9/11: One day in America

Is that the one in 3 parts?
Watched the first one (the twin towers) and thought better of watching the rest.
Far too harrowing for me - the bit that showed the fire fighters reacting to the bangs on the foyer roof was heart wrenching.
 
The most interesting aspect of 9/11 is not the twin towers but the third building trade centre 7 which collapsed without being hit by a plane.

 
Danny Ocean said:
The most interesting aspect of 9/11 is not the twin towers but the third building trade centre 7 which collapsed without being hit by a plane.

Click to expand...
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building[31]:18 (PDF p. 22) and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[6]:16, 18 The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41.[6]:17 The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser, and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water.[32]:11 Additionally, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[33]:23–30

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[34] Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[35] During the afternoon, the fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[31]:24 (PDF p. 28) In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[7] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[36] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[37] Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[38] The fire expanded the girders of the building, causing some to lose their structural integrity. This led column number 79, a critical column supporting a large part of the 13th floor, to buckle, causing the floors above it to collapse to the fifth floor; however, this could not be seen from outside the building. The structure also developed cracks in the facade just before the entire building started to fall.[6]:21[39] According to FEMA, this collapse started at 5:20:33 pm EDT when the east mechanical penthouse started crumbling.[5]:23[40] Differing times are given as to what time the building completely collapsed:[40] at 5:21:10 pm EDT according to FEMA,[5]:23 and at 5:20:52 pm EDT according to NIST.[6]:19, 21, 50–51 There were no casualties associated with the collapse.[39] NIST found no evidence to support conspiracy theories such as the collapse being the result of explosives; it found that a combination of factors including physical damage, fire, and the building's unusual construction set off a chain-reaction collapse
 
Has anyone seen the BBC footage where they announce that building 7 has collapsed when it is still standing in the background of the live shot? It actually collapses a couple of hours later.
 
Bamber said:
Has anyone seen the BBC footage where they announce that building 7 has collapsed when it is still standing in the background of the live shot? It actually collapses a couple of hours later.
Click to expand...

From a BBC response to that particular conspiracy question -

“5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "”

The alternative is that the entire itinerary for the US governments plot to destroy the WTC, to justify a future war (you know, that Top Secret one?), was handed out to all the news agencies before the ‘attack’.

🤫🤫
 
It's an amazing coincidence that the world's first steel structural skyscraper to fail this way through fire damage, although it had two-hour fire protection on all its steelwork, and had a certified sprinkler system also had the offices of the American secret service on floors 9-10 and the CIA on floor 13.
 
Danny Ocean said:
It's an amazing coincidence that the world's first steel structural skyscraper to fail this way through fire damage, although it had two-hour fire protection on all its steelwork, and had a certified sprinkler system also had the offices of the American secret service on floors 9-10 and the CIA on floor 13.
Click to expand...
It's also the first skyscraper to be hit by planes travelling at hundreds of miles and hour while loaded with jet fuel. And those offices on floors 9, 10 and 13 didn't somehow escape you know.

People like you should get out less.
 
This is just an observation not a conspiracy theory..I can never quite get my head round both buildings just collapsing perfectly downwards? It’s prob just simply gravity and the domino effect ….
 
I've a foot in both camps, what amazes most in the conspiracy camp is the issue with each event.

The free fall X 2

Building 7

Flight 93 lack of debris.

Pentagon - size of hole, lack of debris and absence of any proper pictures.
 
Clearly, I must have missed the third plane that hit Building 7.

It is feasible that nobody, especially firefighters were allowed in the classified areas of the building. However, it may have something
to do with 6000 gallons of fuel that were conveniently stored on the 23rd floor.
 
It’s awful but compelling viewing.
No matter what views you have on western v Middle Eastern politics to target civilians only in this way was an atrocity.
😥😥
 
Lala said:
It’s awful but compelling viewing.
No matter what views you have on western v Middle Eastern politics to target civilians only in this way was an atrocity.
😥😥
Click to expand...
It was indeed, unfortunately America has done that through the world. Whether it was Vietnam or the Middle East and the likes of Osama bin laden played them like a fiddle. Dragged into afganistan and made to look like bigger mugs, US imperialism in ruins. It still made a lot of the arms industry a stack of cash
 
Danny Ocean said:
Clearly, I must have missed the third plane that hit Building 7.

It is feasible that nobody, especially firefighters were allowed in the classified areas of the building. However, it may have something
to do with 6000 gallons of fuel that were conveniently stored on the 23rd floor.
Click to expand...

