Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event

Annd9

I don't have an explanation and never claimed to , I just find it strange . Is it not ok to question these things ? I have not found any reasoning as to how it was falsely reported or where the Bbc got that info .
Reporting that a skyscraper has collapsed is not exactly the smallest of mistakes , I can understand exact times being wrong , number of casualties etc etc but reporting news before it happens ?

Dohnjoe

Annd9 wrote: »

Reporting that a skyscraper has collapsed is not exactly the smallest of mistakes , I can understand exact times being wrong , number of casualties etc etc but reporting news before it happens ?

Probably one of the most extraordinary news days in history. Two of the largest buildings in the world had just collapsed. The Pentagon had been hit and the side wall collapsed. That building had been on fire, unchecked for hours, firefighters had been expecting it to collapse. On the day I remember up to 8 planes being reported as hijacked.

How is it inconceivable that it's a mistake during live chaotic news, but somehow plausible that the whole thing is an inside job with the conspirators handing the plans and "timetable" to a media organisation?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There's no "official narrative".

Like everything else it was pieced together with facts, evidence, witnesses, information as the events unfolded and after. Apart from small details, it hasn't changed since 2001

Unlike conspiracy theories which are all over the place because they are based on a belief in conspiracy theories, not on the facts or truth

You are choosing the parts you like and don't like about 9/11.

You have ignored the PANC group in 1997 ( hardline neocons with ties to Israel) talked about needing a new "pearl harbour" event to occur in America so they can change the middle east. They talked about removing hostile regimes by the military force and they openly before 9/11 said Saddam was a target. Strange a few years later they got what they wanted!

You have ignored evidence multiple eyewitnesses saw a plane on a different path the 9/11 commission claimed. These people are Pentagon 9/11 witnesses they are not fake witnesses.

You have ignored Hani Hanjour flight instructor said he was a terrible pilot, and could not handle and control a light Cessna Plane a few weeks before 9/11. Yet we are told to believe on 9/11 he could fly and could control commercial airliner like a fighter jet just a few weeks later 9/11 commission believed Hani Hanjour was a better pilot based on the evidence given by Eddie Shalev a flight instructor. Years later the truth camp found out he was a former Israeli soldier (another Israeli connection to 9/11)

You have ignored the hijackers were known to be inside America for years and even got their Visas from CIA section of the Jeddah Embassy in Saudi Arabia to fly to America (nothing weird about that?) You ignored the hijackers trained out of secure US bases in the 90's. If there was nothing to hide why did the Bush government stonewall the Saudi Arabia involvement in 9/11 and classify the 29 pages of the 9/11 commission report.

Why does the FAA and NTSB animation not support the official narrative about 9/11 Pentagon attack?

The official narrative is a joke and the only persons clueless here are you and your friends on this board.

Cheerful Spring

Annd9 wrote: »

I don't have an explanation and never claimed to , I just find it strange . Is it not ok to question these things ? I have not found any reasoning as to how it was falsely reported or where the Bbc got that info .
Reporting that a skyscraper has collapsed is not exactly the smallest of mistakes , I can understand exact times being wrong , number of casualties etc etc but reporting news before it happens ?

They are fortune tellers they can predict the future! The whole building would not have come down at freefall speed this is a sign of demolition. We have plenty of video and photographs that show only light fires occurring on the West side of WTC7. A few floors would likely fall down not the whole building. 90 percent of the building was structurally ok with no fire present.

Dohnjoe

All of the above has been debunked/explained

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

All of the above has been debunked/explained

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Apply basic critical thinking

1. It was a live reporting error (there were many on the day)

2. The "powers-that-be" decided to tell a media organisation in another country their "secret inside treasonous plan" to destroy a building and gave an exact time that it would fall.

No, the BBC got a report the building collapsed. When asked about this they could not find the source who told them this, highly suspicious.I believe that report on the BBC was 30 to 40 minutes before WTC7 collapsed. Somebody obviously messed up the timing of the report to be let out to the news media.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No the BBC got a report the building collapsed. When asked about this they could not find the source who told them this, highly suspicious.

Live news makes mistakes.

If you are entertaining the notion that somehow the conspirators have some sort of timetable and handed it to a media organisation - I am very curious. Where are you getting this info from? sources? evidence?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Live news makes mistakes.

If you are entertaining the notion that somehow the conspirators have some sort of timetable and handed it to a media organisation - I am very curious. Where are you getting this info from? sources? evidence?

