File: bring your own tinfoil hat.swf-(6.41 MB, 320x180, Other)
[_] Anonymous 07/04/16(Mon)15:21:51 No.3109218
Fat Monday
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/16(Mon)17:06:13 No.3109263
The video drastically overestimates our government's ability to prevent such an attack at the
time. The conspiracy here isn't that we're ruled by an all-seeing malevolent overmind, it's
worse. We're ruled by the kids we grew up with in grade school.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/16(Mon)18:15:36 No.3109295
Osama was for fact 'released' into the ocean I was there.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/16(Mon)18:34:53 No.3109304
>>3109263
Not really.
There was a shitload of information about the attack days and even weeks before it occurred.
The idea that it was a random thing that no one saw coming is laughable and is simply untrue.
The Government was warned by the CIA and other institutions many times before it occurred.
I don't like believing in conspiracy theories and I don't have much interest in them honestly but
based on the facts I currently find the opinion that the Government had some involvement in the
attacks plausible.
There are so many strange things it is hard to ignore.
Bush after the attacks shut down all air travel but did allow planes to fly around the country to
pick up Bin Laden and his family members and fly them out of the country.
That is an odd thing for him to do... no?
Anyway I have no idea of what really happened or who really was involved but I do tend to
currently think that it was some form of conspiracy and not just a random attack as suggested by
the eternally untrustworthy mainstream media.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/16(Mon)21:24:59 No.3109395
The Youtube version has a classical tune at the start instead of noise.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/16(Mon)22:09:04 No.3109430
>>3109304
>facts
>[citation needed]
>[citation needed]
>[citation needed]
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/16(Mon)22:15:37 No.3109433
>>3109430
evidence to the contrary
>[citation needed]
>[citation needed]
>[citation needed]
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/16(Mon)22:25:06 No.3109435
>>3109304
You make the classic mistake of assuming that bureaucrats are somehow competent or at least
efficient. Sadly neither is the case.
