.

 

16 minutes ago, theo102 said:

You take over the plane with BUAP and have the transponder and radio turned off at about the same time and place as you turn on the transponder on your modified plane.

 

Yeah, if I was going to do this, that's what I would have done or something similar. Little bit of nerve gas for the pilots.

 

Now, the rest of my post - is that going to get brushed aside and "forgotten"?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:

What makes you say that?

 

Hey Mr Oneliner....

 

You claimed it was the wrong engine. I gave you a very comprehensive link showing that to be a fallacious claim.

 

EDIT: What the hell are you doing quoting a post that is dead obvious what was being said!?

 

He said this "He did bolt right on the hour.  Coincidence or not?" - accusing me of some paid shit. How can my response be confusing to you or need explaining!

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Dude, you are stacking up ad hominems and insults in every post, I strongly suggest you stick to the debate.....

 

THE NO PLANES " THEORY "

 

How many people were in on this?

 

1. How many to distribute airplane parts?

2. How many to distribute DNA?

3. How many to dispose of the actual plane and kill the passengers.

4. Then since DNA was found, how many to toast the bodies and smash them up?

5. If the DNA was faked, the laboratory was in on it? How many?

6. How many in the military to execute the missile launch?

7. How many to create all those individual films?

8. How many to lace the buildings with explosives?

9. How many to plan it? Oversee it?

10. How did they communicate it all?

11. Where is the paper trail for all of this, or the money trail to pay this huge number off?

12. Adding - "crisis actors" total?

You only have to look at the current scamdemic to know that the, "number of people involved argument" does not stack up.

 

The PCR test has been discredited for years by it's own inventor and does not test for what they say it does.

 

Regardless, doctors and nurses all over the world use the test and your celebrity endorser TV GP pushes the BS and your average GP has very little knowledge of anything really.

 

People almost never think for themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, theo102 said:

 

It's not important. What matters is whether or not the theory makes sense in terms of Occam's Razor. For example, the simplest explanation for the long detours that took the aircraft through radar dead spots was that they were swapped out, so no planes from the MSM account actually crashed as described.

 

That's fundamentally flawed can you see why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

 

You claimed it was the wrong engine. I gave you a very comprehensive link showing that to be a fallacious claim.

No, you sent an image and text from Metabunk which if you read it without conformation bias proves nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

 

It matters a great deal. People are very useless at keeping secrets and the numbers required for a no-plane "scenario" are absolutely absurd. People died so they are all accessory to murder.

I agree people are terrible at keeping secrets which makes it important you understand how compartmentalisation works

 

Also understand ho it is drummed out of people, practically form birth, to think for themselves or question anything.

 

In most workplaces people keep there mouths shut and the ones who don't , regardless of ability and performance, tend to get fired.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reet Hard said:

You only have to look at the current scamdemic to know that the, "number of people involved argument" does not stack up.

 

Righto. Let's dismiss the argument based on another ludicrous conspiracy theory. I know people who work in the NHS and this illness is not a bloody scam - it's also not caused by 5g.

 

1 minute ago, Reet Hard said:

The PCR test has been discredited for years by it's own inventor and does not test for what they say it does.

 

Yeah whatever. How is that relevant?

 

1 minute ago, Reet Hard said:

Regardless, doctors and nurses all over the world use the test and your celebrity endorser TV GP pushes the BS and your average GP has very little knowledge of anything really.

 

That if true, would be a "conspiracy" involving the creating company who would be making money. It has no comparison whatsoever to 911.

 

1 minute ago, Reet Hard said:

People almost never think for themselves.

 

Irrelevant and some people "think" way, way too much and limit their "thinking" by avoiding all the things needed for it to actually occur.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:

No, you sent an image and text from Metabunk which if you read it without conformation bias proves nothing.

 

And you sent nothing. The page addresses the claim - of which you supplied no mention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Nothing whatsoever, I was referring to the no planes or full inside job operation. It was totally obvious as well.

 

Obvious like this post? 

 

7 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Now, the rest of my post - is that going to get brushed aside and "forgotten"?

 

Depends on whether it's relevant or not - I'm not going to defend a position that I didn't take.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Hey Mr Oneliner....

 

You claimed it was the wrong engine. I gave you a very comprehensive link showing that to be a fallacious claim.

 

EDIT: What the hell are you doing quoting a post that is dead obvious what was being said!?

