Jump to content

The Official JKB Conspiracy Theory Thread


AlphonseCapone

Recommended Posts

No worries!

 

There are even more outlandish theories on Icke.        It was the reptilians in UFOs that hit the towers.

It's time for me to step out of this thread ... again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • niblick1874

    370

  • maroonlegions

    200

  • Geoff Kilpatrick

    192

  • deesidejambo

    156

Space Mackerel

No worries!

 

There are even more outlandish theories on Icke. It was the reptilians in UFOs that hit the towers.

No ones quoted Icke on here as far as I?m aware. I?ve not even read any of his stuff apart from seeing him on Wogan some 20 odd years ago.

 

Now you explain to me how a hijackers passport, which was more than likely in his pocket, survived the explosion of a commercial jet hitting one of the towers.

 

Then you can explain to me how come 3 steel skyscrapers fell at free fall speed after being subjected to fire, something that?s never happened before and never had to date (see Grentfall for example)

 

Then explain to me how come a rookie pilot managed to fly a multi engine commercial jet using instruments and visuals only in a cork screw descending 270 degree loop from 8000 feet and hit a target 75 foot high? And no video evidence exists although it having something like 80 CCTV cameras on that side of the building?

 

[emoji16]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

It's time for me to step out of this thread ... again.

Before you go, you?re a bit sceptical yourself, I love this video.

 

 

Some story to believe eh? The story is so unbelievable, people think it to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff the Mince

Before you go, you?re a bit sceptical yourself, I love this video.

Some story to believe eh? The story is so unbelievable, people think it to be true.

Corbett the guy who appears on Infowars ?

 

Aye very good .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

None of them fell at free fall speed.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They did you know. There?s plenty documented evidence.

Do I need to post a video from a physics tutor?

 

You really need to stop making up stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worth a try.

 

Leave the dafties to talk amongst themselves.

 

Deeside i have to laugh.

 

Dafties aye.

 

Daft enough to believe a steel framed building collapsed in under (never mind freefall or even 11 seconds) a minute due to office fires.

 

At no time have any of the recent arguments apart from yours and one other involved abuse.

Opposite and intransigent.

But you offer nothing.

 

Zilch .

 

Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't want involved but I will say this.

 

The guy who designed the WTC was aware of the previous plane crash but an impact from a commercial liner at speed wasn't seen as likely.

 

The WTC was, when built, the tallest building(s) in the world and used a very unusual technique - the structure is that of an exoskeleton rather than the normal endoskeleton which is strength coming from the elevator shaft area.

 

A crash which only took out one three storey panel of exoskeleton was survivable and fire was taken into account. But no one considered a crash plus an aviation fuel fire.

 

In short the WTC towers are structurally like nothing ever built before or since, so simplistic "how come greenfell never fell the same?" just doesn't mean anything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of them fell at free fall speed.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Its admitted by your source of information.

 

Took a school teacher to put the official enquiry right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deeside is that clued up he doesnt think the koreans should have any fear from a country that dropped 850,000 tons of bombs on them.

And 50,000 tons of napalm.

 

Aye hes no daft that laddie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't want involved but I will say this.

 

The guy who designed the WTC was aware of the previous plane crash but an impact from a commercial liner at speed wasn't seen as likely.

 

The WTC was, when built, the tallest building(s) in the world and used a very unusual technique - the structure is that of an exoskeleton rather than the normal endoskeleton which is strength coming from the elevator shaft area.

 

A crash which only took out one three storey panel of exoskeleton was survivable and fire was taken into account. But no one considered a crash plus an aviation fuel fire.

 

In short the WTC towers are structurally like nothing ever built before or since, so simplistic "how come greenfell never fell the same?" just doesn't mean anything

 

Too late yer involved.

Haha.

But its ok you're on the right side of the argument so you wont be accused of being offensive.

A daftie

And no one will wish to see you get done in.

 

Oh by the way a fire swept through 10 floors of a tower in 1975.

 

As the cause was attributed to heat caused by fire which could not by science reach the temperatures which would cause metal to ....well turn to dust .

 

Ach never mind mate im an offensive daftie that needs his head kicked in .

In a new york boozer.

 

Lol.

 

Mate take a look back through the thread.

Check out JIHs link to a study which took 2 years to complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

I really don't want involved but I will say this.

 

The guy who designed the WTC was aware of the previous plane crash but an impact from a commercial liner at speed wasn't seen as likely.

