What 3 historical events, that there are "conspiracy theories" about would you like to have the full information on.
Mine are:-
Did Lee Harvey Oswald actually assassinate JFK? If so, was he acting alone? I am unsure about him being the shooter, but assuming he was, I don't believe for a moment he was acting alone. Easy to frame because of apparent political beliefs. The fact he moved to Russia and married a Russian may not have helped his case. But I don't believe the prime suspect in a Presidential assassination would be as easy to get to as Jack Ruby found it.
9/11. I have seen 'Loose Change 2' and I do agree with a lot of what the narrator says. I'm not a complete fool I know that the idea of Loose Change 2 is to get you thinking in a certain way. But having watched it, it's hard not to believe a lot of what it says.
General George Patton. I believe he was assassinated. He was the only guy in his 'crash' that sustained any injuries whatsoever. They reckon he had info on Dwight that, had he returned to the U.S would have made it near impossible for Dwight to ever become President.
I used to want the "real answer" to what really happened in Paris between 31st August/September 1st 1997. But I think my original verdict on the day of the funeral when my mum and 2 aunts were sobbing and kicked me out of the room for voicing what I thought had happened is pretty much what happened.
On the anniversary of the 2 towers.........
posted on 12/9/14
Under orders from George dubya
posted on 12/9/14
FDNY*
posted on 12/9/14
Does anybody on this thread believe the "chemtrailers" conspiracy?
I have a few questions about it.
posted on 12/9/14
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/9/14
forget 9/11 it was on telly...
where did the MH370 flight go...with no debris
posted on 12/9/14
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/9/14
comment by #Forza (U19575)
posted 8 minutes ago
yes, it has been established for many many years that the buildings were constructed in such a way that in case of catastrophy, they would collapse in on themselves rather than laying waste to the entirety of lower Manhattan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First time I've ever heard that.
So Building 7 was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of fires on a couple of floors ?
posted on 12/9/14
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/9/14
Nobody has suggested any other reason other than controlled demolition which is absurd in my view for reasons I stated above.
------------------------------
I keep mentioning Dr Judy Wood on this thread as she is a former professor of mechanical engineering who puts forward a very interesting theory.
Maybe a technology that isn't yet in the public domain was used to bring down the towers.
Why does it necessarily have to be something that everyone knows about or is common knowledge?
posted on 12/9/14
WTC 7 was not hit by an aeroplane, it had severe damage on its south side from falling debris from the towers and had been burning for hours.
-----------------------------
So why did Building 7 fall in perfect symmetry straight down into it's own footprint then?
If the damage was to one side of it then if it was going to collapse it would have collapsed at an angle.
Building 7 didn't do that though did it.
When a building is demolished a lot of work has to go into making sure that the building falls straight down as simple physics tells you that a building will normally heavily lean to one side or another if it does collapse of it's own accord.
What made Building 7 collapse as perfectly as it did ?
I have yet to hear a reasonable answer.