Definitely. The US knew a plot was possible and coming soon and didn’t do much to stop it, but I don’t think it was a deliberate act with controlled demolition. It sure did make a lot of people rich though...🤔
The controlled demolition shit has never been of much interest to me because the other evidence - the connections between Bushes and the Bin Ladens, alphabet boys knowing about the hijackers, the Iraq War lol - is more compelling and relevant to our lives
100% agree. The government (Air Force, NORAD, whatever) probably knew that the passengers were attempting to take control, rolled the dice and said fuck it, shoot it down to be safe. That’s 100 people versus an additional 1000 dead. Make them out to be heroes, threaten the shit out of anyone involved in the order and you have some top tier propaganda for the war to come. Well never know for sure, but Flight 93 was probably shot down.
New conspiracy theory: John Mccain was on that flight and told everyone he had flying experience. Afterwards he was replaced by a holographic body double.
9/11 was fishy but controlled demolition makes no sense.
Why go to the bother of letting the hijackers do their thing if you were just going to blow it up anyway? The building had already been bombed before, it's not like people wouldn't have accepted that as an explanation. It probably would have caused an even bigger freakout.
The assertion was never that jet fuel melted steel beams. It was that a giant fucking plane going full speed knocked out all the support structures, and that the ensuing inferno super heated and therefore weakened the remaining metal, badly fucking up all the weight distribution, causing it to collapse in on itself. It was kind of a shitty made building, with very little concrete reinforcement and completely inadequate fire protection.
People sometimes bring up the bomber crash into the Empire State, but that was a much smaller plane going much slower crashing into a far better piece of construction.
a giant fucking plane going full speed knocked out all the support structures
This is even more improbable than jet fuel melting steel beams IMO. Steel is much stronger than thin aluminum aircraft. Newton's third law means that a steel beam traveling at 500 mph into an aircraft at rest will do the same damage as a plane traveling into a steel beam at rest: in both cases, the aircraft would be obliterated and the steel would be relatively undamaged.
Really? Because you can fucking see the plane break right the fuck through it. Did they fake that too?
Back of the napkin math says a plane that big hits with the force of 18 kilotons of TNT. That's a lot of force.
Steel isn't fucking magic. WTC was welded together at weak structural points designed only to maintain its own structural weight plus a safety factor. And it was built pretty shitty even by those standards.
You do not need to literally snap a steel beam in half to puncture the building. It will break along its weld points, which are much weaker.
I hate to tell you this, but physics and engineering are a lot more complicated than Newton's 3rd.
There were eye witnesses who were looking up the whole time and swore they saw no plane. As for the video of the impact, the third video demonstrates that it's not very difficult to fabricate, even in real time.
The existence of real conspiracies does not prove your lizard people, crackpot shit.
The idea that holographic planes and controlled demolition make more sense than just they let a terrorist attack happen is interdimensional, multiverse brain level shit.
Like, yes, there was a conspiracy. They funded and trained Al-Qaeda to fight the Soviets. They let a bunch of insanely suspicious terrorists go to American flight schools and ignored all civilian warnings about it. Then made sure NORAD would be in a state of panic and confusion during planned exercises so the planes wouldn't be shot down. Then immediately started doing Anthrax and other shit to spin up support for their PFNAC shit so they could start manufacturing consent for Iraq.
You're saying all of that was actually another conspiracy to cover up an even dumber conspiracy which would accomplish the same thing, but was much more difficult to do?
Is it possible, conceivable for you at all, to think that maybe you might be wrong?
I don't believe in the holographic plane stuff; I also think that stuff is "multiverse brain". I realize that one of my links mentioned holograms, but if you are aware of the concept of modified limited hangouts, then you realize that all pieces of evidence and claims must be analyzed critically and independently of its source, because sometimes disinformation or loony stuff is mixed in with the truth to throw you off.
Is it possible, conceivable for you at all, to think that maybe you might be wrong?
Yes, of course.
but was much more difficult to do?
I think it's debatable which destruction conspiracy is more difficult. Rigging a skyscraper for demolition in secret is difficult but there is precedent for it, and most theorists believe the WTC owner was in on it.
On the other hand, to successfully bring down a building with a plane requires:
A successful hijacking
Bullseye accuracy hitting a slim tower at 500 mph
The hit causing damage sufficient to cause collapse
Yes, each of these things is possible, but they are each, at the very least, a gamble. And doing all of them in succession successfully, twice, is slightly more difficult. Comparable to the difficulty of rigging a building using spooky contractors, IMHO.
Why is the first conspiracy too boring for you?
No, it's a matter of the physical evidence. And the uncanny video of the collision. And the fact that the planes were not physically capable of the speeds the exhibited in the video. Those pieces of evidence make me lean towards the no planes theory.
