|
Post by verbal0knit on Mar 24, 2019 20:26:02 GMT -5
It didn't collapse it was pulled how could have they done that in such short time while everything else was going on?
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on Mar 24, 2019 20:35:24 GMT -5
I agree with Verbal on the WTC thing somewhat... the collapse of building 7 is the thing I can't believe. Some level of fuckery is at play IMO. An English news channel announces that Building 7 has collapsed. Only 1 problem with this news report... You can see the building is still standing right behind her in the window. How can you report an event before it even happens? I'd say the only way to do that, is if you have pre-hand knowledge of the event taking place.
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on Mar 24, 2019 20:43:54 GMT -5
According to the NSA, the official cause of building 7 collapsing in an identical fashion to a controlled demolition is an office fire.
That's pretty rich.
So they want me to believe that a few smoldering file cabinets and a trash can fire made building 7 collapse. Lol
Never mind eyewitness, Barry Jennings who describes bombs blowing up inside building 7.
Why would there be explosions inside building 7.
Easy answer. Demolition charges.
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on Mar 24, 2019 20:57:27 GMT -5
Its a fairly simple case to solve.
Jet fuel fire can't liquify steel.
Not possible.
Yet, we can clearly see liquid molten steel flowing from the WTC.
The NSA is on record saying the orange molten liquid is aluminum.
Molten aluminum is not orange, its silver.
So in order to believe the official story, one must disavow science and throw the periodic table of elements out the window.
|
|
|
Post by floater on Mar 24, 2019 23:03:20 GMT -5
Its a fairly simple case to solve. Jet fuel fire can't liquify steel.Not possible. Yet, we can clearly see liquid molten steel flowing from the WTC. The NSA is on record saying the orange molten liquid is aluminum.Molten aluminum is not orange, its silver. So in order to believe the official story, one must disavow science and throw the periodic table of elements out the window. I'm gonna play devils advocate here and echo what Kyle said. Maybe the jet fuel lit other stuff (besides thermite) that burned hot enough to melt steel. I think it's a counter argument that alot of people are going to have, and it needs to be addressed or "debunked" to truly "solve the case".
|
|
|
Post by HumanAgent on Mar 25, 2019 1:09:14 GMT -5
How long from the time the plane hit to the time the molten steel was pouring...
But again how could building 7 be set up to be pulled pulled under the conditions that day? Pulling a building takes a lot of time to set up, get permits, close off streets all that crap.
Again, I'm to lazy to look but what time did building 7 fall? From the time the planes hit the WTC?
Keep in mind, the WTC didn't need to actually fall, the planes hitting was the intention, once the second one hit, they "already won"...
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on Mar 26, 2019 21:22:07 GMT -5
Its a fairly simple case to solve. Jet fuel fire can't liquify steel.Not possible. Yet, we can clearly see liquid molten steel flowing from the WTC. The NSA is on record saying the orange molten liquid is aluminum.Molten aluminum is not orange, its silver. So in order to believe the official story, one must disavow science and throw the periodic table of elements out the window. I'm gonna play devils advocate here and echo what Kyle said. Maybe the jet fuel lit other stuff (besides thermite) that burned hot enough to melt steel. I think it's a counter argument that alot of people are going to have, and it needs to be addressed or "debunked" to truly "solve the case". You're forgetting that the Official NSA Report on 911 claims that the orange molten liquid pouring from the building is aluminum, not steel. The NSA report says that the orange liquid is aluminum from the plane, and office furniture. And that's impossible, since molten aluminum is silver, not orange. The official NSA report roundly and soundly denies that there was molten steel flowing from the building. They completely deny that any molten steel was present, at all. So there you have it, the official NSA report is scientifically impossible.They claim that there isnt any molten steel, yet we can clearly see it! Also, did you watch the video of the steel foundry that I posted? I find it highly improbable, and downright illogical to argue that a steel foundry could've been created inside an office building using office furniture and a fuel that burns 500 degrees C lower than it takes to liquify steel. Especially since we already know that the max temp of an Office Fire, ignited by jet fuel(hydrocarbons), is 1,000 degrees C. Adding more paper and more plastic and more insulation and more wood and other typical office materials to the fire isn't going to increase the temperature to over 1'000 degrees C. Extra materials would only prolong the blaze, not increase the temperature. An office fire started with jet fuel can Only Get So Hot. And it cant get "steel foundry" hot. So you'd have to tell me what else could have been inside the building that could've accelerated the fire to a temperature capable of melting steel to liquid? Because jet fuel just can't do that. Someone could argue that there was indeed some other "mystery substance" inside the building which is also capable of melting steel to liquid, but then in a circular way, you're making the same argument that I am...that something else besides jet fuel was used to melt the steel support beams into a molten orange liquid.
