UM you know by now you are a constant source of amusement for me. Lets leave it at that for now.
Printable View
UM you know by now you are a constant source of amusement for me. Lets leave it at that for now.
This is one of the best brief presentations of the science behind the WTC collapses I've seen. This could never have occurred in the U.S. where th congress is still currently gagged by the President in several 9/11 related investigations.Quote:
Originally Posted by SolSkye
What does this administration have to hide? Why is it blocking investigations into the claims of FBI whistleblowers who have evidence of terrorist infiltration into the FBI? Similar investigations involving money directly laundered to two of the 9/11 hijackers by Bush's uncle's bank have also been prohibited by executive order. This amounts to a complete disregard of congressional oversight, the only check on a runaway executive branch. Sad times for the U.S. political system.
Yes, I was very impressed with the quality of the arguments that he brought up. Simply put, the 9/11 crime wasn't investigated to the extent that it should have been.
I also concur about how concise and effective the presentation was at highlighting serious concerns about the whole 9/11 issue. More food for thought...
Paul William Roberts in his Globe and Mail article of Saturday, February 26, 2005 wrote the following:
"Hunter telephoned me on Feb. 19, the night before his death. He sounded scared. It wasn't always easy to understand what he said, particularly over the phone, he mumbled, yet when there was something he really wanted you to understand, you did. He'd been working on a story about the World Trade Center attacks and had stumbled across what he felt was hard evidence showing the towers had been brought down not by the airplanes that flew into them but by explosive charges set off in their foundations. Now he thought someone was out to stop him publishing it: "They're gonna make it look like suicide," he said. "I know how these bastards think..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolSkye
Good stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
Well, just to sheer up the discussion a bit.
One could say "no, the US government would perhaps do a false flag operation, but they wouldn't do somehtign so cruel, as in killing so many people for it!"
I say that's exactly what they want you to think. By doing such a cruel thing, they kind of mask the possibility of an inside job. Whose government would do such a terrible thing anyway?
Not fooling me. Oil is worthier than two random buildings.
:shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
But... the U.S. government would never harm its own citizens!
[/sarcasm]
oye, again with the oil bs.
Well, saying it was done for oil is an extreme over-generalization of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by tkdyo
Whether it was an inside job or not, the government has definitely taken advantage of the situation and used the terrorist attacks as a pretext for some things that would not be easily tolerated otherwise. I'm not in the mood for writing a lot right now, but just to name a few:
Torture
Unlawful war
Telephone/Mail tapping
Habeas Corpus... where did it go?
I'm not even touching in the topic of whether or not it was an inside job. I'm just saying that the government has taken advantage of the attacks.
:rollaugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
ouch. :P
Yea We know there all out there protecting our interests and caring for us and protecting us from the big bad evil terrorists! they love the american people and would die for us in a heartbeat to protect us!Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrantt23
:D
(more sarcasm :lol:)
New Expose Shreds Credibility of 9/11 Commission Report
Source: http://www.911blogger.com/node/14465
Kyle Hence
Friday, 21 March 2008, 12:16 pm
"Senior investigators on the 9/11 Commission believed their work was being manipulated by the executive director to minimize criticism of the Bush Administration." [...]
"Investigative staffers at the Commission believe [executive director] Philip Zelikow repeatedly sought to minimize the administration’s intelligence failures in the months leading up to 9/11, which had the effect of helping to ensure President Bush’s re-election in 2004." -- Excerpts from The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Philip Shenon
[...]
"There’s a lot of things they missed, and unfortunately there is going to be a lot of talk for rest of our lifetimes about whether or not these connections at the White House had some impact on the final report." -- Philip Shenon on "The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart, February 10, 2008
Is the US government poorer than the terrorists, or richer? I forgot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
That does not qualify as an answer. Explain a possible scenario of how the whole thing could have been pulled off. Be sure to include how the airplanes could have been flown, how all of the Dr. Evils in different departments could have come together with such a risky (to their reputations and future freedoms as well as their own economy) and terrible scheme, why there has not been one leak about what supposedly really happened, why the government would involve such a wild airplane scheme when they could have just blown up the buildings, where the government got actors to play Al Qaeda members who confess to one of the most shocking crimes in history and cut people's heads off in videos, and why so many relatives of the hijack victims reported that they heard hijackings taking place and were told directly by their relatives that hijackings were taking place. I honestly have no idea how such a story could be told in a logical way. If you can't do that, then you can't do it, but don't just return fire with questions I can't answer. I don't have all of the answers about what happened or why the government did what it did when, but I am not claiming 9/11 was an inside job. I can't tell you how the Andromeda galaxy was formed, but if you claim the Great Pumpkin created it, I am going to ask you how that is possible. If you argue that 9/11 was an inside job, then the burden of proof is on you. Do you think 9/11 was an inside job? If so, then tell me how it could be. Describe just one 9/11 attack scenario that is even plausible. It does not even need to be what you think happened. I am just asking for a story that is even possible. Nobody has given me one yet. If you are making the claim, then I am asking you to explain just one possible way it could have happened. Can you do it?Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
Money is power in this world. The more money, the more power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
1. Man in power with political relation to Israel wants war in middle east, for the sake of prolonging Israel's life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