I not blaming BBC I think the person who phoned or send the BBC this information knew the building was coming down. How they knew this before it did nobody knows because the BBC refuses to reveal their source.

Cheerful Spring

The PANC Group later lied about Iraq WMD and faked intelligence for that war but somehow it's not believable they could be involved in 9/11?

King Mob

Annd9 wrote: »

I don't have an explanation and never claimed to , I just find it strange . Is it not ok to question these things ? I have not found any reasoning as to how it was falsely reported or where the Bbc got that info .
Reporting that a skyscraper has collapsed is not exactly the smallest of mistakes , I can understand exact times being wrong , number of casualties etc etc but reporting news before it happens ?

But if you can't explain it, why do you think it points towards a conspiracy?
Surely if it was a conspiracy something like this wouldn't happen in the first place.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I think the person who phoned or send the BBC this information knew the building was coming down.

What is evidence for the above? who was the person? what details did they provide? transcripts? reasoning for it?

It's important for you to provide this so that anyone reading this thread can see what evidence it's based on.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What is evidence for the above? who was the person? what details did they provide? transcripts? reasoning for it?

It's important for you to provide this so that anyone reading this thread can see what evidence it's based on.

You don't report WTC7 just collapsed and not have a source for this information. Even if they got from another network? They too had to have gotten that information from somewhere.

The video exists of the building still standing when BBC said it collapsed?

Annd9

King Mob wrote: »

But if you can't explain it, why do you think it points towards a conspiracy?
Surely if it was a conspiracy something like this wouldn't happen in the first place.

I've never once mentioned a conspiracy , I have simply yet to find the explanation as to how it was reported in the first place

"What is evidence for the above? who was the person? what details did they provide? transcripts? reasoning for it?

It's important for you to provide this so that anyone reading this thread can see what evidence it's based on."

Can you provide these ? you seem to know how this happened

King Mob

Annd9 wrote: »

I've never once mentioned a conspiracy , I have simply yet to find the explanation as to how it was reported in the first place

It was a mistake in reporting on a day of hectic reports and confusion.
I'm not sure why that is impossible or inadequate.

It could be something like firefighters relaying that "the building might collapse" becomes, after various hectic retelling along the chain between emergency workers, police, reporters, writers, editors and the news reader it becomes "the building has collapsed" in the haze of reports buzzing around.

AFAIR the news report in question the actual wording is more like: "there are reports that the building has collapsed".
This is different to "the building has collapsed" and so the actual news report would still be true and entirely consistent with what was happening as those erroneous reports would indeed have been going around.

And again, there's no alternative that makes sense.
It can't be a conspiracy, cause the conspiracy idea doesn't provide an explanation and it doesn't make sense.
So even if the idea of it being a mistake is somehow impossible... What else is there?

Overheal

Tbh I don’t blame him for not getting back into the same subject matter as infinitum

Dr. Bre

So many coincidences that day and that’s why I don’t believe

Cheerful Spring

This is how I think the operation unfolded planners are the ( PNAC group) was behind 9/11. They could not use American boys to carry out the operation they needed patsies. So the 19 hijackers from the Middle East are the patsies. This is stage one of the operation. You create a false background and narrative for these guys and the controlled corporate media will buy into line hook and sinker!

The controllers not the same as the planners, they are basically a group that makes sure the 19 hijackers got protected while in America. No other agency could know about any of these guys before 9/11, Arrests would stop the operation on 9/11. This is why the CIA does not share information with the FBI, to mention who they are, would disrupt the event and potentially uncover the whole plot before it happened.

9/11 commission report is then the cover-up later of in coincidences in the official narrative. Just like the Warren report covered up the JFK murder done by the CIA and Mob guys.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You don't report WTC7 just collapsed and not have a source for this information. Even if they got from another network? They too had to have gotten that information from somewhere.

The video exists of the building still standing when BBC said it collapsed?

In your mind, you've guessed, with no evidence, that someone who you can't name, handed the BBC a report that you have no idea about, with details of a "911 inside job" which you've also made up, with the precise time that a "building would collapse" which is again made up

Let's look at the evidence: none
Let's look at all parts you've guessed to fit your narrative: everything

Or do you have evidence?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In your mind, you've guessed, with no evidence, that someone who you can't name, handed the BBC a report that you have no idea about, with details of a "911 inside job" which you've also made up, with the precise time that a "building would collapse" which is again made up

Let's look at the evidence: none
Let's look at all parts you've guessed to fit your narrative: everything

Or do you have evidence?

So what your version the BBC just made up the story themselves about WTC7 collapsing before it did?