You didn't miss it, there wasn't one. It suffered severe damage from debris when the North Tower came down, which in turn caused a fire that raged pretty much uncontrolled for around eight hours before it fell.
 
Danny Ocean said:
Clearly, I must have missed the third plane that hit Building 7.

It is feasible that nobody, especially firefighters were allowed in the classified areas of the building. However, it may have something
to do with 6000 gallons of fuel that were conveniently stored on the 23rd floor.
Click to expand...
Read the post. It's post above what happened.
 
Danny Ocean said:
It's an amazing coincidence that the world's first steel structural skyscraper to fail this way through fire damage, although it had two-hour fire protection on all its steelwork, and had a certified sprinkler system also had the offices of the American secret service on floors 9-10 and the CIA on floor 13.
Click to expand...
Grenfell was certified as safe. That went well.
 
Grenfell was indeed passed as safe by building control, although the material used for the cladding failed to meet the specification. But the structural integrity of the building remained intact. Grenfell did not have sprinklers.

Having worked on numerous commercial projects in the UK with sprinklers systems, they have to be pressure tested at installation and at regular intervals, they also have to work without any mains power. There was no loss of life in building 7, which is remarkable given its size and the number of people inside.

What is even more remarkable is the dust that was present in the remains of all three towers.




 
Danny Ocean said:
Grenfell was indeed passed as safe by building control, although the material used for the cladding failed to meet the specification. But the structural integrity of the building remained intact. Grenfell did not have sprinklers.

Having worked on numerous commercial projects in the UK with sprinklers systems, they have to be pressure tested at installation and at regular intervals, they also have to work without any mains power. There was no loss of life in building 7, which is remarkable given its size and the number of people inside.

What is even more remarkable is the dust that was present in the remains of all three towers.




Click to expand...
This theory was debunked.... https://www.machinedesign.com/home/article/21830429/another-blow-for-wtc-conspiracy-theorists
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Fuck me, you can't go anywhere without the bloody conspiracy theorists trying to get some attention.
Click to expand...
You're an odd ball at times Lytham_FY8. Do you think that everything that has ever happened, did so in exactly the way the official narrative portrays? Or is there a possibility that some things don't make sense and people should rightly question them? NIST (A government backed body) provided a 'theory' for each of the occurrences on 9/11. There are a lot of well qualified people out there who dispute their findings. I have no idea what happened that day, but what I do know is that 3 skyscrapers did not collapse because of fire (never seen before in the whole world), 2 planes didn't just vanish into dust from crashing (never seen before in any other plane crash) and no plane flown by a 20 year old man crashed into the Pentagon.

The Pentagon one could be cleared up forever if they just released footage of it, but they wont.
 
Metropolis said:
You're an odd ball at times Lytham_FY8. Do you think that everything that has ever happened, did so in exactly the way the official narrative portrays? Or is there a possibility that some things don't make sense and people should rightly question them? NIST (A government backed body) provided a 'theory' for each of the occurrences on 9/11. There are a lot of well qualified people out there who dispute their findings. I have no idea what happened that day, but what I do know is that 3 skyscrapers did not collapse because of fire (never seen before in the whole world), 2 planes didn't just vanish into dust from crashing (never seen before in any other plane crash) and no plane flown by a 20 year old man crashed into the Pentagon.

The Pentagon one could be cleared up forever if they just released footage of it, but they wont.
Click to expand...
Why would they blow up their own buildings in full view of the entire watching world in broad daylight, to what aim that couldn't be achieved a hundred easier ways?
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Why would they blow up their own buildings in full view of the entire watching world in broad daylight, to what aim that couldn't be achieved a hundred easier ways?
Click to expand...
Why would they plan to blow up their own military but they once did consider it an option? I don't know, and to not know doesn't mean that peoples questions aren't valid. The term 'conspiracy theorist' has become used as a put down to folk with genuine questions.

Flight 93 in Shanksville, they buried over the bodies in a mass grave because they said they were unrecoverable, yet they claimed to have found the black box 25ft underground?? Rather odd, but nowhere near as odd as finding the passports of the hijackers and their suicide notes fully intact. Even the most ardent believer in the official narrative could understand the suspicions surrounding that find? Think about that for a minute, left all those bodies under the ground, in an isolated field because they said the plane was unrecoverable.
 
