What is the unsolved mystery you wish was solved?
I've always wanted to know what happened to madeleine mccann or the grimes sisters
shareI've always wanted to know what happened to madeleine mccann or the grimes sisters
sharewho wound up LHO - the conspiracy, if there was one, was well concealed - i'm ambivalent
kavanaugh - did he do what he was accused of ?
marilyn monroe - did rfk kill/have her killed ?
lincoln conspiracy - how aware/engaged where the confederate officials ?
aaron burr - what were his exact plans for the southwest territories after his filibuster ?
who was jack the ripper ?
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
shareThe I-70 killer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-70_Killer
share9/11 - who detonated the buildings, what really hit the towers (too fast to be a commercial jet), what happened to those they pretended to be killed on those planes?
sharewow
shareI'll probalby regret asking, but how do you explain the video and witnesses who saw commercial planes hit the towers? Were the videos fakes, or were the jets disguised to look like they did but were actually something else, or other?
shareMY WIFE IS ALSO INSANE AND SAYS SHIT LIKE THAT...ONCE YOU GO DOWN THE CONSPIRACY RABBITHOLE...YOU DON'T COME BACK OUT.
shareI've got some doubts about the JFK assassination. It was a very flawed investigation. A day or two after the investigation Hoover sent out memos telling his people that the public had to be convinced Oswald did it and acted alone, and that's what it looked like they tried to do. LBJ in an interview shortly before he died confessed he had doubts and mentioned how there was a Murder Incorporated being run in that part of the country. There's a lot of things like that which aren't smoking gun evidence, but enough to make me have some serious doubts.
Generally I agree with you, though.
I AGREE ON JFK.
shareToo many people ignore Oswald, he defected to the soviet union, which would be todays version of joining the islamic state, months before the Kennedy asasination he took shots at general Walker, that day he left his wedding ring at home and money in an envelope for Marina and the kids, he took something with him that he said were "curtain rods" obviously it was the rifle.
After Kennedy was shot, instead of staying at work, like everyone else, he fled, he then shot officer tippit thinking they were on to him, his actions in the texas theatre aren't the actions of an innocent man, he also never said "i'm innocent" just "i'm a patsy"
So many people would say that what i've just written is all a lie, staged events, but if we can say everything is a lie, then we'd never come to a sensible conclusion on anything
Oswald shot kennedy, theres no doubt about it, the only real question is if someone put him up to it or not, theres no real proof to back that up, and Oswald was far left commie nutjob with the rank of "sharpshooter" 49 shots out of 50 from the marines....
the writing is on the wall
I didn't ignore Oswald at all. You're ignoring the points I made, like the one about the FBI only being interested in making a case that Oswald acted alone. You're even ignoring that fact that I never claimed Oswald was innocent. All your points were about his involvement, but I never denied he was involved. I have zero interest in arguing about this right now, which can get time consuming.
shareoswald acted alone. he was too nuts for anyone to hire. he couldn't even drive a car. you think the mob is going to hire a hitman who couldn't drive a car.
share> ONCE YOU GO DOWN THE CONSPIRACY RABBITHOLE...YOU DON'T COME BACK OUT.
Well put.
One of my favorite refutations of conspiranoid "logic" is this one. When someone pulls the "X knew Y and Y knew Z, so X had to have known Z" argument, I respond truthfully that one of my undergrad professors was a minor player in the Kennedy administration. He was an expert in a particular area and was sometimes called into meetings to provide facts and figures. Kennedy knew who he was; when they passed in the hallway there was sometimes an exchange like, "Good morning, Will." "Good morning, Mr. President."
So, I knew Will and Will knew JFK, therefore I must have known JFK and I'm probably the guy who shot him. Absurd, of course -- I'm in my late fifties now; do the math. But some would buy that. In their minds it only means that I was very clever ...
The craziest theory I've ever heard is that JFK arranged his own assassination -- contrary to his public image, he was in poor health (Addison's disease and other problems), knew things weren't going to get better, and wanted to be remembered as a young and healthy man. Suuuuure -- I guess he didn't give a shit about Jackie, who could have easily been hit by a stray bullet.
Our elementary schools should do a much better job at teaching basic critical thinking skills.
Missiles with holographic properties, for the following reasons:
1) speed - these things were going faster than these jets go at high altitude (thin air) therefore it’s near impossible to get them to that speed in low (dense) air
2) accuracy - it’s actually very hard to manoeuvre a commercial jet to hit a building. You would need training as a fighter jet pilot to make the quick turns.
3) missing wings/dark plane - despite being captured on 18 or so cameras, the jet never fully discernible. It’s black, you can’t make out passenger windows, you don’t see the reflection of light you’d expect, you can’t see company artwork, and in two different videos, a wing just disappears like a bad cgi effect.
