Top 5 Cover-ups?

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Let's get this going.

I'm not so much of a damn skeptic I think every cover story is true. There have been tons over the years that have actually happened. 

What are your top 5 cover-ups of all time, including now declassified and proven ones. 

Here are mine, with thoughts. 

5. 1952 Washington DC UFO Incident.

Was there where they came up with swamp gas reflecting off Venus. If that happened today it wouldn't be so easy to gaslight everyone about.  

Aliens or soviets?

Just don't give me radar anomalies and optical illusions. 

4. Roswell. 

No one cares that much about a high altitude spy balloon, or whatever they say it was. 

I have always wondered how ANYONE could confuse a mylar balloon with a craft. Even a suspended spy payload would be recognizable as jumbled camera and audio recording parts.  

3. Covid's Origin

It took the former host of THE MOST LIBERAL SHOW EVER to finally get everyone to Blame China. 

China bugs me. Deployed biological warfare. Spayed Wuhan, and tried to capitalize on a global pandemic while propping up their Ponzi growth economy.  

The CCP seems to be missing a "C" in their acronym.

2. TWA Flight 800 

It was 1996.  I remember watching the news. Everyone  had the same eyewitness account. Rocket then explosion.  But they assured me it was a frayed wire in the center fuel tank. 

Always seemed like covering the Navy's ass. 

1. Kennedy 

Lee Harvey and the guy on the bridge.  Several stationed if the shot from behind failed to do it. 

I speculate he either pissedoff the Federal Reserve or The Military Industrial Complex. Kennedy wasn't on board with Vietnam and The Fed, two really good reasons to make Eisenhower's warning prophetic.

[music is magic]

What about the 3 towers in New York?

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

What about the 3 towers in New York?

Meh.

Actually, I questioned the education of the "100 structural  engineers", and laughed when people parroted the burning temperature of A1 jet fuel. Because that was the only thing burning.

Combined with other things burning it reached 1000°c, where as a steel forge is right at about 950-1200°.

The collapse seemed lucky, given the circumstances, but nothing really goes without totally reasonable explanation.

[freethinkohio]

What about the Las Vegas music festival shooting?

[putnam6]

Meh.

Actually, I questioned the education of the "100 structural  engineers", and laughed when people parroted the burning temperature of A1 jet fuel. Because that was the only thing burning.

Combined with other things burning it reached 1000°c, where as a steel forge is right at about 950-1200°.

The collapse seemed lucky, given the circumstances, but nothing really goes without totally reasonable explanation.

Tower 7 is the sticky wicket in my estimation... starting with the BBC reporting live that Tower 7 HAD collapsed... while Tower 7 is standing in the background and then starts collapsing on cue.

Im not suggesting it wasn't undamaged, but it was extremely fortunate it collapsed how it did

Official Explanation
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), tasked with investigating the WTC collapses, concluded in its 2008 report that WTC 7’s collapse was primarily due to uncontrolled fires ignited by debris from the North Tower’s collapse at 10:28 a.m. on September 11, 2001. Key points from NIST’s findings include:

• Structural Damage and Fires: Debris from WTC 1 caused significant damage to WTC 7’s south face and started fires on multiple floors (6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30). These fires burned for nearly seven hours without intervention due to low water pressure in the building’s fire suppression system.
  
• Collapse Mechanism: NIST determined that the fires caused thermal expansion and weakening of steel beams and columns, particularly around column 79. This led to a buckling of the column, triggering a progressive collapse of the entire building at 5:20:52 p.m. The collapse included a period of free-fall acceleration for approximately 2.25 seconds, which NIST attributed to the rapid failure of structural supports.
  
• No Evidence of Explosives: NIST’s investigation, supported by Thornton Tomasetti’s forensic study, found no evidence of controlled demolition or explosive devices. The collapse was deemed an “extraordinary event” caused by fires, a first for a steel skyscraper.
  
• Evacuation and Safety: The building was evacuated early due to observed structural instability (e.g., a bulge in the southwest corner and creaking sounds), and no fatalities occurred in WTC 7’s collapse, as emergency responders had abandoned efforts to save the building by mid-afternoon.
  

NIST’s investigation involved extensive data collection, including interviews, videos, photographs, and computer simulations, and resulted in 31 recommendations for improving building safety codes, many of which were adopted globally.
Skeptical Perspectives and Conspiracy Theories
Despite the official findings, skepticism persists, particularly from groups like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911T), who argue that NIST’s explanation is inadequate. The controversy is amplified by posts on platforms like X and various online sources, though these are not conclusive evidence. Key points of contention include:

• Controlled Demolition Hypothesis: AE911T, backed by a 2020 University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) study, claims WTC 7’s collapse resembles a controlled demolition due to its rapid, symmetrical fall and the presence of free-fall acceleration. The UAF study suggests a “near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building,” contradicting NIST’s fire-induced collapse model.
  
• Visual and Audio Evidence: Some skeptics cite footage of WTC 7’s collapse, noting its vertical descent and lack of visible external damage comparable to the Twin Towers. They argue that the building’s collapse into its own footprint is consistent with demolition techniques. Posts on X, such as one from @KevinRyan911
  , compare WTC 7’s collapse to acknowledged demolitions.
  
• Lack of Steel Samples: Critics point out that NIST did not analyze physical steel samples from WTC 7, as debris was removed quickly to aid recovery efforts. This has led to claims that evidence of explosives or other causes could have been missed.
  
