How many idiots still believe in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?

[falc39]

It was obvious to some of us this virus is just h1n1, west nile, bird flu, sars, swine flu, y2k, wmd, etc wrapped up in political hysteria, with the intention of advancing a number of nefarious interests. It is no more a threat than the regular threats weve all accepted and lived with for decades.

Your view that lockdowns may just be a well intentioned, ‘honest government mistake’ on the best way to protect our health... is ludicrous. That you think this is a simple disagreement about the best way to help Americans is ludicrous.

The issue isnt about what data comes out which way.

It’s the fact you cant see something that obvious.

Interesting, data and studies don’t matter anymore. Got it.

It is also ludicrous that you can’t see that you could be hurting your own interests.

[falc39]

fair enough, no doubt I kinda felt the same way



I usually follow the rules and wear a mask where its required (although lately I have been testing my luck disobeying the rules), but I absolutely think there are practical reasons to resist... if we dont start resisting soon there wont be a single small business left in this country.

Anyway, like I said earlier, since when did the health of individuals become the responsibility of society at large? And how can any libertarian be ok with this interpretation of our social responsibility as citizens? Why should anyones small business be destroyed because 50% of the country is overweight and therefore high risk? Why should anyone be forced to shutter my small hardware store or clothing botique when companies like Walmart, Amazon and Target are all allowed to stay open and sell the same products? Even if you think there is a health benefit to the lockdowns (highly doubtful imo), the unfair and arbitrary way that the lockdown rules are applied seems like it should make a libertarians blood boil.

Also, the idea that any resistance to the mandates will just result in longer lockdowns is not backed up by reality... and is a deeply dystopian line of thought (the beatings will continue until the morale improves?) Every time the covid rules are disobeyed en masse (like during BLM riots), the government basically forgets that these rules exist. If enough people stop obeying the lockdown decrees, the lockdowns will evaporate.

Oh, you could be right. No one (including myself) are perfect forecasters. I'm not a big believer that governors inherently want to lockdown their states. It's a huge hit to governments too. I can't speak for all governors, but it is very apparent that they are using thresholds to determine when to lockdown and how restrictive they are. If you can accept this, then what follows is if you can lower the impact of COVID, it could lead to less or shorter lockdowns. There have been studies recently showing that masks are effective. It was already known in a lab setting but we are starting to see some real-world evidence too.

From Tennessee: https://www.vumc.org/health-policy/s...t-Oct%2027.pdf
From Kansas: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/...cid=mm6947e2_w
From Canada: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....24.20201178v2

Some of these are very recent and not peer-reviewed, and there is likely more to come. But the good thing is these are more local. The point is, if people weren't so stubborn and we're more better at reducing infections/hospitalizations with masks and a bunch of other softer policies, it's better than the alternative. If it's the difference between a 3 month lockdown vs. 5 month lockdown, that's a good thing. If it's the difference between Joe Biden getting all riled up and trying to do a federal mandate vs. keeping it with the states, it's not the worst result to keep it within the states.

[tpols]

Yes... it was a set up between USA and Saudi's to try and capture more control of the oil market in the middle east. The two countries still have a big relationship to this day.

[SouBeachTalents]

For those who believe this was an inside job, I genuinely want to know

1. Why would they use 4 planes? If their goal was to get people scared and riled up with a terrorist attack for the purpose of invading the middle east, wouldn't hitting both trade center towers and having them collapse, all on video, have been sufficient for that? Hell, the WTC makes up 90% of all 9/11 coverage anyway, United 93 gets a little discussion while the Pentagon is never talked about

2. Why wouldn't they let the last plane hit their target, what purpose would that serve them?

3. Why would they invade Iraq on the premise of WMD's being there, then not follow that up by planting or even pretending to find any of them over there, wouldn't that just jeopardize their mission for no reason? What purpose would there be to invade Iraq on the pretense of them having WMD's and never finding one?