Last edited:
Lytham_fy8 said:
Why would they blow up their own buildings in full view of the entire watching world in broad daylight, to what aim that couldn't be achieved a hundred easier ways?
Click to expand...
so they could go into Afghanistan for a bit and then leave it again?

these conspiracy boys must have been starved of parental attention as kids methinks
 
Metropolis said:
Why would they plan to blow up their own military but they once did consider it an option? I don't know, and to not know doesn't mean that peoples questions aren't valid. The term 'conspiracy theorist' has become used as a put down to folk with genuine questions.

Flight 93 in Shanksville, they buried over the bodies in a mass grave because they said they were unrecoverable, yet they claimed to have found the black box 25ft underground?? Rather odd, but nowhere near as odd as finding the passports of the hijackers and their suicide notes fully intact. Even the most ardent believer in the official narrative could understand the suspicions surrounding that find? Think about that for a minute, left all those bodies under the ground, in an isolated field because they said the plane was unrecoverable.
Click to expand...
From what I remember the first responders reported that there were no bodies left, no substantial remains at all and in the 20 years since there's been no reports of anything else.

Again though, what would be the point of a conspiracy around this? I don't see the reasoning for any of it, it's just conspiracy for the sake of conspiracy.

It's Occam's Razor, what is the simplest explanation for that day, which explanation do the facts back up more than the others?
 
Bloodtangerine said:
so they could go into Afghanistan for a bit and then leave it again?

these conspiracy boys must have been starved of parental attention as kids methinks
Click to expand...
That's the thing as well, since when has the US needed more than the flimsiest excuse to start a war?
 
I'll admit I'm fascinated by all of the happenings of 9/11. I have watched every conceivable documentary, film, live footage, read books galore on it all. I don't know what I believe really, but I have to say that there seems to be many things that are open to scrutiny. I am no architect or structural engineer so I don't really have the qualifications to argue the finer points, but there are a hell of a lot of qualified people that believe the evidence isn't there for the official narrative and it intrigues me.

I have no idea why the US government would want to do that, or indeed if they ever did, but money and power know no bounds at that level. I guess we will never know, but if I had the chance to ask for one piece of footage to ever be seen it would be of the cameras on the Pentagon. I'm pretty confident that they'll exist and would either shut up a lot of people forever, or create the biggest shit storm the world had ever seen.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
From what I remember the first responders reported that there were no bodies left, no substantial remains at all and in the 20 years since there's been no reports of anything else.

Again though, what would be the point of a conspiracy around this? I don't see the reasoning for any of it, it's just conspiracy for the sake of conspiracy.

It's Occam's Razor, what is the simplest explanation for that day, which explanation do the facts back up more than the others?
Click to expand...

In fairness Lytham, Occams Razor isn’t necessarily the ‘simplest’ answer, but rather one with the fewest assumptions.

In the case of the twin towers, it could be argued (and very reasonably so) that the simplest explanation, with least assumptions was for sone form of controlled demolition….
 
I heard a terrorist bomb on the Cromwell Rd.I wondered what it was. Got home and watched the six o’clock news. I was shocked. Harrrords😬
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
In fairness Lytham, Occams Razor isn’t necessarily the ‘simplest’ answer, but rather one with the fewest assumptions.

In the case of the twin towers, it could be argued (and very reasonably so) that the simplest explanation, with least assumptions was for sone form of controlled demolition….
Click to expand...
Well no, it is the simplest answer as that is always the answer with fewest complexities, assumptions don't really factor. It can quickly be explained as simplicity beating complexity.

Anyway, controlled demolition has the fewest assumptions? You need to assume they knew the attacks were coming months in advance to plan the demolition, you need to assume it was an 'inside job', you need to assume that they were able to install all the necessary equipment and explosives in secret in one of the most densely populated and busiest areas on earth and you need to assume that the initial impact didn't cause damage to the demolition equipment so it all worked when required. You also need to assume that the attack on the buildings was more or less a sure thing, otherwise all that equipment would need to come back out before anyone noticed.

Or you can assume, in fact not assume as it's been proven, that the intense heat of burning jet fuel melted a building's load bearing structure, a structure who's designers quite reasonably didn't assess the damage burning jet fuel could cause to it when it was built 30 years previously.
 
Last edited:
Lytham_fy8 said:
Well no, it is the simplest answer as that is always the answer with fewest assumptions.

Controlled demolition has the fewest assumptions? You need to assume they knew the attacks were coming months in advance, you need to assume that they were able to install all the necessary equipment and explosives in secret in one of the most densely populated areas on earth and you need to assume that the initial impact didn't cause damage to the demotion equipment so it all worked fine.