Cheerful Spring

Dr. Bre wrote: »

So many coincidences that day and that’s why I don’t believe

Able Danger you probably never heard of this.

This what I mean by controllers they are moles stopping information leaking out to prevent the terrorist attack on 9/11

Senators from both parties accused the Defense Department ... of obstructing an investigation into whether a highly classified intelligence program known as Able Danger did indeed identify Mohamed Atta and other future hijackers as potential threats well before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The Pentagon blocked several witnesses from testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The officers have said they were prevented by the Pentagon from sharing information about Mr. Atta and others with the [FBI]. The Pentagon has acknowledged that at least five members of Able Danger have said they recall a chart produced in 2000 that identified Mr. Atta, who became the lead hijacker in the Sept. 11 plot, as a potential terrorist."

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/politics/senators-accuse-pentagon-of-obstructing-inquiry-on-sept-11-plot.html

Annd9

King Mob wrote: »

It was a mistake in reporting on a day of hectic reports and confusion.
I'm not sure why that is impossible or inadequate.

It could be something like firefighters relaying that "the building might collapse" becomes, after various hectic retelling along the chain between emergency workers, police, reporters, writers, editors and the news reader it becomes "the building has collapsed" in the haze of reports buzzing around.

AFAIR the news report in question the actual wording is more like: "there are reports that the building has collapsed".
This is different to "the building has collapsed" and so the actual news report would still be true and entirely consistent with what was happening as those erroneous reports would indeed have been going around.

And again, there's no alternative that makes sense.
It can't be a conspiracy, cause the conspiracy idea doesn't provide an explanation and it doesn't make sense.
So even if the idea of it being a mistake is somehow impossible... What else is there?

Do you have any reports on how this mistake happened ? You're opening line suggests you do . I have been asked on multiple occasions to provide evidence even though my argument is based on , no evidence being available ... hence the scepticism.
I accept I can not provide absolute proof that the BBC somehow knew of the impending collapse, my problem is , nobody has provided actual evidence to suggest otherwise .

King Mob

Annd9 wrote: »

Do you have any reports on how this mistake happened ? .

Nope, because the incident is only important to conspiracy theorists looking for something to prove the conspiracy.

But can you explain why my explanation is impossible or unlikely or inadequate?
Can you detail any alternative that explains the event in the context of the conspiracy that is likewise plausible and rational?

If not, then why is this event noteworthy?

Annd9

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your explanation at all, it is the most sensible and realistic version of what POSSIBLY happened .

Why I have a problem with the story we have been told is that it's so contradictory .
If the building was so engulfed in flames who had a look at the structural damage ? (remembering a steel framed building had never collapsed due to fire and still hasn't ) predicting that is some achievement .
Who passed on that information to the BBC ?
Did the BBC not notice a massive dust cloud taking over the city similar to when the towers came down earlier in the day ?

All questions nobody has answered which fuels people like myself to wonder what really happened that day . Coincidence happens all the time , that day had too many for me to accept the official story .

Ive also noticed nobody has even attempted to answer the other questions I asked in my first post . Why ? I'd imagine it's because they are the most pressing questions with no "tin foil hat " get out clause .

King Mob

Annd9 wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your explanation at all, it is the most sensible and realistic version of what POSSIBLY happened .

And again: there is no conspiracy explanation.
So therefore you, and conspiracy theorists can't really use the incident as evidence towards the conspiracy.
Doing so is a bit dishonest.

Annd9 wrote: »

If the building was so engulfed in flames who had a look at the structural damage ? (remembering a steel framed building had never collapsed due to fire and still hasn't ) predicting that is some achievement .

Firefighters at the scene who widely reported their concerns that the building might collapse.
No where does my explanation require that they "predict" anything. Other than a building undergoing a massive fire might collapse.

Annd9 wrote: »

Who passed on that information to the BBC ?

Fire Fighters, reporters on the ground, people in the emergency services informing the press.
There's dozens of possibilities, the exact answer isn't really important or relevant.

Annd9 wrote: »

Did the BBC not notice a massive dust cloud taking over the city similar to when the towers came down earlier in the day ?

Again, this is one news reader in a studio, who knows where. The BBC is not one big giant hive mind that can transfer information perfectly and instantly. So mistakes are made. They are made all the time. One incident I remember is them interview some random guy live on air mistaking him for an expert they'd brought in.

And again, there's the possibility that she said something to the effect of: "there are reports that the building has collapsed". This would be true, regardless of whether the building collapsed or not. The reports that it had collapsed, mistaken though the may be, would exist.