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on Mar 26, 2019 22:26:47 GMT -5
How long from the time the plane hit to the time the molten steel was pouring... But again how could building 7 be set up to be pulled pulled under the conditions that day? Pulling a building takes a lot of time to set up, get permits, close off streets all that crap. Again, I'm to lazy to look but what time did building 7 fall? From the time the planes hit the WTC? Keep in mind, the WTC didn't need to actually fall, the planes hitting was the intention, once the second one hit, they "already won"... Did you read the article about the Israeli art students who were granted full security clearance to the ENTIRE WTC complex?? That includes building 7. This was in 2000. The "art students" were also given the OK to do construction inside the buildings for their "project." I posted a picture of the "art students" while they're doing construction on floor 91, which was near the impact zone on tower 1. In the picture, they're standing next to a huge stack of fuse boxes labeled bb-18. Exactly the kind of electrical equipment you'd need if you were rigging up an electrical system for controlled demolition charges, timed explosives and maybe even remote controlled and guided drone equipment.
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on Mar 27, 2019 13:46:24 GMT -5
How long from the time the plane hit to the time the molten steel was pouring... But again how could building 7 be set up to be pulled pulled under the conditions that day? Pulling a building takes a lot of time to set up, get permits, close off streets all that crap. Again, I'm to lazy to look but what time did building 7 fall? From the time the planes hit the WTC? Keep in mind, the WTC didn't need to actually fall, the planes hitting was the intention, once the second one hit, they "already won"... Here's a picture from Google image of the "Israeli art students" doing construction on the 91st floor of WTC tower 1. Keep in mind, this is right near the initial blast zone. Honestly, they just dont look like students to me, and that just doesn't look like an "art project." They look like grown men, and it looks like they're installing some electrical equipment. Official records say they were removing the ceiling tiles to access the structural support beams for their "art project." Notice that in the photo, the ceiling tiles have been removed and we can see the exposed support beams.
Also notice the large boxes of electrical wiring equipment to the right.
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on Mar 27, 2019 15:00:09 GMT -5
Its a fairly simple case to solve. Jet fuel fire can't liquify steel.Not possible. Yet, we can clearly see liquid molten steel flowing from the WTC. The NSA is on record saying the orange molten liquid is aluminum.Molten aluminum is not orange, its silver. So in order to believe the official story, one must disavow science and throw the periodic table of elements out the window. I'm gonna play devils advocate here and echo what Kyle said. Maybe the jet fuel lit other stuff (besides thermite) that burned hot enough to melt steel. I think it's a counter argument that alot of people are going to have, and it needs to be addressed or "debunked" to truly "solve the case". A few other things to keep in mind... The official report from Nist(national institute of standards and technology) lists the air temperature in the buildings to be 1,000 degrees C. Still not hot enough to create the steel foundry like conditions it would take to the melt the steel beams to liquid. However, If thermite was in direct contact with the steel beams, then the beams could've melted without the air temperature in the office buildings exceeding 1,000 degrees. The heat would've been centralized at the contact points on the steel beams, rather than in the air like in a typical hydrocarbon based office fire. Thermite needs a large reaction to be ignited, and once ignited, it's like liquid fire and it shoots outward and then drips downward with gravity. A hydrocarbon fire creates the typical upward, rolling flames that we see inside our fire places. Chris Bollyn is a top 911 investigator. He researched every floor of the WTC complex, and he found out who all the lease holders were on each floor, in the each of the WTC buildings leading up to 911. So we can basically get an idea of what's inside the buildings based on who leases each floor... Floor 96 on tower 1 was filled with large, black, battery like boxes that went floor to ceiling, and wall to wall on the WHOLE FLOOR. And that's exactly where the "plane" made impact. Floor 81 on tower 2 was filled with the same black battery boxes that went from floor to ceiling. And thats where the second "plane" made contact. Floor 81 also happens to be the same floor that we see the orange molten liquid pouring from. It seems that floor 96 and 81 were loaded with thermite, and then the impact of the "planes" ignited the thermite, which then ran downward, making direct contact with the steel beams, turning them to a molten orange liquid, which then poured out the windows. This would account for the air temperatures not exceeding 1,000 degrees, as the heat would've been centralized on the point of contact between the thermite and the steel beams. But let's also think about the official story with some logic for a moment. The NSA contends that the planes flew into the buildings, and that jet fuel from the planes ran down the buildings and created fires that melted the beams. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that planes flew into the buildings and created those explosions. Those explosions we saw would've been powered by ignited jet fuel. Those huge explosions would've burned up all the jet fuel in the process, leaving behind an insufficient amount of jet fuel necessary to "drip" down and accelerate the fires that supposedly ran ALL the way down to the basement level... and let's not forget that those fires wouldn't have been hot enough to liquify steel anyway. And there definitely wouldn't have been enough jet fuel left over from those initial explosions to create pools of molten steel that were present in the sub levels of the complex up to 3 weeks after the collapse. Thermite Video. Guy uses thermite to cut steel beams. Also Explains The Color Of Molten Aluminum.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Apr 9, 2019 2:09:34 GMT -5
I kinda buy some of the OKC conspiracies. I don't know if I'm all in on an inside job, but there was definitely prior knowledge of the attack. McVeigh might not be the sheep dipped black ops guy some people make him out to be, but something happened to him that isn't public record.
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on Apr 13, 2019 14:04:16 GMT -5
I kinda buy some of the OKC conspiracies. I don't know if I'm all in on an inside job, but there was definitely prior knowledge of the attack. McVeigh might not be the sheep dipped black ops guy some people make him out to be, but something happened to him that isn't public record. How convenient...
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on May 5, 2019 10:47:24 GMT -5
I don't believe in global banking cabals, the NWO or white genocide. Those are all ridiculously dumb white supremacist conspiracy theories. Now be quiet and pay your fair share of taxes while we systematically replace you.
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on May 6, 2019 12:20:31 GMT -5
Holocaust. Hey Slaytan, if the holocaust is real, then how come it's illegal to question its validity in your great state of Florida?! First of all, I feel that laws like these are unconstitutional. Secondly, if something is real, then you don't need to ban discussions about its validity. Also, remember, I already told you guys how to spot a false flag/fake shooting... There will ALAWAYS be instant legislation passed, and new laws written directly after the event takes place. 1. WtC 9/11 = patriot act 2. Las Vegas shooting = bumpstock ban 3. New Zealand Christchurch = complete semi-automatic firearms ban 4. Poway Synagogue shooting = antisemitism law (can't question the joos in Florida) 5. Jussie Smollet hate hoax = federal anti-lynching bill 666. The holocaust = illegal to question the holocaust in 17 countries. Punishable by jail time. 89 year old lady JAILED for denying holocaust
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on May 6, 2019 15:22:40 GMT -5
This one isn't even a conspiracy theory. It's just irony run amok. Rise of the love of authoritarian statism among "conservatives". The "conservative" posters on this board are a prime example. www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/25/how-conservatives-learned-love-big-government/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.76463ea04814Conservatives have a paradoxical relationship with state power. During Barack Obama’s presidency, right-wingers sounded the alarm about the imperial presidency. Conservatives lined up to contest Obama’s numerous executive orders, calling the president a “king,” a “dictator” and an “emperor.” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz characterized Obama as a “lawless president.” A few short years later, however, conservatives have reversed themselves. None voiced objections when President Trump issued 55 executive orders during his first year in office, more than Obama signed in any one year. Two years later, amid the longest government shutdown in U.S. history and surging Democratic resistance, Trump is threatening an even more dramatic expansion of his authority: using his “right to declare a national emergency” to fulfill his campaign promise to build wall separating the United States and Mexico. This reveals an ideological inconsistency within modern conservatism. At its core, conservatism espouses a small-government philosophy. “That government is best that governs least,” as Henry David Thoreau put it. Yet time and again, conservative presidential administrations and Congress members have greatly expanded, and at times abused, state authority. This paradox is not an aberration of the Trump era, however — it was woven into the very fabric of modern conservatism. In 1935, libertarian thinker Albert Jay Nock wrote an anti-government treatise titled “Our Enemy, the State.” In his book, Nock described a “blundering, wasteful, and vicious” state dominated by a nebulous cabal of “collectivists.” Roughly a decade later, as fascism ravaged the European continent, Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek extended Nock’s argument. Hayek contended that an enlarged governmental bureaucracy — an elastic term that conservatives stretched to mean anything from New Deal liberalism to Nazi fascism — put society on an inexorable road to serfdom. Numerous right-wing authors, including Ayn Rand, Richard M. Weaver and Russell Kirk, made similar anti-government arguments. Despite this philosophical foundation, conservative politicians readily wielded state power against liberal opponents. U.S. representative Martin Dies Jr., a far-right