I think the rabbit hole is deeper then that. I believe the "powers that be" that made 911 happen are not the same ones that jumped on the timing to profit from it.

Yeah, maybe a muslim extremist conspiracy made the attack happen, and then american officials used it as a convenient rallying point to start their war in Iraq.

...Nah. ;)

I think the rabbit hole is deeper then that. I believe the "powers that be" that made 911 happen are not the same ones that jumped on the timing to profit from it.

THIS.
My research over the past few years is tying the whole thing together. My findings show that the Illuminati are, in fact, in the process of orchestrating a third phase to their diabolical plan in which they will pin blame for the attack on Al Gore. In this way they can discredit his findings of Global Warming, which is in actuality a Illuminati/Free Mason/Rotary Club strategy aimed at population control and profiteering of the air conditioning industry.

Photographic evidence of the link between 9/11 and the Rotary Club

Go ahead and mock all you want. It's pretty obvious you're simply doing a psyops disinfo campaign.

For those with any doubt about the deep ties between The Rotary Club, Illuminati, and the NWO, I submit the following link for your edification: http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-rotary-club-member.htm

Huh, I thought you were joking. I still think you are, but now I'm not so sure. Dammit Godwin

You wait and see for yourself. Remember the rigged recount during Bush/Gore race for President? Do you think that was just a coincidence? What a more perfect patsy for the 9-11 attack than Al Gore? I mean, it's now quite obvious to all true intellectuals that 9-11 was totally an inside job amiright? Well, you think the guys who came up with that plan are stupid? They knew it would all be discovered as a conspiracy before it was carried out.

Now, in the third phase, they can use that "discovery" by pinning it on one of their adversaries, Al Gore. Thus, clearing the way for Global Warming and the ability to manipulate food and fuel prices.

I know it's a lot to take in. But let me leave you with a couple questions to ask yourself:

1) Who benefits from Global Warming?

2) Who has a very public adversarial relationship with the NEOCONs?

3) Why is Israel investing so heavily in desalination plants and air conditioning companies?

4) Why was John Edwards set up by the news media and the timing was so perfect?

5) Why did al jazeera buy Al Gore's Current TV network?

The better question is if they planned the whole thing why didn't they have Iraqi hijackers so they wouldn't need the WMD story at all in the first place...

So many holes in the story as they tell it. Whoever pulled off 911 didn't do it for the money they did to show us they could. We might never knew the truth. Better questions are.

What hit the pentagon? and why not release video of it.

How did the towers turn to dust before so many peoples eyes and no one see it?

If the US gov told us the truth they would be admitting national secrets and that we are not as safe as we think.

The conspiracy narrative here doesn't make much more sense than any of the conventional explanations, though. Like, the inside job narrative works only if you assume the group which pulled off the perfect hoax in broad daylight is also incapable of handling anything else without fumbling it dramatically...

Did you see videos of the OKC explosion? Does not seeing it happen mean that a missile hit the building or does it mean that they are covering up the fact that there were other people involved and possible secondary explosions as well? Just because you don't get to watch the video of a plane hitting the Pentagon doesn't mean you get to make up what happened. Literally hundreds of eye witnesses saw a plane flying at low altitude at the Pentagon.. If you think a plane didn't hit the Pentagon where did this plane go? It just disappeared? That is more likely than the idea that it actually did hit the Pentagon as was planned?

If the narrative of the Pentagon being hit by a plane is supported solely by witness statements, then can we agree that the twin towers were brought down by bombs based on the statements of witnesses hearing explosions?

It isn't based solely on witness statements... you also have the wreckage at the Pentagon... If you actually look at pictures that weren't cherry picked by Loose Change you will see plane debris and the lawn of the Pentagon trashed.. Also not a single person reported seeing a missile...

Ok, so no witness saw a missle, witness saw a plane, plane debris at the pentagon....clearly supports a plane being there...however, with all the available video footage, not releasing anything other than that short clip from the security gate shows there is something they are hiding.

I agree... they are hiding shit. People at the Pentagon said they heard secondary explosions so that could be something they are hiding. Also they probably don't want to show video footage of decorated military officials running away and saving themselves while they spin the story of everybody being brave and rushing towards the wreckage to try to assist anybody they could.

Who cares about video of senior military officials, just show a 30 second clip (15 sec. before and 15 sec. after) of the impact.