4) the entry - the plane hits a solid building and doesn’t break. For a split second, the plane is swallowed whole and the building is intact. The plane didn’t buckle or bend, change trajectory or even slow as it enters. That’s impossible. That breaks all rules of physics. Then suddenly the building explodes and the outline of a plane is seen. Some call it a cartoonish, road runner outline, as it’s absurd. Somehow flimsy wings pierced the steel outer grid of the towers.
The entry is so bizarre that you can’t even make sense of it. People don’t want to discuss it because it opens up some very troubling possibilities like, if no government on earth could do that, was it aliens?
People just scoff or switch off. Nobody wants to go there.
"1) speed - these things were going faster than these jets go at high altitude (thin air) therefore it’s near impossible to get them to that speed in low (dense) air"
Wrong. It's not 'near impossible.' It's completely possible. It's just not recommended because the planes weren't designed to go that fast at that low altitude. It's unsafe to go that fast, but it's possible. And it's likely that a pilot intent upon killing himself wouldn't have safety at the top of his list of concerns.
"2) accuracy - it’s actually very hard to manoeuvre a commercial jet to hit a building. You would need training as a fighter jet pilot to make the quick turns."
Wrong again. The pilot would have the building in sight for a long distance on such a clear day. It would be very easy to keep the building in front of him by making any minute adjustments as he approached.
"3) missing wings/dark plane - despite being captured on 18 or so cameras, the jet never fully discernible. It’s black, you can’t make out passenger windows, you don’t see the reflection of light you’d expect, you can’t see company artwork, and in two different videos, a wing just disappears like a bad cgi effect."
This has to be the stupidest claim. If it was just a missile with holographic wings, then why would there be an imprint of a plane with wings on the side of the building after the impact?
About the speed, the wings would be coming off due to air pressure. The engine would be “cranking” which is a very noisey sound.
The comment about speed is that you’d have to have the twin towers lined up from quite a distance and be using radar. They were flying blind. These were student pilots.
"About the speed, the wings would be coming off due to air pressure."
Any proof of that claim?
"The engine would be “cranking” which is a very noisey sound."
It was noisy. Check out the 9:09 mark of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
"The comment about speed is that you’d have to have the twin towers lined up from quite a distance and be using radar. They were flying blind. These were student pilots."
They weren't flying blind. It was a bright, cloudless day, and they could see out the front windshield.
Yes, they were student pilots who learned how to fly airplanes. Later, their flight instructor mentioned they weren't that concerned with learning how to land, and he should've seen that as a sign.
So let me see if I have this right. Instead of just hijacking an airplane and crashing it into the towers, these 'conspirators' used a missile instead. A missile with some kind of advanced holographic technology (that hasn't been duplicated in the 20 years since) to make it look like a plane. Not only that, they fooled the air traffic controllers into thinking the plane was hijacked, and fooled the radar (that was tracking the plane since it took off) by replacing the plane with their missile. And they faked phone calls from the passengers - to love ones who knew them and recognized their voices. Not only that, they somehow got rid of the plane without the radar noticing it, and then what, landed it and executed all the passengers and crew? And then they also had to spread around airplane debris on New York streets without anyone noticing. And they had to do all of this twice, once for each plane.
At the same time they had to wire both towers for demolition without anyone noticing, including removing inside walls to get at the support beams. Not only that, they had to place explosive charges on the outside of the building in the exact spot where the missile would hit, to imitate the impact of the wings against the building. And they had to time the charges in the building so that the building would collapse in 'pancake' fashion, unlike a normal imploded building, which falls as a single unit.
And then, because they had to destroy WTC 7 for some reason, they wired that building with explosives too, knowing that the North Tower would collapse on top of it and cause enough damage to make the NYFD think the building was damaged enough to fall on its own.
And at the Pentagon they had another missile, disguised also to look like a plane with holograms, that was able to show impact marks from its non-existent wings on the side of the building. Not only that, they were able to place airplane parts all over the Pentagon's lawn, and inside the building, along with all of the bodies of the people who were on the plane.
And how weird was it that the fourth missile disguised as a plane with holograms crashed in Shanksville, leaving a crater that held plane parts and dead bodies? So that's a total of four planes they managed to fake out air traffic controllers and radar, and then make vanish into thin air.
And it brings up the question, if the towers were wired with explosives, what would be the purpose of using a missile instead of a plane?
And the most unbelievable part: After 20 years, no one involved in this massive conspiracy has ever come forward or drunkenly admitted to a friend what they'd done.