I'll save time and assume that you have no answers for these questions yourself that make sense in the conspiracy?

So again, what's to see here? It's adequately explained by normal things and a conspiracy wouldn't make any more sense of the event. It would make the event make less sense.

Annd9 wrote: »

All questions nobody has answered which fuels people like myself to wonder what really happened that day . Coincidence happens all the time , that day had too many for me to accept the official story .

Ive also noticed nobody has even attempted to answer the other questions I asked in my first post . Why ? I'd imagine it's because they are the most pressing questions with no "tin foil hat " get out clause .

I think you'd find that all of your questions result in the same: there is rational explanations for it and that the conspiracy doesn't actually answer the questions at all and doesn't make sense.

If you'd like to post an example of such a question (just the one please) I could walk through this process for that question too.

Annd9

If you'd like to post an example of such a question (just the one please) I could walk through this process for that question too.[/QUOTE]


Why did the US invade Iraq when 15 Saudi's attacked them ?

King Mob

Annd9 wrote: »

Why did the US invade Iraq when 15 Saudi's attacked them ?

Because George Bush and the neocon influence in government wanted a war and where able to seize an opportunity that presented itself to stir up hawkish policies and support for "action" without having to make that opportunity for themselves.

Now, please explain the conspiracy version of this answer.
Why did they say it was Saudis?
Why no just get some Iraqis to do it?
Why not fake evidence is was Iraqis?
Why not fake stronger links to the supposed attackers and Iraq?

Why if they had this much control over everything, would they need to do the attack in the first place?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Because George Bush and the neocon influence in government wanted a war and where able to seize an opportunity that presented itself to stir up hawkish policies and support for "action" without having to make that opportunity for themselves.

Now, please explain the conspiracy version of this answer.
Why did they say it was Saudis?
Why no just get some Iraqis to do it?
Why not fake evidence is was Iraqis?
Why not fake stronger links to the supposed attackers and Iraq?

Why if they had this much control over everything, would they need to do the attack in the first place?

So you finally admit the Neocons wanted a war pre 9/11.

Al Qaeda was formed by Saudi Intelligence in the 80's. Al Qaeda is basically like Hezbollah is for Iran.

Bush family and Bin Laden family are very close have been since 1970's. How weird is one of the Bin Laden family members happens to be the leader of Al Qaeda when Bush was elected president and 9/11 happens!

Cheerful Spring

Annd9 wrote: »

If you'd like to post an example of such a question (just the one please) I could walk through this process for that question too

Why did the US invade Iraq when 15 Saudi's attacked them ?

This was the plan and was discussed in the Neocon blueprint the "Project for American century" in 1997. They openly discussed removing Saddam by military means but they needed a new "pearl harbour like the event to kick start it.

Saudi Arabia was involved in 9/11 obviously and they wanted to keep this quiet. It's the reason the Bush administration classified the 29 pages of 9/11 commission report for 12 years. The investigation into Saudi Arabia involvement in 9/11 was shut down by the White House after 9/11. FBI agents were threatened with firings if they continued to investigate.

It up to the families of 9/11 to find some closure. They are about to go to court with Saudi Arabia and a lot of evidence about their involvement in 9/11 will be presented to the Judge and Jury

Annd9

King Mob wrote: »

Because George Bush and the neocon influence in government wanted a war and where able to seize an opportunity that presented itself to stir up hawkish policies and support for "action" without having to make that opportunity for themselves.

Now, please explain the conspiracy version of this answer.
Why did they say it was Saudis?
Why no just get some Iraqis to do it?
Why not fake evidence is was Iraqis?
Why not fake stronger links to the supposed attackers and Iraq?

Why if they had this much control over everything, would they need to do the attack in the first place?

If they wanted war so much, turning a blind eye or contributing to something that would get them that war is extremely plausible in my view . These guys have surely shown themselves to be absolute scum in the aftermath .

If memory serves me correct they shouted from the rooftops that Iraq was involved ...
Why they didn't just blame Iraq's is a great point that I've actually never thought of tbh.

They were able to start a never ending war on a word "Terror" This in my opinion is why they needed an attack of that magnitude on American soil .

Dohnjoe

Annd9 wrote: »

Do you have any reports on how this mistake happened ?

Not needed. It was a news mistake.

Unless you are entertaining the thought the whole thing was an inside job, and somehow the "powers-that-be" had this bizarre urge to share their secret plans to kill 3,000 Americans with a foreign news agency. Not just share their plans, but for some illogical reason to tell them the precise time a building was going to fall at.

