Reply With Quote
But what do you think really happened?
Snarky sarcasm isn't a theory.
It's another cute word for conspiracy theorist. A form of mudslinging, basically anything to discredit the person or diminish his/her character. Re:Politician
But what do you think really happened?
Snarky sarcasm isn't a theory.
Diverted by whom? Explain your theory.
How difficult is it to fly a plane badly and crash it, dan? Show proof it would be impossible. For every John Lear hologram post I can find pilots who say everything the hijackers did is definitely possible.
Is your theory that these were expert pilots hired to kill themselves?
Use your words, dan. Tell the world what you think. This is your legacy, remember?
This is the part where truthers refuse to engage in any actual discussion.
I see you guys have no response to how idiotic the conspiracy theory actually is.
Rogue criminal actors in our government (not the gubment, as some here say) with sufficient authority to cover their actions, both before, during, and after, staged a mass terror event. They made billions through the defense spending that followed. They secured access to natural resources in the middle east that could be exploited by private firms which they have major ownership interests in. The destruction of wtc7 covered up illegal activity in the pentagon, to the tune of 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS in unaccounted for tax monies which rumsfeld could not account for before congress.
So possible billions embezzled, trillions made after the fact, and as shady as rumsfeld and cheney are, as long as they had been key players in washington, the pentagon, and in the neocon movement (since the 70s), and as compartmentalized as the government runs, I say they have motive and means sufficient that they will always be suspects.
The neocon movement had been plotting to take over the resources in the middle east since the opec crisis. This was their grand opus.
You know, I really can't call most of you conspiracy theorist because most of you have no theory at all.
Correct me if I'm wrong -- post your theory here.
OK, so how did they actually do it?
And in their mind the sacrifice of thousands was "in the public interest," because it would secure American supremacy over global resources for decades to come. So under Bernays method of thinking, it was worth it.
They concealed their actions, just like they did with Kennedy, so all we can do is guess. No one will know except the actors. None of us will ever know. To engage in discussion without a TRUE investigation is fruitless and only serves their end, which is confusion and ultimately concealment.
What I CAN say is that there WAS construction at wtc prior to 9/1, there WAS a stand down, the site debris WAS swept out of view immediately, the WAS traces of demolition powder at the scene, the stooges WERE incapable of flying with such accuracy at such a success rate, the neocons GOT what they wanted, and we NEVER inquired about the 2.3 trillion in missing monies again.
And Chump has been acting with a rubber stamp, devoid of original thought, and has helped to pitilessly destroy any questions about the event for at least the last ten years.
In his mind, because I cant state how it was done with enough certainty, I am not allowed to question the event without ridicule.
I'm asking you how you think they did it.
You have an opportunity to convince everyone here. Take it.
It's been 14 years. That's more than enough time to develop a working theory.
exactly. The truther movement is a narcissistic wet dream that people believe in order to convince themselves that the general public is well informed, intelligent, and can only be manipulated by an elaborate false flag attack. The people who allegedly staged 9/11 were less than a year removed from convincing America that an oil prince who's daddeh bought him an MLB team was actually a blue collar rancher who'd be a great president because he was in touch with the problems of middle class America.
The funniest part is that, regardless of what 9/11 did to American opinion, when was the last time the president actually needed Americans to favorably view a war in order to start one or keep one going? The idea that the president, or congress for that matter, actually give a about how much Americans want/don't want to go to war is one of the funniest parts of the truther movement.
Post on your main DOK
What's up BD?Post on your main DOK
So let's say you're right.
How do you think the government managed to cut into all those beams and rig up all those bombs for months on end without a single person noticing? There is no way you can cover that up.
How did they manage to pull off the first and only controlled demolition in history where the building collapsed from the top down?
How did they stop the explosions from registering on a seismograph?
The Pentagon actually lost $8.5 trillion from 1996-2013. They're notoriously bad at accounting. By Twoofer "logic," there would have been a 9/11 every year just in time for their annual audit.The destruction of wtc7 covered up illegal activity in the pentagon, to the tune of 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS in unaccounted for tax monies which rumsfeld could not account for before congress.
Chump has always misapplied the burden. The burden is placed on the prosecution and it is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Well Chump, I have reasonable doubts, and cannot be satisfied that all the actors were cave dwellers. It is on YOU to dispell my reasonable doubts. And you have not done so. So no conviction. So, as I said...we DONT KNOW THE TRUTH. The culprits are on the loose.
And thus, your rubber stamp is useless.
What are your doubts?
And yes, you do have a burden as you have made a claim. If you can't back it up with facts, it's a pretty crappy claim.
All you are doing right now is making speeches. If you aren't interested in ever discussing this, just say so and save everyone a lot of time.
You are the one claiming it's a false flag. The burden of proof is on you.
All you're doing is spamming psychotic rants about "rubber stamps" and Edward Bernays.
The funniest part is that, regardless of what 9/11 did to American opinion, when was the last time the president actually needed Americans to favorably view a war in order to start one or keep one going? The idea that the president, or congress for that matter, actually give a about how much Americans want/don't want to go to war is one of the funniest parts of the truther movement.
Your rubber stamp says "case closed." But thats incorrect. Its still plagued with reasonable doubt. I stated mine already. Neocons had means and motive, and acted guilty after the fact. Case closed is your claim. But in this discussion, you have yet to prosecute to verdict.
And your rubber stamp, inked with everything Bernays spoke of, is exposed and impotent.
You're speechifying again.
List your doubts here. If you listed them before they got lost in the speeches. I'm talking about explaining what really happened -- not what you suspect to be motivations.
Make them very clear and we can discuss them. We have yet to discuss anything.
Don't just keep stonewalling with your new slogans.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