Texas Democrat, formed the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) during the Great Depression to target the growth of domestic fascism. The committee soon expanded its mandate to investigate New Deal programs and labor unions for traces of communism. The fact that some communists existed convinced Dies and his ilk that liberalism provided a gateway for subversive communism. Through HUAC, Dies bequeathed a statist blueprint for intimidating political adversaries. After World War II, anti-communist hysteria created the perfect environment for widening Dies’s strategy. Liberals, derided by conservatives as “soft on communism,” signed off on anti-communist policies, and HUAC continued hunting, and occasionally finding, witches. But it was senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) who proved the most eager to exploit Dies’s schema. McCarthy depicted liberalism as a gateway for communist subversion, and he went so far as to claim presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower and even the U.S. Army obfuscated a grand communist cabal, though he never proved any of his allegations. So deluded were McCarthy’s conspiracies that the Senate censured him. But conservatives stood by him: William F. Buckley Jr., the intellectual leader of post-World War II conservatism, even co-wrote a book defending McCarthy’s willingness to deploy state power against left-wing enemies. Richard M. Nixon, a former HUAC investigator himself, was both the darling of the “law and order” crowd and the president who most violated the rule of law. After the Watergate scandal broke, Nixon authorized the use of state power to cover it up, going so far as to ask the CIA to stop the FBI’s investigation. White House counsel John Dean revealed that Nixon kept an “enemies list,” which included numerous politicians and private citizens who Nixon planned to “screw” by ordering the IRS to audit them. At the time of his resignation, Nixon embodied the imperial presidency: a tyrant manipulating state power for political gain. Even the more ideologically conservative Ronald Reagan, who governed as a conservative in many ways, embodied this contradiction. He cut taxes, deregulated multiple industries, contested unions, retrenched welfare programs and adopted an aggressive stance toward the Soviet Union. Yet Reagan also favored an expansive use of state power. As California governor, he became a household name for unleashing police forces, particularly the FBI, upon Berkeley antiwar protesters and the Black Panthers. During his presidency, Reagan poured money into the military-industrial complex and proposed budget-busting programs such as the Strategic Defense Initiative. Deficits soared, even as conservatives championed fiscal responsibility. Reagan, like his conservative successors, also made common cause with social conservatives, who desired to use state power to impose their will on moral issues ranging from abortion to gay rights. Roughly a decade later, George W. Bush’s administration pushed state expansion into overdrive. Bush slashed taxes and constricted the welfare state while boosting defense budgets to obscene levels. And the surveillance state flourished under Bush. After 9/11, Bush signed the Patriot Act, giving federal authorities vast search and seizure powers to ostensibly fight terrorism. Years later, Bush endorsed an amended version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), through which the NSA established a massive digital dragnet (PRISM) that swept up the information of American civilians. Yet while conservative Republicans nurtured federal power, the husk of anti-statism remained. At the 2012 Republican National Convention, Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the party’s vice presidential nominee, declared, “The choice is whether to put hard limits on economic growth, or hard limits on the size of government. And we choose to limit government.” Other Republicans agreed, such as Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), who yearned for a return to conservatism’s libertarian tradition. But it was precisely Republicans such as Ryan who supported the Patriot Act and FISA system, illustrating how right-wingers conveniently vacillate between statist, neoconservative solutions and libertarian inclinations. Republican conservatives have developed an effective ideological two-step. When Democrats control the government, right-wingers highlight their libertarianism and issue dire warnings about state tyranny. Then, after the political pendulum swings back their direction, they brandish and expand state power when it suits their interests or benefits their coalition. The reality is that, for conservatives, anti-statism is often political strategy masquerading as a commitment to ideological purity. The growing power of the U.S. government, abetted by both Democratic and Republican politicians, set the stage for a president with well-documented authoritarian tendencies. Trump openly admires autocratic regimes in Russia and North Korea and disdains the democratic traditions of European allies. Though Trump maintains some facets of conventional conservatism (see: tax cuts and deregulation), he has sought to rule by fiat. His threat to declare a spurious national emergency while holding the government hostage epitomizes the radicalization of the modern Republican Party. Even more alarming is how quickly many of Trump’s fellow Republicans abandoned their anti-statist moorings. In 2014, Sen. Lindsay Graham (S.C.) fumed that Obama’s “unprecedented” executive order on immigration “tramples on the concept of constitutional checks and balances.” Now, with their party in control of the White House, Republicans support an iron-fisted executive branch. Graham, who was once deeply critical of Trump, recently tweeted, “Mr. President [Trump], Declare a national emergency NOW. Build a Wall NOW.” Many Republicans share Graham’s sentiment. Yet conservatives don’t view themselves as obstructionists. Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.), the leader of the far-right Freedom Caucus, tweeted, “If [the Democrats] won’t compromise . . . he should declare a national emergency. It’s time.” In other words, capitulate to the president’s petulance or face the wrath of state power. At this critical juncture in American history, conservatism is permutating, fracturing its anti-statist foundation in favor of the siren’s song of authoritarianism. But this should not come as a surprise. This anti-statist paradox has been baked into modern conservatism. The irony is that state power has become the skeleton key to unlocking right-wing political victories.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on May 7, 2019 3:22:47 GMT -5
^Fake, disproven history on McCarthy up there. "Conspiracy theory" Is too dignified a word for it. That article was designed for readers like you: ignorant idiots
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on May 7, 2019 5:45:37 GMT -5
^Fake, disproven history on McCarthy up there. "Conspiracy theory" Is too dignified a word for it. That article was designed for readers like you: ignorant idiots You have absolutely zero evidence (because there is none) to back up your "it's fake news because it said something bad about my hero McCarthy" take. What a joke of a response.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on May 7, 2019 9:04:34 GMT -5
andrew is the buffoon that will argue the economy surging and great improvement to consumer confidence under Trump is all related to Obama. An emotional child with the IQ of a retard with head trauma.
|
|
|
Post by Premier on May 9, 2019 0:54:30 GMT -5
The government introducing crack to poor neighborhoods in the 80s.....or at least letting it happen on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on May 11, 2019 12:48:09 GMT -5
Scientifically and Mathematically Speaking.
Most conspiracy theories, that are true, contain some form of scientific or mathematical anomalies in the official story. JFK ~ magic bullet, and wound pattern inconsistency. The single round that supposedly killed JFK zigzags and does 90 degree turns and goes through multiple bodies. However, the inconsistent wound patterns are more telling than the magic bullet trajectory. If JFK was shot in the back of the head, his face would be blown out. But it was the opposite, his face was fine but the back of his head was blown out, which means he was shot in the face, not the back of the head. So in order to believe the official story, you'd have to completely disregard the wound pattern evidence as well as the magic bullet. But we don't really even need to discuss the magic bullet because we can logically and scientifically rule that theory out based on the wound patterns. 911 ~ liquified, molten steel beams. In order to believe the offical story that the buildings fell due to jet fuel fire, you'd have to completely disregard the fact that there was molten steel present, when we know that hydrocarbon( jet fuel) office fires cant liquify steel. The jet fuel fire theory has been scientifically tested over and over and has been proven to be false. You cannot produce liquid molten steel with jet fuel in an office building, and molten steel will always run orange while molten aluminum will always run silver. The holocaust ~ 6 million gassed and cremated in 5 years. Using basic multiplication and division, we can calculate how many Jews Hitler would've had to kill in what particular time frame in order to reach the 6,000,000 body count. We already know exactly how many days he was in power, and then we can use that figure to divide the 6,000,000 tally. And then we'll know exactly how many Jews Hitler killed per minute, each day. And then we also know that the official story claims that the Jews were cremated after being gassed(story concocted to explain lack of supporting evidence eg. Bodies). So once we know how many Jews Hitler was killing per minute, each day, we'll divide that again by the time it takes to cremate a body to ash given the technology available in 1939. And then we can logically conclude that Hitler couldn't have been gassing and cremating Jews during the entirety of his reign, because a good portion of his reign was spent battling 3 United opponents in a World War with Russia, the US and the UK. Logically, he would've been allocating his resources to war efforts rather than exterminating Jews since he was losing, afterall. So that's another time divider, but with an unknown variable. So now when we look at the 6 million tally, and compare that to the time frame in which it supposedly happened, its mathematically impossible for the official story to be true. Mathematically speaking, there just wasn't enough time to kill 6 million Jews in the fashion that was described. And then we can look at census records prior to Hitler's reign and directly after Hitler's reign. The census numbers simply don't reflect a dip in population of 6 million. As a matter of fact, the population is higher after WW2 than before...rather impossible, mathematically speaking.