• Premature Reporting: A notable incident fueling suspicion is a BBC News report by correspondent Jane Standley, who announced WTC 7’s collapse while the building was still standing in the background. This was due to a mistaken Reuters report, also picked up by CNN, but skeptics cite it as evidence of foreknowledge or a cover-up.
  
• Presence of Sensitive Offices: WTC 7 housed offices of the CIA, Secret Service, and the Office of Emergency Management, leading some to speculate about classified materials or motives for intentional destruction. The loss of secret documents reported by the CIA adds to these theories, though no direct evidence supports them.
  

Critical Analysis

• Scientific Consensus vs. Skepticism: NIST’s investigation is widely accepted by structural engineering communities and has led to significant changes in building codes. However, the UAF study and AE911T’s claims highlight a divide, as they argue NIST’s models do not fully account for the observed free-fall and symmetry. The lack of physical steel samples limits definitive refutation of alternative theories, though NIST’s simulations were based on extensive data.
  
• Controlled Demolition Feasibility: Critics of the demolition theory note that rigging a building for controlled demolition requires weeks of preparation, which would have been difficult to conceal in a fully occupied building like WTC 7. Additionally, no explosive sounds or flashes consistent with demolitions were reported by survivors or responders.
  
• Media Errors: The premature reporting by BBC and CNN is explained as a miscommunication during the chaotic events of 9/11, with no evidence linking it to a broader conspiracy.
  
• Motives and Context: Conspiracy theories often tie WTC 7’s collapse to broader narratives about government or foreign involvement in 9/11. However, these claims lack substantiated evidence and rely on speculation, such as the absence of Jewish victims (disproven, as 119 confirmed Jewish victims died) or unverified motives related to the CIA’s presence.
  

Conclusion
The controversy over WTC 7’s collapse centers on the tension between NIST’s fire-induced collapse explanation, supported by extensive simulations and engineering consensus, and skeptical claims of controlled demolition, driven by visual similarities and unresolved questions about evidence. While NIST’s findings are robust and have influenced global building standards, the lack of physical steel samples and the building’s unique collapse characteristics continue to fuel debate. Posts on X and alternative studies like UAF’s reflect ongoing public skepticism but are inconclusive without further evidence. For a deeper dive, you can review NIST’s reports at www.nist.gov or AE911T’s claims at www.ae911truth.org.[](https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation)[](https://www.unilad.com/news/us-news/new-...5-20230912) (http://www.ae911truth.org.[](https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation)[](https://www.unilad.com/news/us-news/new-...5-20230912))

It's hard to believe it was damaged so severely that it collapsed into its footprint at free-fall speed...

https://youtu.be/E7vbB-ULVEM?si=PX_7VPZVQFagqxnL

[UltraBudgie]

moon landing
cointelpro
nsa surveillance
chernobyl
mk-ultra
watergate
agent orange
iran-contra
tuskegee
catholic church
dinosaurs

[Thoughtful3]

My #1 is Billy the Gates and the Gates foundation. The Evil Empire.

Is it okay if I delve a bit more into #3 the Covid Origin since it is still an on-going issue?

Have you heard of BioMerieux? 

https://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/fran...-virus-lab

When I read about this I wondered why would anyone want to help Chyna develop the most deadly diseases. Unless there was a bigger plan afoot.

This is even more disturbing. Why did France leave the lab air circulation system defective?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/wuhan-lab-air...8QWdW2IJnu

Would you believe that Stephan Bancel, CEO of Moderna worked for them?

https://www.biomerieux.com/us/en/journal...ral-0.html

Then we had Fauci green light the gain-of-function to be sent to WIV so that they could tinker out of sight.

Meanwhile Billy the Gates met up with Ugur Sahin [CEO of BioNTech] in Germany in October 2018.

From the book "The Vaccine" by Joe Miller - Billy met Ugur in an old dusty hotel where he presented Billy with details on how his mRNA technology worked. Billy was more than intrigued. His burning question to Ugur was whether he had considered making a plug and play in case of a plandemic. Pages 25 & 26.

He then made a significant investment into BioNTech- as he has claimed- the best return he has made. Classic pump and dump.
Not stopping there, he had BioNTech partner with Pfizer to develop a universal mRNA flu vaccine.

Billy is President Xi's close friend, especially since he has and continues to provide significant grants to Chyna.

Ugur Sahin and his wife Ozlem Tureci were approached by a huge Chinese conglomerate , Fosun Pharmaceuticals, very early in 2020, and signed a separate licensing agreement in the Canary Islands. Maybe they were aware of them because of Billy's contact. At that point BioNTech had only treated roughly 40 patients with individualized cancer treatments.

 Ugur knew this was strategic because they had a facility in Wuhan, so that provided the opportunity to have real live Covid positive patients to test on.

Isn't it curious that Chyna did not deploy the mRNA jab version?

I also find it most curious that BioNTech was developing this technology for cancer treatment and yet Pfizer paid a huge amount for Seagen for their cancer therapies.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-releas...ion-seagen

[David64]

moon landing
cointelpro
nsa surveillance
chernobyl
mk-ultra
watergate
agent orange
iran-contra
tuskegee
catholic church
dinosaurs

Dinosaurs ?  Are you talking about Gobekli Tepe ?

[UltraBudgie]

Dinosaurs ?  Are you talking about Gobekli Tepe ?

not to derail. there is much questionable 'science' there. yes also archaeology, in general. i wonder what people 100 years from now will say about what is generally accepted as 'true' now. it is kind of funny. make of it what you will. there are also agendas at play, as well as institutional power, which is why its on the list of 'cover ups'.

[David64]

Just to add to the list : The Grand Canyon