I'd love if they released the video. Here's how it would go though... If the video showed a plane hitting the Pentagon everyone who dogmatically believes that a missile hit the Pentagon would say "that was a fake video" and nothing would change. Look at the Boston Bombing... Surveillance footage was released of Tsarnaev dropping off a book bag and the book bag blowing up and everyone who thinks it was a hoax with all crisis actors and nobody actually being hurt said "ehh.. that was fake.."

That's why you release the video immediately (I know you'd have those few who say "the video was fake and this was premeditated") after the incident. You will have less skeptics if the video is made public immediately that supports the story you want told.

Yeah but the government isn't really worried about any of that because 99% of the public doesn't give a shit and they are convinced by the official report.

I wouldn't go as high as 99%. I'd say 99% of those who can do something about uncovering the truth don't give a shit. I'm sure there's actually a large number of people who don't believe the official story.

But there was no evidence of a Boeing at the Pentagon...

Except the giant hole in the Pentagon and the wreckage on the site... but if you ignore that or say it was planted there I guess you can say there was no evidence... Also why didn't a single witness observe a missile with flying into the Pentagon but hundreds observe a plane? Where the hell did the plane go? It vanished? It turned into a missile?

What is the advantage of using a missile? If the script is "hit the Pentagon with a plane" and they definitely hijacked the plane why the hell wouldn't they just ram it into the Pentagon? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered if you are going to invent your own story...

(and for the record, I don't believe the official narrative is correct but let's not cloud ourselves into making up bullshit)

Except the giant hole in the Pentagon and the wreckage on the site...

I mean, look at the huge hole where all the wreckage [is](http:/imgur.com/qPF0bir)...

but if you ignore that or say it was planted there I guess you can say there was no evidence... Also why didn't a single witness observe a missile with flying into the Pentagon but hundreds observe a plane?

Where the hell did the plane go? It vanished? It turned into a missile?

Fuck if I know. I was about to ask you the same question (based on the *crime scene photos above)...

What is the advantage of using a missile? If the script is "hit the Pentagon with a plane" and they definitely hijacked the plane why the hell wouldn't they just ram it into the Pentagon?

I have no idea. Maybe that wasn't the script? How do you even know? Let's figure out where the plane went first - shall we? Because the lawn is still intact above and not even covered up in the those pics.

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered if you are going to invent your own story...

Sounds like you have your own narrative set up anyway. So why bother discussing it?

(and for the record, I don't believe the official narrative is correct but let's not cloud ourselves into making up bullshit)

Sure. We can question whether or not it was 19 Saudis with boxcutters. Right?

Can we question why the name Osama Bin Laden was mentioned less than an hour after the towers fell? Or how two different planes were shown on live television hitting the WTC depending on what network you watced? Or how there was barely any remains in Shanksville?

But we must maintain that abplane hit the Pentagon.

...is it because you can't handle it? I had the same reaction initially...

I can't handle what? Dumb horse shit pulled out of people's asses? Your right that I can't handle that.

Don't just cherry pick the photos you look at to conform to your idea that there was no plane... actually think thru your idea... The biggest conspiracy about the 9-11 truth movement is all of these horse shit theories that are used to discredit people by making any questioning of the events of 9-11 seem ridiculous. People asking smart questions get lumped into the people saying "there were no planes!" and immediately smart people get turned off to the whole thing.

Notice the pieces of plane debris... this was planted there after the missile hit? Nobody saw the missile and nobody noticed people planting plane debris?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=1082&q=pentagon+9%2F11+plane+wreckage&oq=pentagon+9%2F11+plane+wreckage&gs_l=img.3..0j0i8i30.415.7869.0.8056.30.22.0.2.2.0.509.3267.2-6j2j1j1.10.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..18.12.3275.ivOcKxmGqyI

I can't handle what? Dumb horse shit pulled out of people's asses? Your right that I can't handle that.

Then you need thicker skin. So, in your opinion, what parts of the Official Version© of 9/11 am I allowed to question? Just so I know for sure.

Don't just cherry pick the photos you look at to conform to your idea that there was no plane... actually think thru your idea...

As soon as you shoe me the plane debris in the photos I linked above - I would argue that you are cherry picking pictures. How does debris appear out of nowhere when the initial pictures (linked above) don't show anything?