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on May 15, 2019 20:42:09 GMT -5
I just learned about this one recently. Apparently the term "fossil fuels" is a misnomer and oil isn't actually made of decrepit dinosaur bones. I honestly fucking thought that my truck was powered by rotten T-Rex carcasses. I feel like such a rube. Rockefeller. That name pops up all the time when you read about nefarious deeds. I'm pretty sure Rockefeller owned the WTC complex and sold it to Larry Silverstein for 300 mil when it was worth 10 bil. Just months before 911. The timing and the details of the sale are quite cohencidental. Especially when you find out the building had asbestos and required a 1 billion dollar asbestos removal. Knock it down, cash out the insurance to the tune of 100 billion, sign the patriot act and send the US troops to the middle east for an endless war against Israel's enemies. "But that's just a conspiracy theory!" Yeah, it is a conspiracy, a conspiracy against freedom.
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on May 18, 2019 20:15:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on Jul 5, 2019 11:47:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on Jul 9, 2019 20:06:51 GMT -5
I always tell people that they shouldn't believe ANYTHING they see on the news, because there's a secret society of Rich Joowish Guys who pay LOTS of money to make current events take place. And well, the responses are always the same.... Me: that's obviously fake, look at the evidence. A team of old joowish guys paid big money to make that happen. Plebeians: why do you hate Jews so much? Schills: that's just a baseless, antisemitic conspiracy theory that the hate-filled nazis are spreading around. Sheeple: there's no such thing as the NWO, Jewish people don't own the Federal Reserve and they don't own the media, and they definitely don't pay money to create false flag hate hoaxes. Well, turns out I'm always right.
|
|
|
Post by MMAJim on Aug 12, 2019 7:27:52 GMT -5
More than meets the eye on Epstein suicide. Evidence: MSM working overtime to brand any other implications as ‘conspiracy theory.’ If DJT took 20+ or whatever private flights with the guy it would be be presented as ‘legitimate’ as the collusion farce was.
|
|
|
Post by Premier on Aug 12, 2019 19:16:24 GMT -5
That new Netflix mini series about the Family/The Fellowship.
Couple of conspiracy theories in there.
That prayer thing is Washington has been around for every president since the 40s.
They mention Reagan. Bush and trump being supportive. But skipped talking about Obama.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2019 1:06:30 GMT -5
I don't follow or buy in to hardly any conspiracy theories usually, however the Epstein debacle is too much to just buy in to. I am sure there is a couple billion dollars worth of people who have skeletons in his closet, and some or all of them decided they needed to eliminate the guy that could have turned and sold them out. Cellmate gets moved for no reason, guards look the other way, suicide is the easiest excuse.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Aug 13, 2019 5:17:35 GMT -5
I don't follow or buy in to hardly any conspiracy theories usually, however the Epstein debacle is too much to just buy in to. I am sure there is a couple billion dollars worth of people who have skeletons in his closet, and some or all of them decided they needed to eliminate the guy that could have turned and sold them out. Cellmate gets moved for no reason, guards look the other way, suicide is the easiest excuse. IF Epstien died by his own hand it means he pulled a Frank Pentangeli. I doubt he did though; there would be no need to disable the cameras if that were the case
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Aug 13, 2019 5:58:15 GMT -5
To quote the greatStefan Molyneux:
“Think of how desperate they must have been to pull...a move...so...obvious.”
The dominant viewpoint on reddit is that “Obviously Trump had Epstien killed.”
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on Sept 7, 2019 21:06:24 GMT -5
Even though Epstein is supposedly dead, he still won't go away...
The Epstein Black Mail Tapes:
Apparently video footage exists of Bill Clinton raping underage girls on Epstein's island.
A judge just unsealed hundred of documents containing names of people who are on the black mail tapes.
I'm also reading rumors that Epstein faked his death and is now living in Israel.
|
|