Or you can assume, in fact not assume as its been proven, that the intense heat of burning jet fuel melted a building's load bearing structure, a structure who's designers quite logically never assessed the damage burning jet fuel could cause to it when it was built 30 years previously.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure you need to assume any of that really…

You just need to consider that the most straightforward answer was controlled demolition.

The who, why and wherefores are not really of any consequence. The possibility was never even investigate at all.

I mean what’s the most straightforward answer for the passport?

I’d say that it is overwhelmingly that it was planted…..

Once you accept that simple and highly plausible explanation, then you accept that ‘someone’ was seeking to influence opinion…. Why?
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’m not sure you need to assume any of that really…

You just need to consider that the most straightforward answer was controlled demolition.

The who, why and wherefores are not really of any consequence. The possibility was never even investigate at all.

I mean what’s the most straightforward answer for the passport?

I’d say that it is overwhelmingly that it was planted…..

Once you accept that simple and highly plausible explanation, then you accept that ‘someone’ was seeking to influence opinion…. Why?
Click to expand...
Why would you not have to assume any of that?

If it was demolition how was it planned and prepared in the weeks leading up to the attack, when did they lay the charges? You can't just wander in and within an hour and have planned, installed and undertaken a complete demolition of two of the highest buildings on earth, it took months to bring down the Queenstown flats for example. Why did no one notice these demolition crews, not one of the hundreds of firefighters, police, FBI, or the thousands of members of the public?

Or the other solution, the jet fuel melted the structure.

Occam's razor, simplicity beats complexity, nothing to do with assumptions.
 
Last edited:
So a plane hit a building and released 38,000L of aviation fuel...Which burns at (around) 410 degrees
The aviation engineers calculated that the heat would have reached over 1,600 degrees over the 4 or 5 levels for hours and melted steel
The fire would have been locked within the building and the air speed would have allowed the fire to burn unaffected

But you believe someone smuggled in a few tonnes of explosive into one of the most crowded buildings in New York ......Set it up over......a week?....or longer........and even though there was a passenger plane burning in the same place......set off a controlled explosion

I do hope your just on a wind up to see who bites......
 
B_Side_The_C_Side said:
So a plane hit a building and released 38,000L of aviation fuel...Which burns at (around) 410 degrees
The aviation engineers calculated that the heat would have reached over 1,600 degrees over the 4 or 5 levels for hours and melted steel
The fire would have been locked within the building and the air speed would have allowed the fire to burn unaffected

But you believe someone smuggled in a few tonnes of explosive into one of the most crowded buildings in New York ......Set it up over......a week?....or longer........and even though there was a passenger plane burning in the same place......set off a controlled explosion

I do hope your just on a wind up to see who bites......
Click to expand...
Maybe the CIA had Fred Dibnah ready to go with a bonfire?
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Why would you not have to assume any of that?

If it was demolition how was it planned and prepared in the weeks leading up to the attack, when did they lay the charges? You can't just wander in and within an hour and have planned, installed and undertaken a complete demolition of two of the highest buildings on earth, it took months to bring down the Queenstown flats for example.

Why did no one notice these demolition crews?
Click to expand...

There were significant internal works conducted in the lift shafts in the weeks running up to the attack. So external contractors were known to be operating.

To that extent, the opportunity to plant explosive devises certainly existed.

Of course, I’m not saying that’s what happened, but rather than your idea of what might constitute ‘Occams Razor’ isn’t quite as straightforward as you make out.

You make the ‘assumption’ that any one of the many ‘assumptions’ that led to the official conclusion has any more or less weight than any alternative ‘assumption’….

The ‘official explanation’ is far from simplistic
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
There were significant internal works conducted in the lift shafts in the weeks running up to the attack. So external contractors were known to be operating.

To that extent, the opportunity to plant explosive devises certainly existed.

Of course, I’m not saying that’s what happened, but rather than your idea of what might constitute ‘Occams Razor’ isn’t quite as straightforward as you make out.

You make the ‘assumption’ that any one of the many ‘assumptions’ that led to the official conclusion has any more or less weight than any alternative ‘assumption’….

The ‘official explanation’ is far from simplistic
Click to expand...
My explanation of Occam's Razor absolutely stands up in this instance.

1) Planes were taken over by hijackers including trained pilots who flew them in to the buildings, the resulting fire and heat melted the structure, there's no assumption there (seeing as you appear to be a little obsessed with assumption for some reason), it's all proven fact.