9/11 was so fishy I can forgive almost any level of brain worms, "can't melt steel beams" belongs under "we have questions" imho
Definitely. The US knew a plot was possible and coming soon and didn’t do much to stop it, but I don’t think it was a deliberate act with controlled demolition. It sure did make a lot of people rich though...🤔
The controlled demolition shit has never been of much interest to me because the other evidence - the connections between Bushes and the Bin Ladens, alphabet boys knowing about the hijackers, the Iraq War lol - is more compelling and relevant to our lives
deleted by creator
That's ridiculous, the United States would never shoot down a civilian airliner
Usually, soldier in jet shoot down at civilian. Not soldier shoot up at civilian in jet.
I also think it’s likely we shot the plane down and kept that part tightly under wraps.
100% agree. The government (Air Force, NORAD, whatever) probably knew that the passengers were attempting to take control, rolled the dice and said fuck it, shoot it down to be safe. That’s 100 people versus an additional 1000 dead. Make them out to be heroes, threaten the shit out of anyone involved in the order and you have some top tier propaganda for the war to come. Well never know for sure, but Flight 93 was probably shot down.
New conspiracy theory: John Mccain was on that flight and told everyone he had flying experience. Afterwards he was replaced by a holographic body double.
9/11 was fishy but controlled demolition makes no sense.
Why go to the bother of letting the hijackers do their thing if you were just going to blow it up anyway? The building had already been bombed before, it's not like people wouldn't have accepted that as an explanation. It probably would have caused an even bigger freakout.
The assertion was never that jet fuel melted steel beams. It was that a giant fucking plane going full speed knocked out all the support structures, and that the ensuing inferno super heated and therefore weakened the remaining metal, badly fucking up all the weight distribution, causing it to collapse in on itself. It was kind of a shitty made building, with very little concrete reinforcement and completely inadequate fire protection.
People sometimes bring up the bomber crash into the Empire State, but that was a much smaller plane going much slower crashing into a far better piece of construction.
This is even more improbable than jet fuel melting steel beams IMO. Steel is much stronger than thin aluminum aircraft. Newton's third law means that a steel beam traveling at 500 mph into an aircraft at rest will do the same damage as a plane traveling into a steel beam at rest: in both cases, the aircraft would be obliterated and the steel would be relatively undamaged.
https://911planeshoax.com/
https://newspunch.com/cia-pilot-presents-evidence-that-no-planes-hit-towers-on-911/
https://youtu.be/Rml2TL5N8ds
Really? Because you can fucking see the plane break right the fuck through it. Did they fake that too?
Back of the napkin math says a plane that big hits with the force of 18 kilotons of TNT. That's a lot of force.
Steel isn't fucking magic. WTC was welded together at weak structural points designed only to maintain its own structural weight plus a safety factor. And it was built pretty shitty even by those standards.
You do not need to literally snap a steel beam in half to puncture the building. It will break along its weld points, which are much weaker.
I hate to tell you this, but physics and engineering are a lot more complicated than Newton's 3rd.
Which frame shows that?
There were eye witnesses who were looking up the whole time and swore they saw no plane. As for the video of the impact, the third video demonstrates that it's not very difficult to fabricate, even in real time.
Lol
They laughed at Jesus because he told them the truth. Just like they did when Jesus told them the CIA was smuggling drugs.
The existence of real conspiracies does not prove your lizard people, crackpot shit.
The idea that holographic planes and controlled demolition make more sense than just they let a terrorist attack happen is interdimensional, multiverse brain level shit.
Like, yes, there was a conspiracy. They funded and trained Al-Qaeda to fight the Soviets. They let a bunch of insanely suspicious terrorists go to American flight schools and ignored all civilian warnings about it. Then made sure NORAD would be in a state of panic and confusion during planned exercises so the planes wouldn't be shot down. Then immediately started doing Anthrax and other shit to spin up support for their PFNAC shit so they could start manufacturing consent for Iraq.
You're saying all of that was actually another conspiracy to cover up an even dumber conspiracy which would accomplish the same thing, but was much more difficult to do?
Is it possible, conceivable for you at all, to think that maybe you might be wrong?
Why is the first conspiracy too boring for you?
I don't believe in the holographic plane stuff; I also think that stuff is "multiverse brain". I realize that one of my links mentioned holograms, but if you are aware of the concept of modified limited hangouts, then you realize that all pieces of evidence and claims must be analyzed critically and independently of its source, because sometimes disinformation or loony stuff is mixed in with the truth to throw you off.
Yes, of course.
I think it's debatable which destruction conspiracy is more difficult. Rigging a skyscraper for demolition in secret is difficult but there is precedent for it, and most theorists believe the WTC owner was in on it.
On the other hand, to successfully bring down a building with a plane requires:
Yes, each of these things is possible, but they are each, at the very least, a gamble. And doing all of them in succession successfully, twice, is slightly more difficult. Comparable to the difficulty of rigging a building using spooky contractors, IMHO.
No, it's a matter of the physical evidence. And the uncanny video of the collision. And the fact that the planes were not physically capable of the speeds the exhibited in the video. Those pieces of evidence make me lean towards the no planes theory.
Watch Well There’s Your Problem’s 3 hour episode on it if you’re interested. Better on YouTube then a podcast app because it has slides.
Yeah as a teen I feel far into that conspiracy theory but I realize now it was because I was too innocent to realize the extent of U.S insidiousness.