4. It would probably take hundreds, if not thousands of people involved for the government to orchestrate an attack of this magnitude. Do you really think in 20 years not a single person would have come forward by this point, either out of guilt or for money or fame? Anyone who blew the whistle on 9/11 would become the most famous person on earth and immediately go down as a historically significant figure; not to mention the massive financial rewards at their disposal for appearances, interviews, and book deals. Sure, they'd run the risk of being Jeffrey Epstein'd, but I think the rewards would outweigh the risks and be far too tempting pass up for at least one person involved

[tpols]

Why would they need to pretend to find WMD's and plant them, when they didn't, and you went along with it anyways? The hilarious irony being USA has one of the biggest nuke arsenals in the world. And theyre shitting on small countries for "WMDs". But again... you and many others went along with it even when they didn't find anything. Why would they have to go the extra mile and plant when you're already suckered?

[Wally450]

For those who believe this was an inside job, I genuinely want to know

1. Why would they use 4 planes? If their goal was to get people scared and riled up with a terrorist attack for the purpose of invading the middle east, wouldn't hitting both trade center towers and having them collapse, all on video, have been sufficient for that? Hell, the WTC makes up 90% of all 9/11 coverage anyway, United 93 gets a little discussion while the Pentagon is never talked about

2. Why wouldn't they let the last plane hit their target, what purpose would that serve them?

3. Why would they invade Iraq on the premise of WMD's being there, then not follow that up by planting or even pretending to find any of them over there, wouldn't that just jeopardize their mission for no reason? What purpose would there be to invade Iraq on the pretense of them having WMD's and never finding one?

4. It would probably take hundreds, if not thousands of people involved for the government to orchestrate an attack of this magnitude. Do you really think in 20 years not a single person would have come forward by this point, either out of guilt or for money or fame? Anyone who blew the whistle on 9/11 would become the most famous person on earth and immediately go down as a historically significant figure; not to mention the massive financial rewards at their disposal for appearances, interviews, and book deals. Sure, they'd run the risk of being Jeffrey Epstein'd, but I think the rewards would outweigh the risks and be far too tempting pass up for at least one person involved

This is the part I always bring up to people when discussing this. At least 1 person would have made the slightest leak at this point.

[warriorfan]

For those who believe this was an inside job, I genuinely want to know

1. Why would they use 4 planes? If their goal was to get people scared and riled up with a terrorist attack for the purpose of invading the middle east, wouldn't hitting both trade center towers and having them collapse, all on video, have been sufficient for that? Hell, the WTC makes up 90% of all 9/11 coverage anyway, United 93 gets a little discussion while the Pentagon is never talked about

2. Why wouldn't they let the last plane hit their target, what purpose would that serve them?

3. Why would they invade Iraq on the premise of WMD's being there, then not follow that up by planting or even pretending to find any of them over there, wouldn't that just jeopardize their mission for no reason? What purpose would there be to invade Iraq on the pretense of them having WMD's and never finding one?

4. It would probably take hundreds, if not thousands of people involved for the government to orchestrate an attack of this magnitude. Do you really think in 20 years not a single person would have come forward by this point, either out of guilt or for money or fame? Anyone who blew the whistle on 9/11 would become the most famous person on earth and immediately go down as a historically significant figure; not to mention the massive financial rewards at their disposal for appearances, interviews, and book deals. Sure, they'd run the risk of being Jeffrey Epstein'd, but I think the rewards would outweigh the risks and be far too tempting pass up for at least one person involved

1. Redundancy to increase chances of success. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket....or one plane that is. Even if things went well their mission had a high chance of failure for multiple reasons.

2. Their plan went well, but didn’t go perfectly.

3. Because they literally didn’t have to. They knew Americans are so brainwashed they don’t even have to make an effort, they figured they could just say “whoops, turns out there were no WMD’s, our bad”. And people would pay no attention and carry on business as normal. And they were right. What exactly happened when they simply said that? Nothing!

4. Compartmentalization. Keep select few on a strictly need to know basis. Most people have simple orders that arnt connected to a bigger picture so they are ignorant they are even complicit in the plan. I.e. military training drills being held on the same day, same morning as the attack. Drills that were based on terrorist hijacking planes...

Keeping secrets is tough, but far from impossible, especially when not telling different parts any more than you have to. Don’t you remember the Volkswagen scandals years ago where they programmed some of their vehicles to report better emissions than they really were outputting? Do you really think everyone in that company top from bottom knew about the fraudulent system they put in their vehicles? If you do, then how were they able to keep the whole thing under wraps for literally YEARS before a smart mechanic stumbled upon it while tinkering? The other more likely scenario is almost no one knew of the fraudulent system. It was implemented by a small group of people in the company who kept it strictly on a need to know basis....and it worked perfectly....until an investigating 3rd party discovered it years later.