So that's the story you're trying to sell us?
my son is an civil engineer and all the older and more experienced engineers he has talked to over the years about the twin towers all say the same thing - if the fires could have been extinguished, the towers would have remained standing.
share"4) the entry - the plane hits a solid building and doesn’t break. For a split second, the plane is swallowed whole and the building is intact. The plane didn’t buckle or bend, change trajectory or even slow as it enters. That’s impossible. That breaks all rules of physics. Then suddenly the building explodes and the outline of a plane is seen. Some call it a cartoonish, road runner outline, as it’s absurd. Somehow flimsy wings pierced the steel outer grid of the towers."
All this statement reveals is your lack of understanding of physics. A jet airplane is basically a hollow shell with wings filled with liquid fuel. But there is still all that mass traveling at 500mph, so that's going to have some effect on the building. And yes, the plane broke up on impact. Did you expect it to bounce off like a toy?
Plus, there's this:
Passengers and crew are missing.
Communication between Air Traffic Control and the plane points to a hijacking
Radar shows the route of the plane
Phone calls from passengers confirm the hijacking
Thousands of witnesses saw the impact from the streets of New York City. Millions saw it live on television
Debris from the plane was found in the streets and in the ruins
"Nobody wants to go there."
Because we're not idiots.
One of my best friends is a commercial airline pilot and flew the same planes that hit the towers for about a decade. He agrees that everything the OP claims is ‘complete bollocks’.
shareI’ve replied to this numerous times in the past and I will say, yet again. One of my best friends is a commercial airline pilot and flew the same planes that hit the towers for about a decade.
He refutes everything you claim as ‘complete bollocks’ and as far as he’s concerned, no conspiracy took place.
So why is there an organisation called “aviators for 9/11 truth”? Obviously your friend isn’t the ultimate authority on this issue.
shareThere is, however, a slight chance that he may know more than you, since you are not a commercial pilot.
shareUnlikely, I’ve researched this and he obviously hasn’t.
shareSo anyone who believes what you believe are the ultimate authorities on this issue and anyone who doesn't agree with you obviously haven't researched it? Ok then...
shareSaying my friend is a pilot is like saying "my friend is a doctor" and that means he understands brain surgery.
shareNo, it would be like me saying, “my friend is a brain surgeon” and you saying, “but I’m more qualified than them because I’ve read stuff on the internet.” 🤣
shareConsidering I have no serious medical knowledge, certainly no training in the field, I'm more likely to believe a doctor's take on brain surgery over my own. Even if I did hit the common sites for this kind of information (WebMD, etc) I'd still take the GP's word over mine. The funny thing about science is you start to understand how much you really don't understand when you start trying to peruse peer review papers.
Also, you have no idea what his friend has or has not researched but you certainly made a statement to make it seem like you do. How in the world would you know what a third party has researched? Where does this extraordinary insight come from?
"I’ve researched this"
This is what I get from all of you 9/11 conspiracy nuts.
But the simple fact is, all of your 'research' is just you reading nutjob 9/11 conspiracy websites and watching dishonest 9/11 conspiracy videos on YouTube.
So, you’re saying that someone that has been a commercial pilot for over 20 years, 10 of which were spent flying Boeing 767s, which were the same planes that were used to crash into the towers, would have less of an understanding of how an aircraft flys or in fact the degree of difficulty of navigating one correctly in order to hit it’s target, than someone who has done some ‘research’ on the internet?
shareDid a google search on “aviators for 9/11 truth” and couldn't find anything.
I did find a reference to a link named pilotsfor911truth.org, but it seems to be dead.
My search did lead me to this guy: https://911pilots.org/about-captain-dan-hanley/
He says:
"I do not believe that the alleged poorly trained and highly inexperienced 9/11 Muslim hijackers could have possibly been in control of the aircraft that day as they had never flown a jet aircraft before in their lives never mind the very complex and highly sophisticated B-757/767 aircraft. It is my assertion that the vast majority of the over 300,000 pilots in the world today will agree with my contention.
Our organization, 9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers, intends to seek out highly experienced civilian, military, and airline pilots from around the world who will agree with our assertion.
We intend to find them."
Not sure how old this website is, but since he's still asking, it's obvious he hasn't found them yet. Which is odd, since he claimed the 'vast majority' agreed with him.
Exactly how Biden stole the election.
shareWhy doesn't Boris Johnson have a proper hair cut?
shareHistory tells us there was a man named Jesus and he was crucified. Beyond that there are claims but very little actual proof.
I'd like to go back in time and witness it for myself. Experience Jesus teaching and witness any miracles he performed. And then see the crucifixion and its aftermath. (Of course, I'd probably have to learn a few new languages before I made the trip.)
I once read a time-travel story where a guy acquired the ability to travel through time, and he wondered if anyone else had the same ability. So he went back to the crucifixion, figuring that was the one place most other time-travelers would go.
What TheMan18 is saying.
share