2) Planes were taken over by hijackers including trained pilots who flew them in to the buildings, the US authorities knew this was going to happen so either did nothing to prevent it or were behind the whole plot. In the meantime they decided that the buildings must also be demolished within an hour of the attack for some nefarious reason so they planned and implemented a presumably massively complex demolition job on both towers in some of the busiest buildings on earth in one of the busiest areas on earth, in secret with no one noticing, they also made sure that the burning passenger planes and building didn't damage the demolition plan. They then made sure that the hundreds of specialists involved never talked about it.

Which explanation is simpler?
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
My explanation of Occam's Razor absolutely stands up in this instance.

1) Planes were taken over by hijackers including trained pilots who flew them in to the buildings, the resulting fire and heat melted the structure, there's no assumption there (seeing as you appear to be a little obsessed with assumption for some reason), it's all proven fact.

2) Planes were taken over by hijackers including trained pilots who flew them in to the buildings, the US authorities knew this was going to happen so either did nothing to prevent it or were behind the whole plot. In the meantime they decided that the buildings must also be demolished within an hour of the attack for some nefarious reason so they planned and implemented a presumably massively complex demolition job on both towers in some of the busiest buildings on earth in one of the busiest areas on earth, in secret with no one noticing, they also made sure that the burning passenger planes and building didn't damage the demolition plan.

Which explanation is simpler?
Click to expand...


Firstly the first explanation you offered isn’t ‘proven fact’. It’s just a story. Not only is it a story, but (as stated) it’s a story that requires a whole series of assumptions to make the story ‘fit’ as far as the technical plausibility is concerned.

Secondly, the second explanation you offer is not the only possibility. Of course there are number of possibilities here.

Of course you could also say that without any knowledge of the US state these ‘hijackers’ somehow managed to train, board planes, fly them to successfully impact on their targets (within such close proximity), avoid any kind of interference from the state, miraculously deposit a passport to highlight the identity of the perpetrators, create three free fall events (one being the first ever experienced in a building of that type), create noise consistent with explosions heard by firefighters etc…

You are simply failing to offer the same balance to one possibility as the other.

In effect once you get past the idea that the US state or another ‘friendly’ state actor might have created a false event as a precursor to war. Something which has happened before on a number of occasions (and particularly in relation to the middle east) then it’s all very straightforward.

I’m not saying that’s what happened, but so far as ‘Occams Razor’ is concerned, you are choosing to offer weight to one argument based on nothing more than your own bias.

I.e. you view one thing as more or less implausible than another. That doesn’t mean it’s more or less simplistic or requires more or less assumptions….
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Firstly the first explanation you offered isn’t ‘proven fact’. It’s just a story. Not only is it a story, but (as stated) it’s a story that requires a whole series of assumptions to make the story ‘fit’ as far as the technical plausibility is concerned.

Secondly, the second explanation you offer is not the only possibility. Of course there are number of possibilities here.

Of course you could also say that without any knowledge of the US state these ‘hijackers’ somehow managed to train, board planes, fly them to successfully impact on their targets (within such close proximity), avoid any kind of interference from the state, miraculously deposit a passport to highlight the identity of the perpetrators, create three free fall events (one being the first ever experienced in a building of that type), create noise consistent with explosions heard by firefighters etc…

You are simply failing to offer the same balance to one possibility as the other.

In effect once you get past the idea that the US state or another ‘friendly’ state actor might have created a false event as a precursor to war. Something which has happened before on a number of occasions (and particularly in relation to the middle east) then it’s all very straightforward.

I’m not saying that’s what happened, but so far as ‘Occams Razor’ is concerned, you are choosing to offer weight to one argument based on nothing more than your own bias.

I.e. you view one thing as more or less implausible than another. That doesn’t mean it’s more or less simplistic or requires more or less assumptions….
Click to expand...
What you're suggesting is utter madness, I think you're just trolling now, good day sir!
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
What you're suggesting is utter madness, I think you're just trolling now, good day sir!
Click to expand...
I'm not sure he's suggesting anything. The truth is none of us know exactly what happened. Some will believe the official NIST report 100%, and some will doubt certain sections of it. What is wrong with that? I'm sure you have had incidents occur in life where you just can't accept the explanation as it doesn't make total sense in you're own mind? As I have stated before, I don't actually know what I believe in all the incidents of that day, but here is what I currently lean towards;