2. Man has ties to many of the members of the Israel Lobby, who have a decent amount of control of the government.
3. Israel despises the rest of the middle east.
4. Start war by making American people angry towards middle east.
5. Frame a middle eastern organization.
6. Blow up towers, make it look like they did it.
7. Have an evacuation drill one day, a bunch of 'government inspectors' walk into the building with suitcases (explosives) and go to work undetered while the security cameras are turned off and everyone else runs outside.
8. Some days or weeks later, the aircraft fly into the building, and the explosives are blown.
By pilots. Either Israeli members who were promissed large sums of money for their families, or by middle easterners who were assured they were doing it for the sake of their country's well being (through a trusted source, likely a high ranking member of their government or society who was paid off).Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
It didn't have to be many men, and if it were, they didn't all have to have direct ties to our government, and may not even be well known to the public eye. It may be a select group of individuals who have been making these kinds of decisions for years (generations, even) behind our backs. Perhaps some underground society. They are all likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Roughly 95%~ of the world's media is owned by zionist Jewish businessmen. You can always google who owns companies like Vivendi and Time Warner for yourself. Israel is a zionist state. The media is controlled very, very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Again, they're trying to frame someone. Claiming hijackers did it with visible passports and airport security footage to show everyone the middle eastern men and their middle eastern names is easier than making it look like they blew it up. "Yea, um, saw the men come out after planting explosives." That doesn't fly as much as seeing the actual passport as evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
The members of the same organization have the same agenda, and would likely volunteer to be a part of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Because the hijackings DID take place, real people DID die, and those aircraft WERE flown into the towers, it just wasn't the aircraft that brought the towers down in neat, straight-down piles the way professionally demolishioned buildings do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Psh, I certainly gave it a shot. Whether or not that's what I believe is no one's business, but I'm certain it sounds plausible, which is what you asked for. I'd like you to ask any more questions if I missed anything, or if I didn't explain anything thoroughly enough. If you don't aprove of anything I said, at least attempt to appreciate that I took the time to answer you with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I've delayed my sleep another half hour thanks to you! *shakes fist*
A different scenario:Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
1. Create, fund, and train the beginnings of the terrorist cell that "admits responsibility" for the attacks (which we already know we did.)
2. Send the foundation of that faction overseas to help exacerbate the philosophy behind the radical-Islamist side of the war and recruit for the cause.
3. Keep the CIA-born portion of Al Qaeda under your wing, while the new recruits go about killing themselves while simultaneously committing the acts of violence that keeps the rest of the world scared of the already existent radical-Islam movement.
4. Have those easily manipulated recruits fly into the towers (regardless of whether or not explosives were planted), under direction from the CIA-born portion of Al Qaeda (ie; Bin Laden)
5. Sacrifice 7,000+ Americans (civilians and soldiers) for the goal of controlling of the Middle East, with the "clear" conscience that you're most likely saving hundreds of thousands of lives, over time. (Macro-Management)
6. Rush in like a knight on a white horse to try to gain the :bowdown: of the Iraqi people by stopping a war that hinged on a catalyst you created yourself.
Implausible? I surely don't think so. In fact, that makes more sense than half of the crap the Administration has tried to sell us over the past 7 years.
As skeptical as I am about 9/11 conspiracy theories, I have to agree. The administration has a penchant for making up bizarre explanations, so it's pretty easy for something to make more sense.Quote:
Implausible? I surely don't think so. In fact, that makes more sense than half of the crap the Administration has tried to sell us over the past 7 years.