[Shogon]

For those who believe this was an inside job, I genuinely want to know

I don't know exactly why what happened on that day ended up happening. Do any of us know for certain? I do firmly believe that the specifics of what transpired on that day still haven't been 100% accurately reported to the public, even 19 years later. Why is that?

Why were 15 of the 19 hijackers Saudi Arabian? No Iraqis. No Afghans.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-lawyer-214996

https://www.courthousenews.com/9-11-...munity-claims/

https://abcnews.go.com/International...ry?id=72949183


As far as the idea that people can't keep secrets... I don't think any of us have even the remotest of ideas about the scope of nefarious shit that the CIA does on an annual basis.

[FultzNationRISE]

I don't know exactly why what happened on that day ended up happening. Do any of us know for certain? I do firmly believe that the specifics of what transpired on that day still haven't been 100% accurately reported to the public, even 19 years later. Why is that?

Why were 15 of the 19 hijackers Saudi Arabian? No Iraqis. No Afghans.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-lawyer-214996

https://www.courthousenews.com/9-11-...munity-claims/

https://abcnews.go.com/International...ry?id=72949183


As far as the idea that people can't keep secrets... I don't think any of us have even the remotest of ideas about the scope of nefarious shit that the CIA does on an annual basis.

And why was Bin Laden not only killed instead of captured, but randomly dumped over seas? The official story is US Navy Seals did so in accordance with “proper Islamic burial tradition”

As if thats justification to forego all the info he could have provided on the biggest terror attack ever. He could have told the world EVERYTHING about exactly what happened and why. Instead they just chucked him in the sea supposedly (hes never washed up to my knowledge, hmm) and told us to pop the champagne because “we got him!”

How does anyone know if it was actually him? Obviously we dont. And if it was, why would they do that??

But just like Epstein “commited suicide”

And just like former FBI informant and gov sanctioned gangster/murderer Whitey Bulger was mysteriously killed in jail after finally being captured...

The government does not **** around. They will kill ANYONE to protect their interests. Period. And they will kill and terrorize PROACTIVELY if theres enough to gain. There is no “they wouldnt go THAT far!”

People just dont want to believe that because it scares them.

[Manny98]

Wait..

There's people that still think that 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

[Hakkim90cc]

We don't even know who killed JFK

[Shogon]

We don't even know who killed JFK

I believe it was Oswald. Now whether or not other countries got involved with getting him to do it, I don't know... but pretty sure Oswald did it. Another thing we will likely never know for sure.

Also... for other people that doubt it, we did indeed land on the moon. I mean, the proof is still physically there... on the moon...

[FultzNationRISE]

I believe it was Oswald. Now whether or not other countries got involved with getting him to do it, I don't know... but pretty sure Oswald did it. Another thing we will likely never know for sure.

Also... for other people that doubt it, we did indeed land on the moon. I mean, the proof is still physically there... on the moon...

And of course lets not forget the all important reasons we went:

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the Moon...We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.[11]

Interesting reasons for dumping 250,000,000,000 of public dollars into R&D + Manufacturing companies so a guy can moon walk and quip about giant leaps for mankind.

But as long as the moon landing stopped the Russians from colluding with, umm, Orange Man? On a space war...

We know all the usual peeps whod have been ready to cheer it on while the rich got richer.

[Hakkim90cc]

I believe it was Oswald. Now whether or not other countries got involved with getting him to do it, I don't know... but pretty sure Oswald did it. Another thing we will likely never know for sure.

Also... for other people that doubt it, we did indeed land on the moon. I mean, the proof is still physically there... on the moon...

Okay so who killed Oswald? Do you honestly believe the official story?

[~primetime~]

Yes... it was a set up between USA and Saudi's to try and capture more control of the oil market in the middle east. The two countries still have a big relationship to this day.

They don't need to convince the American public of anything to accomplish this goal...Bush Sr invaded Iraq with no attacks needed. Our Gov doesn't care what we think, otherwise Bush Jr would have simply said "we found WMDs!!!"

also, oil has been worth jack shit for years now. OPEC has been forced to reduce production to keep it from going negative.