Twin towers - Explosives used to bring the towers down after the planes hit
WTC7 - Explosives used to demolish it
Pentagon - It wasn't a plane that blew up the building, it was something else
Shanksville - There was never a plane crash
 
Metropolis said:
I'm not sure he's suggesting anything. The truth is none of us know exactly what happened. Some will believe the official NIST report 100%, and some will doubt certain sections of it. What is wrong with that? I'm sure you have had incidents occur in life where you just can't accept the explanation as it doesn't make total sense in you're own mind? As I have stated before, I don't actually know what I believe in all the incidents of that day, but here is what I currently lean towards;

Twin towers - Explosives used to bring the towers down after the planes hit
WTC7 - Explosives used to demolish it
Pentagon - It wasn't a plane that blew up the building, it was something else
Shanksville - There was never a plane crash
Click to expand...
If it wasn't a plane that blew up the Pentagon where did the missing plane full of people go? You know, the ones recorded phoning loved ones.

If there wasn't a plane crash at Shanskville, where did those people go?

Is there a hangar somewhere with a bunch of missing people and two airplanes?

If 'something else' blew up the Pentagon why not just say that and blame the terrorists anyway instead of launching huge subterfuge involving a passenger plane?

Why would they feel the need to demolish the WTC an hour after impact with all the logistical secrecy and planning nightmare that entails? Why not just demolish it a few weeks later if for some reason they wanted to? Why demolish it anyway?
 
Last edited:
Lytham_fy8 said:
If it wasn't a plane that blew up the Pentagon where did the missing plane full of people go? You know, the ones recorded phoning loved ones.

If there wasn't a plane crash at Shanskville, where did those people go?

Is there a hangar somewhere with a bunch of missing people and two airplanes?

If 'something else' blew up the Pentagon why not just say that and blame the terrorists anyway instead of launching huge subterfuge involving a passenger plane?

Why would they feel the need to demolish the WTC an hour after impact with all the logistical secrecy and planning nightmare that entails? Why not just demolish it a few weeks later if for some reason they wanted to? Why demolish it anyway?
Click to expand...
All good points Lytham_FY8, and the kind of questions that start to make alternative theories struggle.

If I had to have the wildest of guesses, I would say that following the announcement of 2 Trillion dollars of missing finances the day before (of which the information for was in the exact part of the Pentagon that got 'hit') that certain Government agencies took the opportunity to blow this building up with a missile, easily blaming it on hijackers. I wouldn't have thought it very difficult for the US Government to make a plane disappear with a few people on it, it's happened loads of times. Too coincidental for me.
 
Metropolis said:
All good points Lytham_FY8, and the kind of questions that start to make alternative theories struggle.

If I had to have the wildest of guesses, I would say that following the announcement of 2 Trillion dollars of missing finances the day before (of which the information for was in the exact part of the Pentagon that got 'hit') that certain Government agencies took the opportunity to blow this building up with a missile, easily blaming it on hijackers. I wouldn't have thought it very difficult for the US Government to make a plane disappear with a few people on it, it's happened loads of times. Too coincidental for me.
Click to expand...
But why make the plane disappear instead of the easier solution of crashing it?

None of the conspiracies surrounding 9/11 make any sense logistically at all.

I'm not dismissing all conspiracy theories by the way, JFK for example has an overwhelmingly compelling case for a cover up, but this one just makes zero sense and is way beyond the capabilities of any US administration anyway, they're generally fairly inept beyond the odd assassination.

I'm much more interested in little mysteries like Dyatlov Pass, Somerton Man, DB Cooper etc...
 
Last edited:
I know Donald.....when they ask about the missing $4.3 trillion.....lets crash a plane into the pentagon, that should make them forget about it.... 🤔

So when they announced in 2015 that the figure had gone up to $6.8 trillon......They crashed the space shuttle?
And in 2020 when over $10 trillion dollars were unaccounted for......Lets release Covid-19?

I'm losing my faith in the education system with some of you fucktards
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
But why make the plane disappear instead of the easier solution of crashing it?

None of the conspiracies surrounding 9/11 make any sense logistically at all.

I'm not dismissing all conspiracy theories by the way, JFK for example has an overwhelmingly compelling case for a cover up, but this one just makes zero sense and is way beyond the capabilities of any US administration anyway, they're generally fairly inept beyond the odd assassination.

I'm much more interested in little mysteries like Dyatlov Pass, Somerton Man, DB Cooper etc...
Click to expand...
Again, a good point which I will have to think about 👍
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top