 

The WTC was, when built, the tallest building(s) in the world and used a very unusual technique - the structure is that of an exoskeleton rather than the normal endoskeleton which is strength coming from the elevator shaft area.

 

A crash which only took out one three storey panel of exoskeleton was survivable and fire was taken into account. But no one considered a crash plus an aviation fuel fire.

 

In short the WTC towers are structurally like nothing ever built before or since, so simplistic "how come greenfell never fell the same?" just doesn't mean anything

That?s me convinced the official story is true!

 

Mind when Larry Silverstein took out a 99 year lease a month before the attacks from the Port of NY then tried to claim double bubble because of 2 plane attacks?

 

Some laddie likes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2013, Pieczenik spoke on Alex Jones's radio show denying the Sandy Hook shooting ever occurred, labeling it a "false flag" operation.

 

 

See?  This is the type of nasty, evil-minded person you're dealing with.  Someone who is either so malicious or so unhinged that they insult the memories of the people who died when those terrorist filth attacked, and they abuse and harass the parents of the children murdered at Sandy Hook.

 

Nasty pieces of work, to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See? This is the type of nasty, evil-minded person you're dealing with. Someone who is either so malicious or so unhinged that they insult the memories of the people who died when those terrorist filth attacked, and they abuse and harass the parents of the children murdered at Sandy Hook.

 

Nasty pieces of work, to say the least.

 

And what would you say to the relatives who take the opposite view to yours?

 

The only unhinged posts so far have been the abusive ones .

 

Guess who posted those?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See? This is the type of nasty, evil-minded person you're dealing with. Someone who is either so malicious or so unhinged that they insult the memories of the people who died when those terrorist filth attacked, and they abuse and harass the parents of the children murdered at Sandy Hook.

 

Nasty pieces of work, to say the least.

 

Such colourful language "terrorist filth".

Doesnt really address the glaring inadequacies of the NIST report.

 

Abusive posts and jingoistic language .

Mmmmmm

 

Not really good argument is it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

See? This is the type of nasty, evil-minded person you're dealing with. Someone who is either so malicious or so unhinged that they insult the memories of the people who died when those terrorist filth attacked, and they abuse and harass the parents of the children murdered at Sandy Hook.

 

Nasty pieces of work, to say the least.

We are debating science, physics and general common sense here.

 

As jake has said, plenty relatives of the victims have misgivings of the official ?story? to say the least too. Getting mock offended doesn?t add anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too late yer involved.

Haha.

But its ok you're on the right side of the argument so you wont be accused of being offensive.

A daftie

And no one will wish to see you get done in.

 

Oh by the way a fire swept through 10 floors of a tower in 1975.

 

As the cause was attributed to heat caused by fire which could not by science reach the temperatures which would cause metal to ....well turn to dust .

 

Ach never mind mate im an offensive daftie that needs his head kicked in .

In a new york boozer.

 

Lol.

 

Mate take a look back through the thread.

Check out JIHs link to a study which took 2 years to complete.

I've honestly no idea what point you're making re the ten storeys and I've no intention of reading through this thread or any of JiH's links, all I'm saying is that the WTC was a pretty unique building and that stuff like "well how come greenfell never fell" is not a winning argument, it's not even a good point given the differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've honestly no idea what point you're making re the ten storeys and I've no intention of reading through this thread or any of JiH's links, all I'm saying is that the WTC was a pretty unique building and that stuff like "well how come greenfell never fell" is not a winning argument, it's not even a good point given the differences.

 

I didnt make that point .

The point i refer to is that one of the twin towers suffered a fire over ten storeys in 1975.

It suffered no structural loss of integrity.

 

Nice of you to join in with the general put downs though.

 

And yes its unique.

 

It was designed to take the impact of a plane .

In fact several.

 

 

Although amazingly retrospection sees various charlatans give various views on this.

 

Much like the revisionist reports from government which found where the 2.3 million dollars went .

 

Pity they have not learnt the lesson saying as 6 trillion went missing in 2016.

 

But hey the only scammers are the dole cheats etc etv.

 

The relatives of the 1 million iraqis the american youth sent to war the uk youth sent to war dont deserve a proper enquiry.

 

Lets just believe a lie.

 

Cos its the only lie we goat ken like so ho hum who cares if it disnae equate whey the laws ay fisics ye huvny goat the answer.

Edited by jake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And meanwhile, the promoters of this vile behaviour get rich on their clickbait.

 

As rich as the benefactors of the proceeds of war.

As rich as the benefactors of 51 % of the US budget.

 

As rich as ....who are you kidding.

