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.



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.