...


when the building fell - outlets would report it. Why on earth would they want to risk everything and tell them this and expose this "giant inside treasonous job".

It makes no sense in any realm of imagination (or beyond)

So why entertain it yourself?

King Mob

Annd9 wrote: »

If they wanted war so much, turning a blind eye or contributing to something that would get them that war is extremely plausible in my view . These guys have surely shown themselves to be absolute scum in the aftermath .

If memory serves me correct they shouted from the rooftops that Iraq was involved ...
Why they didn't just blame Iraq's is a great point that I've actually never thought of tbh.

They were able to start a never ending war on a word "Terror" This in my opinion is why they needed an attack of that magnitude on American soil .

But notice again how I was able to answer the question without issue. Yet you cannot answer the question in the context of the conspiracy.

Is the explanation that they just seized an opportunity they had no hand in plausible? Can you explain why it's impossible, unlikely or inadequate?
Can you explain the potholes that result in the conspiracy?

Again I think the answer to these questions is a resounding "no".
So again, why would you think your question points to a conspiracy?

Dohnjoe

Annd9 wrote: »

If they wanted war so much, turning a blind eye or contributing to something that would get them that war is extremely plausible in my view .

Appeal to motive fallacy.

e.g. Who benefited most from the Russian athletes being banned from the recent Olympics? The other athletes at the games benefited, because of the absence of a major competitor

So, using the above logic, it's "possible" the other athletes framed the Russian athletes to get them banned

Absurd?

Appeal to motive. It's pointless without substantiated evidence.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Unless you are entertaining the thought the whole thing was an inside job, and somehow the "powers-that-be" had this bizarre urge to share their secret plans to kill 3,000 Americans with a foreign news agency. Not just share their plans, but for some illogical reason to tell them the precise time a building was going to fall at.

And then the BBC releases that information early for some reason.
It can't be a mistake or **** up, as that has to be impossible to dismiss the rational explanation.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

And then the BBC releases that information early for some reason.
It can't be a mistake or **** up, as that has to be impossible to dismiss the rational explanation.

Yup

Implausible that it's a live news mistake on one of the most chaotic news days in memory

Entirely plausible it's part of an evil plan to inform the media of pointless details of said evil plan for no logical reason

Dohnjoe

"Sir, everything is in place, the buildings ready to blow, the jet will hit 5 degrees off, WTC7 is rigged, all aircraft ready to roll, everyone is ready"

"Fantastic, this will be a bloodbath! did you inform the media?"

King Mob

And then of course this doesn't mention why the conspirators would want to destroy building 7 at all. There's no reason to complicate the conspiracy with it.

the purple tin

There were posts about how lucky al-Qaeda were to have all those training exercises taking place on the same day as the attack. It wasn't luck; AQ were tipped off about the date of the exercises in advance.
It was strongly suspected that it was the pakistani gov who leaked the info.
The US never followed up on it, or if they did, they kept it quiet as US-Pakistani relations weren't affected after 9-11.
There are more details about this in the book The Terror Conspiracy Revisited by Jim Marrs.

Dohnjoe

the purple tin wrote: »

There were posts about how lucky al-Qaeda were to have all those training exercises taking place on the same day as the attack. It wasn't luck; AQ were tipped off about the date of the exercises in advance.
It was strongly suspected that it was the pakistani gov who leaked the info.
The US never followed up on it, or if they did, they kept it quiet as US-Pakistani relations weren't affected after 9-11.
There are more details about this in the book The Terror Conspiracy Revisited by Jim Marrs.

Not sure what this is about, but the author is a conspiracy writer, e.g. 911, JFK, aliens - so would take anything written with a heavy pinch of salt

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And then of course this doesn't mention why the conspirators would want to destroy building 7 at all. There's no reason to complicate the conspiracy with it.

Was rumoured for years the SEC had files on Enron and Worldcom that got destroyed forever.

Follow the money did someone want something destroyed covered up?

Tenants in WTC7 included Salomon Smith Barney, American Express Bank International, Standard Chartered Bank, Provident Financial Management, ITT Hartford Insurance Group, First State Management Group, Inc., Federal Home Loan Bank, and NAIC Securities.

