Conspiracy Talk Archive September 14 2013


Use our posting form to send us conpiracy talk.

14 Sep 2013 23:29:58
My reply to the 9/11 post,

You say the buildings were meant to withstand planes yeah, we'll they was, but not massive jumbo jets that are built these days, and you said why did the building fall down so fast, because the fuel on the plane, the fuel, it wa planes

And secondly, answer me this, why would they go to all this trouble of planting explosives or making a holophram, why couldn't they themselves fly a jet into the plane?


Believable1 Unbelievable1

{Ed001's Note - actually they were not hit by jumbo jets, they were within the size range and travelling within the speed range that the building were designed to withstand. They were also built to withstand the heat of the fuel burning. Your points are just clueless and are pure ignorance. Instead of regurgitating media lies, why don't you take the time to do your own research? Then you would find that a plane could not possibly have done it, nor could 2 or 3 planes, unless they were packed with high explosives, which none of them were.
Whether it was a hologram they used or just flew planes into buildings rigged to blow and then blew them, is the main question.}

15 Sep 2013 08:37:09
Talk about feeding the troll, right then gobblemaster if a plane hit the Pentagon, where is the wreck? Where is the video footage?

Agree2 Disagree1

He makes a point. Because we all have seen the video, a plane hits the building and it falls. Is that so hard to believe? Or do u just make it so?


Agree2 Disagree0

{Ed001's Note - ah well if you are that gullible, perhaps you believe wrestling is real too? After all, I have seen a video of that, so that must make it so, right? I mean I have seen videos done by the Nazis of a Polish attack on their border posts, which were the excuse for invading, that must be true too right? I have seen videos done by them during the war, that we now call propaganda films, but as they are a video you must believe them. You really are wasting everyone's time on here. You just want to be obnoxious and blinkered, you don't want to consider the possibilities, just be a total knob. Sad that some people are so lacking in any kind of open mind.}

I got to say I've watched many 9/11 progremmes, videos etc heard plenty of theories and I just don't buy any of it. I don't accept that any western government would intentionally kill thousands of innocent people for an excuse to start a war. I accept that they may have had intelligence warning them something may happen I still find it odd once they knew the planes were highjacked that they didn't just shoot them down. but holograms? haarp (spelling?) technology? etc. really? just as some people find it ignorant that someone believe it was terrorists in aeroplanes some would find it strange that some people really believe in some frankly outlandish conspiriacy theories too.

in 2000 there was meant to be havoc because of the millenium bug? NOTHING. the world was meant to end in 2012? NOTHING. world war 3 is just round the corner? well i'm not a betting man but i'd guess we will still be here a year from now waiting for it to happen.

Agree1 Disagree0

{Ed001's Note - actually the millenium bug was mainstream media talking crap, not really a conspiracy theory as we think of them. The 2012 thing was just nonsense, just a few loons being talked up by the mainstream media, again. Neither are in any way relevant to what happened on 9/11. I think a better example you could have used, to illustrate your point, would have been any of thousands of attacks allowed to get through during the Second World War that could have been stopped. Coventry's firebombing, for example, was known about in plenty of time, but the govt decided not to act in case Germany realised that they had cracked the Enigma machine's codes. Now that would be similar, in that both govts stood aside and let thousands die.
Not really the same in any other way though, that was the middle of a war, when revealing knowledge of an event would have revealed the source of that knowledge. On 9/11 there were hundreds of warnings given in advance that could have been acted on without revealing a source.}

16 Sep 2013 17:13:55
Ed correct me if i'm wrong but didn't Microsoft make a killing off the Millennium bug selling upgrade patches? Mort

Agree0 Disagree0

{Ed002's Note - I am sure I would remember if they were selling patches.}

14 Sep 2013 23:18:13
{Ed033's Note - 9/11 In 5 Minutes - video by James Corbett

Believable2 Unbelievable0

Great video ed short and sweet

Agree1 Disagree0

14 Sep 2013 11:14:17
I see people talking about how the NWO is supposed to be this organisation taking control of the world, long story short they sound the same as the Old World Order threatening people trying to rule the world etc, now if you think about it if the OWO are still in control they're going to use propaganda to make the NWO sound bad i. e. all the films based in the future have dictatorships etc etc. Basically the NWO could be better just my opinion then again they could be worse.