The biggest conspiracy about the 9-11 truth movement is all of these horse shit theories that are used to discredit people by making any questioning of the events of 9-11 seem ridiculous.

U mad?

I would argue the biggest conspiracy is we're sitting here arguing about Pentagon wreckage while the culprits got away with it 14 years ago. But that's just me.

People asking smart questions get lumped into the people saying "there were no planes!" and immediately smart people get turned off to the whole thing.

Sounds like you need to re-evaluate your definition of smart and dumb. When you want to answer or address any ofnmy questions and points, I'd love to have a respectful back-and-forth.

Notice the pieces of plane debris... this was planted there after the missile hit? Nobody saw the missile and nobody noticed people planting plane debris?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=1082&q=pentagon+9%2F11+plane+wreckage&oq=pentagon+9%2F11+plane+wreckage&gs_l=img.3..0j0i8i30.415.7869.0.8056.30.22.0.2.2.0.509.3267.2-6j2j1j1.10.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..18.12.3275.ivOcKxmGqyI

Notice the first stupid picture in your link. Part of a fuselage *with no burn marks on it, tossed far away from th3 structure, with vague AA colors and styles on it.

Let's cut to the chase. What did the Black Box audio recordings show?

Let's cut to the real chase... you don't get to invent a scenario just because you don't feel like your personal threshold for "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been crossed... Why do you think a missile hit the Pentagon... why wasn't it a laser beam from a UFO? Prove to me it wasn't.

Do you see what I mean? 14 years ago this happened and now people who agree on a majority of the issues involving 9-11 are arguing with each other about whether magic is real and planes can disappear or if a plane actually hit a building... Don't you feel like that is energy best used elsewhere?

Let's cut to the real chase... you don't get to invent a scenario just because you don't feel like your personal threshold for "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been crossed...

Yes I do. Who the fuck are you to say I cannot? You aren't the least bit interested with the whole different planes comment above? That just whooshed right by ya eh? My feet are on solid ground. Are yours?

Why do you think a missile hit the Pentagon... why wasn't it a laser beam from a UFO? Prove to me it wasn't.

I never said either of these things. And it is impossible to prove a negative. Want to try again?

Do you see what I mean? 14 years ago this happened and now people who agree on a majority of the issues involving 9-11 are arguing with each other about whether magic is real and planes can disappear or if a plane actually hit a building... Don't you feel like that is energy best used elsewhere?

No one mentioned magic here except yourself. Why inject magic into the narrative? To discredit a hypothesis you are uncomfrotable procesing?

The irony is you think you are immune to cogitive dissonance , yet are still a victim to it. And that makes me sad.

By all means explain to me what you think happened then and let's figure out if I'm immune to cognitive reasoning or if I'm just trying to stay consistent with reality...

I think the "different planes" idea is horse shit because nobody can tell me where the original plane went... Or where all the people on the original plane went...

By all means explain to me what you think happened then and let's figure out if I'm immune to cognitive reasoning or if I'm just trying to stay consistent with reality...

I'm certainly willing to play this game with you. But we both need to reset things. We are both here for a reason. I know mine. I'm sure you know yours. And I am fairly certain that they align in most things. And that's OK. All I ask is for you to consider the idea without rejecting it completely based on emotion. There is no way in the span of a few hours (this conversation) you read and watched what I have over the past few years to come to this conclusion. That is not to say I'm tryin to establish a superiority complex or anything - I'm just saying there's no way you have. And that's OK.

I think the "different planes" idea is horse shit because nobody can tell me where the original plane went... Or where all the people on the original plane went...

What if I told you that the explanation for where the planes went is not necesary or material towards a different way of looking at this Event?

If you want to continue, we can, but we have to let go of this assumption for a moment (or a day or two).

Challenge your thinking.

I can't guarantee answers. But I can guarantee questions.

I can guarantee questions too and I'd also almost guarantee that I've seen everything you've seen as far as conspiracy videos and articles about 9-11 go. I can not bring myself to invent a theory that simply doesn't make sense based on the witnesses and the wreckage. We believe that witnesses at ground zero in New York heard explosions and those witnesses shouldn't be ignored.. we both believe them on that.. Why not believe the witnesses in DC who saw a plane heading into the Pentagon? If you are saying that it wasn't the passenger jet then it is pretty important to know where that jet and the people on it are.. It is also very important to know why they swapped this plane out..

