9/11. Not interested in a debate here, but can we just have a quick show of hands?

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

I'm just interested in how many people around here are also highly skeptical of what we have been told about 9/11.

I'm really not after a debate (it would be long, involved, probably pointless and personally I have done this elsewhere), but I just wanted to see who is around.

It has very strong ongoing relevance for current world events.

Many thanks.

What about the Pentagon? Are you surprised that the U.S. govt won't release cctv footage of the Pentagon? I'm not, seeing as it's the headquarters of the dept of defence. What mystery is their about the Pentagon crash anyway?

What's the mystery about the Pennsylvania plane? That it might have been shot down?

WTC7 has been discussed already on this thread, and I can't see what outstanding questions there might be about it.

Perhaps the U.S. govt knew something was about to happen, but does it matter? Unless you think they knew exactly what, when, who and how and then failed to stop it?

Up until 9/11, a plane full of aviation fuel had never crashed at speed into a skyscraper. I am not surprised they fell down as a result of the damage and the resulting pancaking of the floors as they burned.

oh blimey, *there not their sorry. I think there must have been an elite conspiracy to make me misspell...

The opposite to what Keanu picked, it was horrible.

I wonder if the insects realise us Humans live on their planet too.

'Are those people green, reptilian, not oxygen breathers, I wonder?'

You're not the only one wondering that!

Way, way, way upthread, someone came up with the old 'theory' that Diana 'feared' she would be killed in a car crash.

I've always wondered why, if she believed that, she wasn't wearing her bloody seatbelt... I mean, I don't think anyone is plotting my demise, either vehicularly or otherwise, but I always wear my seatbelt.

Perhaps some of the conspiracy theorists can enlighten me.

They're certainly "green", they all "claim" they want to "save the planet" for us and they don't like CO2 which helps plants grow and helps to feed "we the people" and they are all "luvvies" according to the most advanced conspiracy researchers on the planet who are going toe to toe with them in exposing what they are up to.

'Perhaps some of the conspiracy theorists can enlighten me.'

Diana was alive after the crash. She died in the ambulance which took so long to get to the hospital where they were taking her.

When Diana wrote about the "car crash" which she had apparently been warned about, it possibly meant that that would be the reason given.

"Diana, Princess of Wales, was so frantic in the minutes after her car crashed in a Paris tunnel that doctors had to restrain her, the inquest into her death has heard.

The Princess was shouting and thrashing her arms around, and pulled out the drip a doctor tried to insert into her arm while she was still trapped in the vehicle.
...
Prof Lienhart said an assistant had to hold the Princess's arm by force to get a drip in but she quickly pulled it out.

"Due to the agitation, the first line, the first drip was removed," he said, speaking by video link from Paris.

"She was agitated, she refused treatment ... he decided to inject some drugs to reduce the agitation, for her to accept treatment."

The inquest also heard that Diana's rare injuries suggested her heart had been thrown violently forward inside her chest when the car crashed in the Pont de l'Alma Tunnel in Paris.

There were no recorded cases of patients with the same injuries arriving at hospital alive, the court was told."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1569774/Princess-Diana-agitated-in-minutes-after-crash.html

Nope, I'm not enlightened... '...she was alive after the crash...possibly meant that that [a crash] would be the reason given'.

They mean that the crash was staged and her death was caused by some other set of injuries caused in another way. They claim she believed she'd be bumped off and a crash blamed.

'I'm not enlightened.'

Diana was warned that there was a plan to kill her.

"Princess Diana warned of a plot to kill her in a car crash 10 months before her death, it was claimed today.
In a letter that her former butler, Paul Burrell, says she told him to keep "just in case", she writes that a crash was being planned so Prince Charles could remarry."

www.theguardian.com/media/2003/oct/20/2

Clearly, any plotters Would not be able to guarantee that she would die due to a crash. It would be more likely that "a plot to kill her" would claim that the car crash was the cause.

Oh. Come. On.

You can do better than that Claig. Surely.

'Princess Diana crash: New book claims Queen said 'someone must have greased the brakes' after hearing news '
...
A new book by royal biographer Ingrid Seward claims the Queen made the remark after she initially heard news Diana had been injured in a crash."