 

If you're angry about folk getting rich on snide things i suggest you open your eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As rich as the benefactors of the proceeds of war.

As rich as the benefactors of 51 % of the US budget.

 

As rich as ....who are you kidding.

 

If you're angry about folk getting rich on snide things i suggest you open your eyes.

See, jake, now we're getting somewhere.  Now you've provided one of the three criteria I was talking about earlier.

 

The MOTIVE for 9/11 was money, lots and lots of money.  Got it!

 

All you need to provide now is a perpetrator (who did it?), and a method (how did they do it?).  Maybe we'll finish upon the same page yet! :wink:

 

I'll hang around for a bit yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt make that point .

The point i refer to is that one of the twin towers suffered a fire over ten storeys in 1975.

It suffered no structural loss of integrity.

 

Nice of you to join in with the general put downs though.

 

And yes its unique.

 

It was designed to take the impact of a plane .

In fact several.

 

 

Although amazingly retrospection sees various charlatans give various views on this.

 

Much like the revisionist reports from government which found where the 2.3 million dollars went .

 

Pity they have not learnt the lesson saying as 6 trillion went missing in 2016.

 

But hey the only scammers are the dole cheats etc etv.

 

The relatives of the 1 million iraqis the american youth sent to war the uk youth sent to war dont deserve a proper enquiry.

 

Lets just believe a lie.

 

Cos its the only lie we goat ken like so ho hum who cares if it disnae equate whey the laws ay fisics ye huvny goat the answer.

I didn't say you made that point, I was responding to someone else's point when you jumped in. I also didn't put anyone down, which is pretty remarkable considering the snide and condescension you're throwing out.

 

A ten storey fire is irrelevant - super hot fire burning aviation fuel combined with the loss of structural integrity to it's exoskeleton due to a plane flying into it is incredibly different.

 

As for your claim that it was designed to have several planes fly into it, only yesterday I watched a documentary which interviewed the designer where he says that isn't the case - New York, A Documentary, part 8. It's more than 2 hours long, but fascinating stuff. Between you and him, I'm going with him.

 

You've assumed my position but let me clear this up - I'm neither for nor against the official version. I have no way of knowing what happened on another continent a couple of decades ago so I'm not going to make a ***** of myself claiming this wee guy from dalkeith knows what happened better than all you simpletons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

I didn't say you made that point, I was responding to someone else's point when you jumped in. I also didn't put anyone down, which is pretty remarkable considering the snide and condescension you're throwing out.

 

A ten storey fire is irrelevant - super hot fire burning aviation fuel combined with the loss of structural integrity to it's exoskeleton due to a plane flying into it is incredibly different.

 

As for your claim that it was designed to have several planes fly into it, only yesterday I watched a documentary which interviewed the designer where he says that isn't the case - New York, A Documentary, part 8. It's more than 2 hours long, but fascinating stuff. Between you and him, I'm going with him.

 

You've assumed my position but let me clear this up - I'm neither for nor against the official version. I have no way of knowing what happened on another continent a couple of decades ago so I'm not going to make a ***** of myself claiming this wee guy from dalkeith knows what happened better than all you simpletons.

The aviation fuel was thrown outwards and burnt off in seconds as my picture showed. To think that fuel tanks inside the aircraft stayed intact and seeped fuel all around the building is absolute ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting line here is

That is like Rangers funding a report into EBTs

 

Except they have nothing to gain or hide.

 

Anyway Brian dont think you can accept any proof or validate any questions i have on the subject.

As i cant accept the o.v.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

The interesting line here is

That is like Rangers funding a report into EBTs

It's absolutely nothing like that. Ridiculous thing to say.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are all "truthers" and have been trying since 2006 to get anyone that will listen to them to have a new investigation into the three towers at WTC.

 

The sole reason they exist is to dispute the OV of 9/11

 

They have nothing to gain.

In fact they have a lot to lose.

Going against the mainstream usually sees you smeared.

You only have to read some posts on here to see the abuse handed out.

The term "truthers" or tin foil hat wearers etc.

Whats more if you question it on the laws of physics some smart arse tries to paont you as welcoming every outlandish theory.

 

Got to ask the question brian.

 

55% of the USAs budget goes on military spending.

The arguments in presidential elections focus on things like the food stamp programme at 1% of the budget.

 

And you dont think those with such vested interests would not or could not bankroll and organise such a fraud?

 

You may not believe it but could they ?

 

So please lets not talk about a non profit organisations.