This wasn't a spontaneous event where 19 hijackers took over a few planes and crashed them into buildings and they had no outside help or funding... I agree with that 100%. However I don't see any evidence or reasoning that would make sense to bring me into the space where I believe a plane got swapped for a missile or a drone.. Why would they do this and how did they do this and why do the witness reports conflict with this? I need to know answers to those questions before I fall for this.

I shall prepare something for you. Whats a good time?

One theory: they had OBL as CIA asset after Russia invaded Afghanistan. Easy scapegoat. Also, the absolute ease of ramping up Afghan poppy/opium production which gave everyone money for reinvestment and eventually Haliburton was able to go over with their droves of private paramilitary units. Iraq was secondary, rolled out during the patriotism propoganda. Bottom line, oil, munitions, weapontry, drugs, training grounds with little oversight, continued chaos, and continued source of boogiemen to feed nationalistic patriotism.

So they could have had 2 of the hijackers "operating" out of Iraq and now they can go into Iraq without the WMD story... If you think "they" planned this whole thing from start to finish this is a hurdle you need to jump.. why didn't they do the easiest thing possible and use a couple hijackers from Iraq so America would have supported the Iraq war 100% without needing a bullshit WMD story. Everyone points to the PNAC "rebuilding America's defenses" report to demonstrate that this was all planned years in advance but if that's the case why did they overlook this minor detail?

The way I see it the war on terror in Afghanistan was against people. The focus of the 9/11 story is of non-government affiliated actors. The WMD story focused on a government specifically Saddam. Makes sense to me for them to go down both paths. Also 9/11 was incredibly successful at defacing the image of Islam in America. So much that the entire Middle East and all of Islam is complicit in the minds of Americans.

"THEY hate US for our freedom"

Well they could have said that Saddam helped finance the attacks.. it would have been easy to lie about that if a couple of the hijackers were from Iraq... You could have had al Qaeda still and funding from Saddam (like how Saudi Arabia funded the attacks and that was covered up). Instead they made up the WMD thing and made everyone distrust our government more.. that seems counterproductive to their end game.

So the truth can be revealed on 10/21/2015

It's because the Saudi govt would not interfere.

The insurance payout on three buildings..all being world trade towers was huge. Always follow the financial trail and you'll find an answer.

They did try to iirc. They found aluminium tubes that they said were for missiles but it didn't add up.

If the powers that be could formulate the destruction of the WTC why could they not plant Sarin gas or other WMD in Iraq and totally justify the war?

Could the provenance of a WMD be determined?

Surely that could be faked, if necessary. Not to mention, who would be doing the checking? If they could buy off everyone about 9/11, surely a few government employees testing WMDs would be easy.

Surely that could be faked,

A WMD that produces a mushroom cloud can be faked?

any sufficiently large explosive is gonna make a mushroom cloud, but that's not what I meant. A WMD's origins could feasibly be faked, or the people who determine such a thing bought - that's what I meant. Surely it would be leagues easier than faking 9/11.

Maybe you've forgotten the threat was Saddam had restarted his nuke program and the CIA said the aluminum tubes were for nukes.

Faking a WMD's origins could feasibly be faked,

That would require proving the facilities were capable of producing a nuke.

The evidence of a program that produces them can, sure.

Evidence for spinning aluminum tubes and those tubes being made for nukes could be faked? Tell me more.

Do you have evidence of Saddam spinning aluminum tubes for WMD-related activities?

Do you have evidence of Saddam spinni aluminum tubes for WMD-related activities?

The CIA director saying so.

I am sure this person (and agency) only has the American People's best interests in mind. And would never lie to you or I. Right?

So how would they fake the facilities Saddam didn't reopen?

Which ones?

I think the rabbit hole is deeper then that. I believe the "powers that be" that made 911 happen are not the same ones that jumped on the timing to profit from it.

THIS.
My research over the past few years is tying the whole thing together. My findings show that the Illuminati are, in fact, in the process of orchestrating a third phase to their diabolical plan in which they will pin blame for the attack on Al Gore. In this way they can discredit his findings of Global Warming, which is in actuality a Illuminati/Free Mason/Rotary Club strategy aimed at population control and profiteering of the air conditioning industry.

Yeah, maybe a muslim extremist conspiracy made the attack happen, and then american officials used it as a convenient rallying point to start their war in Iraq.

...Nah. ;)