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/princess-diana-crash-new-book-6255969

'You can do better than that Claig. Surely.'

Of course I can,of that there is no doubt. But I want people to discover the truth themselves.

Awww. You conspiracy theorists are so cute. Always wanting to help us find the light ourselves through the magically incorruptible power of Google

I adore how that's always the answer.

Claig please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you said the daily mail is the only newspaper that reports the truth:

" The Daily Mail is powerful enough to break the consensus if it wants to on more issues. It can set the agenda and go where others never dare."

And yet in all of your arguments you've used sources from the guardian, the telegraph and the mirror. So, are we supposed to believe what you are reporting to us when you are quoting from sources that you have previously inferred are unreliable?

'Always wanting to help us find the light ourselves'

Because if I were to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth to those who do not understand what the elite do and what they are capable of, then they wouldn't believe that it could possibly be so. It is better that the people come to a slow realisation of what is going on because if they listened to the most advanced conspiracy researchers on the planet without a deep knowledge of how things work which has been acquired through assiduous study conducted over decades, then they would be running around like headless chickens if they were told what the elite are planning for them.

'Claig please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you said the daily mail is the only newspaper that reports the truth: '

I said only on what they are allowed. They have more leeway than the controlled media because they are so powerful due to their readership constituency of the good people of Middle England whom the elite fear because they know that if they wake up then their whole game will be up.

'And yet in all of your arguments you've used sources from the guardian, the telegraph and the mirror.'

Because from sad experience, I have seen that many of the people freak out and froth at the mouth at the mention of the people's paper - the Daily Mail - due to the effective brainwashing of the populace conducted by the elite, their puppets and the luvvies.

'So, are we supposed to believe what you are reporting to us when you are quoting from sources that you have previously inferred are unreliable?'

They may well be unreliable, but in order to maintain credibility among the people of Middle England (the ones the elite fear the most), those papers have to occasionally let slip the truth.

Yes, that sounds an enormously good use of 'decades '. The Daily Fail and Google being my start point.

I love you Claig. You are good value on a thread every time.

I don't think they are unreliable, you inferred they were. If I had a point to make in a discussion I wouldn't use quotes or references from sources I believe to be unreliable. You're pretty bold in your point of view so I'm surprised you haven't stood by your conviction and used the daily mail to support your argument.

'If I had a point to make in a discussion I wouldn't use quotes or references from sources I believe to be unreliable. '

Yes, but I want people to realise the truth and so I quiote from sources that they think are reliable (even if I know that the Daily Mail is a far more reliable source of integrity, honesty and veracity).

'I'm surprised you haven't stood by your conviction and used the daily mail to support your argument.'

If you want Daily Mail sources, I'll be only too happy to provide them. You asked for it!

'Diana, that SAS murder claim and why it may not be as mad as you think: 16 years on, the conspiracy theories won't go away. Sue Reid, who's studied all the evidence, has found tantalising new clues'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407571/Princess-Diana-SAS-murder-claim--mad-think-says-SUE-REID.html

it's ok Claig I can google my own!

But don't forget that the elite have teams and teams of luvvies (most often teenage whizzkids from Oxbridge) working 24-7 trying to conceal the truth from the good people of Middle England by moving Daily Mail stories down the rankings by flooding t'interweb with fake and presposterous stories (often found in newspapers other than the Daily Mail). Google is doing a great job but some internet experts say that trying to find the Daily Mail story (or the truth) is a boit like trying to find a needle in a haystack thanks to the machinations of the elite.

God I am just loving the appearance of Google as a force for truth in all this. Have to say I'd expected them to be cast as concealers .

Do no evil I guess.

I believe there's a conspiracy theory behind it. That doesn't mean I don't believe it happened but it was a very handy way to start a war.

I also don't believe the moon landing.

'Do no evil I guess.'

Absolutely. Without the Daily Mail and Google, the people would be lost and the game would be lost.

But it is Google who have made youtube available for free (something that has got the elite "hopping mad") for the people to communicate and it is there that you will find "citizen journalists", mocked and derided by the luvvies and the mainstream media, who discuss "crisis actors" and show the same "crisis actor" appearing as a witness or friend or interviewee at different "crises".