As if they somehow are corrupt when you look at the blatant in your face level of money involved in keeping the war chest on the go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55% its eyewatering .

No president dare touch it.

Not even a so called progressive.

What a liberal he turned out to be.

And here we are shining the light of suspicion on a non profit group of academics.

 

Laughable.

It really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

They are all "truthers" and have been trying since 2006 to get anyone that will listen to them to have a new investigation into the three towers at WTC.

 

The sole reason they exist is to dispute the OV of 9/11

 

Thousands of architects and thousands of pilots across the globe don't believe the 9/11 Commissions report.

 

Do you believe they are all as mad as jake and I?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

If no president can touch the budget, then why the need to conspire to protect the budget?

 

Earlier you mentioned Iraq, 9/11 had very little if anything at all to do with Iraq, it was all about faked reports of WMDs.............

 

19th March 2003 was the start date of invasion of Iraq.

Are you saying that 9/11 wasn't used once in any rhetoric from GW Jnr to justify the invasion back then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

It was tried but it failed, that's why they needed the "dodgy dossier".

 

So they lied about the weapons of mass destruction? What does that say to you about the mind set of the administration in Washington in 2001? Hey, we got away with it once, these suckers believe anything now, lets do it again perhaps?  :rolleyes4:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

There is a world of difference between lying about WMDs which they thought did exist and would find when they got there and killing thousands of civilian on your own soil in a conspiracy that would have involved 100s of individuals.

 

 

No ones disputing that. 

 

How many people concocted the story about the WMD's or did Tony and George Jnr make it up over a wee fireside chat at Camp David? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

I thought you were of the opinion that it wasn't commercial jets that crashed into the buildings? So how could fuel and fuel tanks that weren't involved have anything to do with your argument?

 

 

You search through this thread and tell me where Ive said commercial jets didn't hit the Twin Towers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aviation fuel was thrown outwards and burnt off in seconds as my picture showed. To think that fuel tanks inside the aircraft stayed intact and seeped fuel all around the building is absolute ridiculous.

1. You don't know that and that's a pretty impressive photo that proves all the fuel was burnt off!

 

2. I didn't say the fuel tanks stayed intact and seeped fuel.

 

 

I'm out now though, I don't care enough to bang my head against the wall with no return. Believe what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

Sorry, I thought that was your opinion. Your posts are never very clear as to what you do think happened.

I'm repeating myself here. I don't know what happened exactly. I believe there was some conspiracy used by the Bush administration to use the hijackers plans to attack the Twin Towers and extend the attacks to fulfill wider geo political American foreign policy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

I don't believe an aircraft hit the Pentagon or one crashed later on in the day (Flight 93)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Edited by Space Mackerel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is 3.3% of GDP, NATO require you to spend 2%.

 

It doesn't surprise me that a country like the USA has high spending on defence, where as we find it very difficult to meet or justify the 2%

 

GDP is not government spending.

 

55% of government spending goes on miltary.

Government spend accounts for 20% of GDP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said it was.

 

I think your figure is % of tax revenues spent, not % of total government spend

 

Its quite a sum of money however its broken down.

My point remains .

Thats a very powerful lobby.

And at their disposal is the most advanced technology and personel .

From satellites to zone in with accuracy to a security service which conspires around the globe.

 

Yet here we are arguing about whether a non profit organisation of academics has an agenda.

Here we are with an o.v thats riddled with glaring issues.

Compiled under pressure whose chairman describes the whole thing as not fit for purpose.

A story which saw amateurs put a passenger airplane through a 3 metre thick wall of the hq of a country that spends 55% of its budget on military.

With more satellites than the rest of the world combined.

 

Sorry theres so much that is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What i find is consistant is that when strong arguments or a strong case is made against mainstream narrative.

That rarely does the subject matter itself get discussed.

More often than not individuals or organisations are smeared .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

I never said it was.

 

I think your figure is % of tax revenues spent, not % of total government spend

Seems to be the percentage of the Federal budget.

 

Just think of the many private corporations wanting to get their mitts on those tax dollars.

 

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/

Edited by Space Mackerel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

The whole Conspiracy argument is a smear against everyone involved in the OV, as well as some pretty major accusations of criminal activity in the murder of thousands of civilians by their own Government.

You don?t have any misgivings in the slightest about the attacks and subsequent investigation? Nothing at all sticks out as slightly odd. Like the hijackers passport for instance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

It would be more odd if there were no coincidences, oddities and inconsistencies in an event of this size.

Like a passport surviving inside an obliterated plane?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...