Believable0 Unbelievable1

14 Sep 2013 00:27:33
Can someone tell me why people think 9/11 was a plot and that it was a missile with a holophram or something, it was Osama bin laden flying a plane into a building, that's all, no conspiracies. Tell me some proof why this isn't true, one reason and proof why it wasn't a plane, then tell me why it was a missile or something



Believable1 Unbelievable2

{Ed033's Note - I guess you selectively read stuff on this page and you believe anything the mainstream media tells you.

If you're interested in 9/11, instead of asking for proof on 9/11 related stuff, you have to do 1 of 2 things for an over-abundance of proof that the official story is bogus.

Either read Dr. Judy Wood's book 'Where did the towers go' or
go to and watch all the Andrew Johnson and Dr. Judy Wood video interviews about 9/11

Gobblemaster, how did you even find this site mate it seems you wouldn't dare question what the media tells you! Anyway I found the 'Loose Change' documentaries very interesting as well. There is so much proof out there it's frightening. I mean how the powers that be get away with such lies is beyond me despite the amount of evidence! I guess the fact they own and control the media who in turn control small minded people who can't think for themselves helps them get away from being caught! Love this site btw guys I'm always checking it out. Keep up the good work all contributors!

Agree2 Disagree1

Maybe you're just being a bit tongue in cheek saying it was Osama Bin Laden, and if so fair enough.

But just in case you're genuinely curious about what really happened that day, watch September Clues & September Clues Addendum, by Simon Shack. They're both available online. They're probably the most comprehensive documentaries on the no plane theory available, along with the Judy Wood book and interviews.

Study the evidence. The 'no plane' theory sounds absurd at first, but if there were no planes in Shanksville, and at the Pentagon, it's not unreasonable to at least consider the evidence for no planes at the WTC 1 & 2.

According to Shack, there was a 17-second delay between the attacks and the screening of the footage, long enough for passenger planes to be inserted into the film. He reveals technical glitches in the footage of the jets hitting the towers.

Various shots from both the TV footage and alleged 'amateur cameramen' show United Airlines Flight 175
disappearing into the South structure like a ghost.

If you study the footage of the so called 2nd plane strike, you have to ask yourself how can an alleged plane hit a massive building and scythe straight through it and the nose cone comes out the other side of the building completely intact? Through 208 feet of steel and concrete and keep it's shape?

But if you want to believe it was Bin Laden, then you must believe that Satam Al Suqamis passport really survived a blast that melted a commercial jet and reduced a skyscraper to dust, and was miraculously found intact nearby. Maybe YOU could prove how that can happen?

You might also want to believe that it was mere coincidence that NORAD was running a drill of flying hijacked planes into the WTC and the Pentagon on the morning of 911.

You might also want to explain how WTC7 fell in 6. 9 seconds (virtually freefall speed) despite not being hit by an aircraft. Larry Silverstein (the recent buyer of the WTC) is on the record as saying 'we made the decision to pull tower 7'. So did they just stroll into tower 7 with explosives while all around them towers 1 & 2 were exploding? And then set the charges in a matter of hours, when demolition experts say this job take weeks?

Maybe you can also explain why the WTC complex was completely shut down for 3 days only three weeks before 911 allegedly to install internet cables?

Why not offer us some proof of your theory if you're so sure?


Agree1 Disagree0

{Ed001's Note - more importantly, if anyone could explain why towers that are specifically designed to deal with a plane strike, as all high buildings in New York have to be, were so easily destroyed by planes hitting them? In fact, the damage is so extensive that it destroys a nearby tower that wasn't hit, or even claimed to have been hit. That seems to be something that deserves an explanation and/or proof.}

I am sorry but watched the september clues films and there is nothing there apart from somebody trying to convince people that it was a hoax.

I have no doubt that the american government knew there was going to be an attack but if you think that no planes crashed into the towers you are seriously deluded.

Marky Mark

Agree1 Disagree0

{Ed033's Note - it turns out that september clues was rubbish, so what. Dr Judy Wood's book, 'where did the towers go' is not rubbish, why not read that book?