 

He said this "He did bolt right on the hour.  Coincidence or not?" - accusing me of some paid shit. How can my response be confusing to you or need explaining!

I was asking you what you were saying why do you lack confidence to elaborate on your points?

 

I wonder if your combative style hides a self doubt in your own argument.


And by the way your anger is not anyone's responsibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reet Hard said:

I agree people are terrible at keeping secrets which makes it important you understand how compartmentalisation works

 

It's important for you to read my posts properly before you once again attempt to "educate me" on something I read and fully understood 25 years ago!

 

Just now, Reet Hard said:

Also understand ho it is drummed out of people, practically form birth, to think for themselves or question anything.

 

Irrelevant and a generalised nonsensical claim. It implies that only conspiracy theorists "think for themselves" which is so far from the truth it is almost opposite.

 

Just now, Reet Hard said:

In most workplaces people keep there mouths shut and the ones who don't , regardless of ability and performance, tend to get fired.

 

And they always tell friends and family by way of a gripe. No deathbed confessions, no document leaks, no paper trails. Your claim is conspiracy generalised cobblers.

 

All the people setting demolition charges know what they are doing.

All the people disposing of the planes and bodies....well!!!

List is exhaustive.....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Righto. Let's dismiss the argument based on another ludicrous conspiracy theory. I know people who work in the NHS and this illness is not a bloody scam - it's also not caused by 5g.

 

 

Yeah whatever. How is that relevant?

 

 

That if true, would be a "conspiracy" involving the creating company who would be making money. It has no comparison whatsoever to 911.

 

 

Irrelevant and some people "think" way, way too much and limit their "thinking" by avoiding all the things needed for it to actually occur.

 

 

It is relevant because it shows how people never check the facts and just follow the party line and so no you don't need lots of people to be "in on it" because most will never question anything thereby destroying one of your key arguments.

 

It seems to me the problem isn't that some people think too much it's that most don't think at all and just repeat what they are told by the institutions they work for and the media.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, theo102 said:

Obvious like this post? 

 

Nope. Why wouldn't the terrorists simply note the range and type of radar and work out blind spots. Don't quote Occam's razor for 911 - it really doesn't work. And since you are deliberately avoiding large parts of my post....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9725182&postcount=11

 

"What are the chances of successfully pulling off an inside job" is an example of subjective probability, not objective probability. Example:

Objective probability: It's the night before the 3rd day of the Battle of Gettysburg. Gen. Lee and his staff are relaxing, shooting craps. Gen. Pickett has the dice and his point is 10. Armistead offers Lee a 3:2 payoff if Pickett makes his point.

Longstreet advises Lee not to take it, as the odds are actually 2:1.

Subjective probability: Gen. Lee asks Longstreet what he thinks their chances are of successfully storming across 1/2 mile of open country up Cemetery Ridge in the face of of massed Union Infantry and Artillery.

Longstreet answers, "To be brutally frank, General, I think our chances are piss-poor."

Subjective probability: Bush and Cheney ask Rumsfeld what are their chances of staging 4 fake airliner hijackings, landing them at a secret airbase and murdering the passengers and crew, disposing of their bodies, and substituting specially built drone aircraft built to look like airliners, flying them into the Twin Towers exactly where demolition charges have been planted and the demolition charges surviving the impacts and fires and actually it's the demolition charges that bring down the buildings because there's no way that impact and fire could do that, and we'll plant extra demolition charges below the impact point because we're not sure that the collapse will continue all the way to the bottom but we know that flaming debris will hit WTC 7 and start fires so we've planted demolition charges there, too which will survive hours of fires and although everyone knows fire can't harm steel, we'll blame the destruction of WTC on the fires and meanwhile we'll fire a missile into the Pentagon in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses we can't control and maybe some will have cameras and the missile will hit and ignite thousands of gallons of jet fuel we've stashed inside the Pentagon without anyone knowing it, creating a giant fireball, plant airliner debris around and inside the Pentagon, convincing everyone it was really an airliner, and let's also crash one in Pennsylvania just to make it look good, and nobody will suspect a thing, except for a few Conspiradroids?

Rumsfeld answers, "Are you guys high, or just out of your [expletive deleted] minds?"

 

Occam just crapped his pants.

 

4 minutes ago, theo102 said:

Depends on whether it's relevant or not - I'm not going to defend a position that I didn't take.

 

Okay, I'll assume you think it ludicrous that a large number of people could do any of this undetected for ever and ever.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...