Government agencies with offices in the building were the IRS, the EEOC, the US Secret Service, the SEC, and the CIA.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup

Implausible that it's a live news mistake on one of the most chaotic news days in memory

Entirely plausible it's part of an evil plan to inform the media of pointless details of said evil plan for no logical reason

The even stated it was Soloman building (WTC7) that came out down. How you can predict a collapse before it happens. Their video evidence WTC7 was not buckling before the collapse.

The fact nobody can find out who the source is for this information is what is suspicious. Big news stations don't report on rumours they try to verify information (who the source is) and then broadcast it.

Ipso

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Was rumoured for years the SEC had files on Enron and Worldcom that got destroyed forever.

Follow the money did someone want something destroyed covered up?

Tenants in WTC7 included Salomon Smith Barney, American Express Bank International, Standard Chartered Bank, Provident Financial Management, ITT Hartford Insurance Group, First State Management Group, Inc., Federal Home Loan Bank, and NAIC Securities.

Government agencies with offices in the building were the IRS, the EEOC, the US Secret Service, the SEC, and the CIA.

Because everyone know how much the Saudis and Israelis hate the SEC!

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Was rumoured for years the SEC had files on Enron and Worldcom that got destroyed forever.

Rumours spread by conspiracy theorists

To get this straight, they prepped and rigged a building, secretly, with "silent" explosives

Why not just, you know, destroy these "files" while they are in there for the weeks/months it would have taken to prep the building for demolition?

I thought all this was to start a war - was "destroying secret files" like a bonus side mission or something?

the purple tin

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not sure what this is about, but the author is a conspiracy writer, e.g. 911, JFK, aliens - so would take anything written with a heavy pinch of salt

I haven't read any of his others but it's actually not a bad book. Fact based rather than pie in the sky stuff.
You could almost say that US/Pakistan relations are like a conspiracy theory; Pakistan has been screwing America over on the sly (and blatantly sometimes) for years and yet US has always considered them to be a good ally.

King Mob

the purple tin wrote: »

Fact based rather than pie in the sky stuff.

Did you do much fact checking?

Ipso

Wasn't Marrs one of the proponents of depopulation, back in the day? And from that time on the worlds population continued to increase!

Dohnjoe

the purple tin wrote: »

I haven't read any of his others but it's actually not a bad book. Fact based rather than pie in the sky stuff.

I just spent about 5 minutes with it there on google books. It's self published. It follows the same typical truther narrative - lists out a bunch of "cracks" in the "official story" (most of which have now been exhausted debunked and explained) - and adds these cracks up to form enough doubt to suggest a "conspiracy", therefore 911 was an inside job, just like it's a "fact" that Pearl Harbour was an "inside job" (according to the book)

I flicked on ahead - it gets pretty damn bad..

In one chapter, it casually mentions that a Brooklyn detective was "looking into" why so many Middle-Easterners failed to show for work on Sept 11 and that most of the Arab cab drivers had called in sick that day

jesus christ.

This is all from an author who thinks aliens live among us

the purple tin

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I just spent about 5 minutes with it there on google books. It's self published. It follows the same typical truther narrative - lists out a bunch of "cracks" in the "official story" (most of which have now been exhausted debunked and explained) - and adds these cracks up to form enough doubt to suggest a "conspiracy", therefore 911 was an inside job, just like it's a "fact" that Pearl Harbour was an "inside job" (according to the book)

I flicked on ahead - it gets pretty damn bad..

In one chapter, it casually mentions that a Brooklyn detective was "looking into" why so many Middle-Easterners failed to show for work on Sept 11 and that most of the Arab cab drivers had called in sick that day

jesus christ.

This is all from an author who thinks aliens live among us

Oh my! Don't hold back, Dohnjoe :pac:
Did you read the read the part about Pakistani gov passing intelligence to AQ and what did you make of it.

King Mob

the purple tin wrote: »

Oh my! Don't hold back, Dohnjoe :pac:
Did you read the read the part about Pakistani gov passing intelligence to AQ and what did you make of it.

Did you actually check to see if this is actually true?
Or did you just accept it as a fact cause Jim Marrs said so?

If it's the latter, maybe it's not very convincing given claims like the ones Dohn Joe has pointed out.

Dohnjoe

the purple tin wrote: »

Oh my! Don't hold back, Dohnjoe :pac:
Did you read the read the part about Pakistani gov passing intelligence to AQ and what did you make of it.

I read the part about the kids prophesizing the attacks and I said nah

Fantastical books aside, the US didn't trust Pakistan much, especially the ISI in relation to AQ. They knew there were sympathies going on there. It's one of the reasons why they didn't reveal the Bin Laden raid to them - they felt he would be tipped off