Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was personally and explicitly warned that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was planning a major attack roughly 10 days before the October 7 massacre, but dismissed the threat and did not alert his security chiefs, according to a shocking new Haaretz report.
The revelations come from research for an upcoming book Hostages: 843 Days of Abandonment, written by journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval, who writes for Haaretz.
No, I’ve done this for 25 years.
There is enough details out there on the internet to convince anyone with a functioning brain that your theory is correct or mine, or any of the 256bits of grey zone in between. That’s what the fallout campaign did so well. Everything is in question and debunkable.
At the end, some one’s 9/11 opinion is just a reflection on whether they believe dark societal influences are capable of plotting, executing and looking the other way while others are plotting and executing.
The only logical thing to do due to the flooding of evidence is looking at the history, from the dropping of the bombs, having a magic bullet with very sharp turns kill a US president, the rise of the MIC (Eisenhouwer’s final words), the decoupling of the dollar to gold by Nixon in 74, and the hiding of the true money reserves, all the way to the SC installing a president in 2000…
This is where you’ll say ‘tf does that have to do with 9/11’.
You can zoom in like you do with the reason why the steel was shipped off or when the pentagon reinforcement started, but you only go there as long as it is comfortable to try and destabilise the person you’re arguing with. As long as it sounds like you have rational explanations that don’t make you sound like a conspiracy theorist.
This is where your arguments are so clever: the steel one sidesteps that this was a crime scene, and the steel was evidence. By asking that question you put the onus on me, rather than having to admit that the crime scene and investigation was not done according to procedure.
Yes, that’s why so many people did it. I basically retired on it. /s
Again, sidestepping that this is a heavily surveilled area, all footage was instantly confiscated (like that was planned beforehand) and only half a dozen frames were released ever of the impact, not at all proving beyond a reasonable doubt it was a plane.
—-
Bla bla bla
These discussions will never end unless you are willing to see what the Epstein Class behind the organisations can accomplish and how they can sidestep, control and manipulate almost any aspect of any government.
I understand you don’t want to believe that. And you’ll find evidence on the glorious internet you’re right till you die. But you’re in luck, as we approach this armageddon of these sick cults, they will do less and less effort to hide their power, and now with Trump “no more wars”, “dictator for one day”, you can almost see the hand of the puppet master.
TLDR: the internet will always tell you you’re right. Especially on a subject that had an active pysop executed on it (you call it propagandised). The covert groups and cults that planned and executed this had the motive, the opportunity and the ability to do so, and gave the US 2 forever wars for 2 decades and trillions in MIC spending.
PS: did you know Boeing, the company that makes the planes you fly on has murdered multiple whistleblowers? Never found guilty of anything. They were just suicides.
And I’ve been hearing people make up wacky conspiracy theories for 25 years.
Not if you know anything about engineering and aren’t looking to validate your own conspiracies.
There’s such a thing as objectivity, there is plenty of actual evidence out there to disprove the vast majority of what people claim about 9/11.
That’s not logical… That’s just fallacy. Just because actual conspiracies exist, it does not mean all confusing events are conspiracy. What does that mean for the first attack on the world trade center in 93’ what conspiracy was at the root of that event?
I assume you mean the nuclear bombs? I don’t really see the conspiracy angle? Sure there’s deeper inteigue on the motivations of Truman… But that hardly counts as conspiracy.
Again… That’s a theory, not actually what happened. The killing of JFK was most likely the result of gross incompetency, and the attempt by the secret service and the feds trying to cover up their incompetency.
Eisenhower himself is a large reason why the MIC developed in the first place. People forget the rest of his speech where he calls out the need to grow America’s weapons capability to win the Cold war. It wasn’t a conspiracy, it was a cautious call to action.
Because the gold standard was dumb, and it led to foreign nations buying up our reserves anytime gold became more valuable than the price set by Congress. It was bleeding us dry in the middle of a recession
There is no such thing as real or fake money when you have a fiate currency. This is just a poor understanding of macro economics.
Again, political scandal and failure to rectify the court is not really a hidden conspiracy. The brooks brother riot and the sc actions afterwards is well documented and known by anyone who is current on modern American history.
You mean I can rationally think about a theory to tell if it is logically sound? Like the same thing anyone does for any basic problem solving?
A better question would be why are those questions significant? You beg questions but won’t allude to their significants, mainly because that would require you to propose an actual theory that would be easily taken apart.
You have this backwards… There is an established theory of the events with plenty of evidence to back what led to the towers falling. You are questioning that theory of event, but you aren’t proposing a reason why. I am not submitting an argument, you are. I am simply questioning the reason for your argument and why it’s relevant. If you are questioning a theory established with evidence, then you have to submit a reason why and with evidence.
There is a difference between a national disaster and simple murder investigation. How exactly are you proposing this “evidence” was supposed to help the investigation more than it already had? Where were we going to store thousands of tons of wrecked steel? Why would we want to do that?
According to who? What procedure are we talking about?
And what are you trying to claim…?
Heavily surveiled for 2001… There were only 80 security cameras on/in the facility at the time. Which for 2001 was a lot, but not enough to get multiple angles of a plane flying at 500mph. Any investigation is going to start by “confiscating” aka gathering the evidence.
What are you wanting…? They released pictures of parts of the plane scattered on site. They released the distribution of body parts found on site from pentagon employees, airline riders, and even the terrorists themselves. What level of evidence do you need?
I’m not claiming people in the government can’t be influenced, just that there is no evidence that 9/11 was some sort of massive conspiracy that required the government to step in and do it themselves. Capable terrorist going against incompetent government agencies often lead to terrible outcomes.
I feel like people who do not have a reasonable grasp of history need to fill in the gaps in their knowledge about the world with some sort of overarching plot. The longest the US has been engaged in one conflict or another for nearly every year of its existence, estimates range from 12 to 30 years of peace depending on how you define conflict/war out of 240 years.
Forever war is the status quo, not the exception. There is an old saying coined by Winston Churchill “never let a good tragedy go to waste”. Politicians will use any crisis as a means to achieve their political goals, but that doesn’t mean they have to create the crisis.
You could say I believe Boeing has killed whitleblowers, and I would find that probable. You can’t claim they’ve definitely done it in these specific scenarios with any sort of confidence.
My response is the same as the one you responded to. There’s no point to this. No matter what I write back. You’re inside a truth bubble, and you can’t see outside of it. I’m in mine and I’ve seen yours and I don’t want to be in that one either.
Only when you flick a switch inside your head my response might make more sense, but you don’t want that because your brain isn’t built that way. And that makes you beautifully normal and most definitely not a consipiracy theorist. The most important part is that we converse, do it civily and accept our differences and that it takes people like you and people like me to make this world whole.
Take care my friend, live your best life.
Well maybe if you didn’t refuse to engage in good faith debate and had an iota of objectivity you wouldn’t require concepts like “truth bubbles” to maintain your point of view.
No, I understand what you are attempting to claim, you’re just wrong. You are wrong and you refuse to defend your claims because failing to do so would force you to confront your own biases.
No. We don’t have different perspectives because we are inherently different. We have different perspectives because you are ignorant and choose to remain so because it suits your perspective.
Stop wasting my time writing this quasi intellectual motif of vaguely spiritual and overtly patronizing trash.
If you want to discuss the topic objectively, ill gladly discuss it with you. If you want to go on odd metaphysical tangents in the attempt to avoid scrutiny you can fuck right off.