I got that, but I was asking for details. I didn't understand how the story could happen. However, you ended up giving the best and only full story I have come across. Your scenario involves events that are much more plausible than the ones I have been coming across. If you had said the airplanes were remotely controlled and a missile hit the Pentagon, it would have ruined your chances of telling a coherent story. However, your idea that terrorists really did pull the hijackings because they were put up to it by somebody given money by the Bush Administration is not an impossibility. That scenario smooths out some of the other issues too.Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
I understood that much. However, if anything, it would be about oil revenues for Halliburton and/or other oil companies. I don't think people in our government would go through such madness just for Zionism or money paid toward long term Zionism. It would have to be much bigger than that, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
As I said, I cannot claim that that scenario is impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
Your answer about actual terrorists on a jihad mission takes away the weight of my argument on this one. It would take just one charismatic terrorist trainer and one greedy oil executive to pull that off. If you had talked about remote control airplanes and a missile hitting the Pentagon, we would have a lot of conspiracy players to be talking about and a whole mess of other issues that would arise.Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
That too is answered by your response that actual terrorists were involved. It is easy for a small group not to leak, but a gigantic network of people who don't really know each other would be far more likely to involve somebody who would spill the beans on the wrong ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
I don't think Jews are keeping the news media quiet about anything, however. Those corporations are in very extreme competition with each other, and everything juicy will be reported by at least somebody.
So far, your hypothetical scenario is plausible.
That is where I think your scenario stops making sense. Explosives were used by Islamofascists on the World Trade Center in 1993. It would have been much easier for the government to just use explosives than use airplanes and explosives. The airplanes would not have been necessary and would have only created strange issues about the way the buildings fell. The government conspirators would have looked into how the buildings would fall and would have been scared that the world of engineering would turn the issue into the talk of every town. I don't think there is any way they would have taken on that monster when it was so unnecessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
Terrorists went after the WTC in 1993, so of course they would have still wanted to take it down in 2001. I think that is the most plausible scenario.
However, another plausible scenario is that actual terrorists flew airplanes into the buildings and caused them to fall by the airplanes crashes alone because they were put up to it by a charismatic terrorist trainer working for the Bush Administration. That is not completely out of the question.
That is another part of your scenario I don't think adds up. There is a $25 million dollar bounty on Bin Laden, dead or alive. I can't imagine him wanting to be the most wanted person on Earth with that kind of a bounty on his head for any amount of mere money. I can see him doing it because he is willing to die for Allah, but not for money. Money can't be enjoyed if you are dead or always having to hide in caves. The same is true of every wanted Al Qaeda member. Khallid Sheik Mohammed is in jail now. Maybe he was totally framed? If so, everybody involved in his interrogation and imprisonment is in on the conspiracy. The more people involved in a conspiracy, the shakier it is. 9/11 is the biggest and most shocking news story ever, and anybody participating in it and trying to be secretive is playing with major fire. That is one more reason I think it is much more likely that Al Qaeda, from the leadership down, was really was trying to pull some nut job jihad mission.Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
The most plausible conspiracy scenario I can think of on that is that Bin Laden got plastic surgery after making a bunch of videos to be used in the future, and he got high tech make up artists for the future videos. Then make up artists are part of the conspiracy. I seriously doubt that is what has been happening.
That makes much more sense than what I have been coming across, but I don't think the conspirators would have bothered with airplanes if they were using explosives. Explosives alone would not have raised demolition issues. I also think that if the demolition was screwy the way it happened, that would be an even bigger news story than 9/11 was right after it happened. It would at least be the talk of every town. Imagine what a big deal it would be to everybody who comprehensively understands demolition. Do you know how many of such people there are in the world?Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
Thanks for your response. It involves the most logical 9/11 conspiracy scenarios I have seen anywhere. I didn't mean to keep you up late. I hope you had a good sleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by invader_tech
We were given a spectacle to watch happen, that further galvanized the American people's readiness for war, because it was something we were able to actually witness in, basically, its entirety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
We were also given maximum body-count, in that, had they have been bombs and gone of in succession (one building before the other) they would have tried to evacuate the second tower before all of our eyes were glued to the television.
They would have had much less rationale for tracking Muslim tourists and travelers, with tighter security, considering how many do come in and out by plane. Such really helps the goal of eliminating as many of the Jihadists as possible.
And what difference does it make of the government conspirators would look into the way the buildings fell, when all of the wreckage was cleared out, purposefully, before any proper investigation could be done? Any talk of the buildings having "fallen strangely" would be dismissed exactly how it is today - as just another conspiracy theory.
Besides, even with the ground-based 07-07-05 bombings in London, there were signs that seem to scream out "inside job." I don't think any incident like that is really safe from scrutiny.
Blowing up the two towers with remote control bombs or time bombs but not at the same time would have had the same effect. The news crews would be on the scene over the first collapse, and then we get to watch the second one. If the buildings really were bombed, isn't that exactly what happened? What difference would the airplanes make other than to create demolition issues that supposedly exist now over the mere collapse videos and all kinds of things people bring up despite your claimed lack of proper investigation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Just blowing up the buildings would have resulted in maximum body count in terms of deaths from building collapse. Not giving people time to get out would have done that trick. The way it happened, a lot of people escaped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Just capturing some bombers would not have done that? They could have bombed an airport and created all of the airport scare they needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
If there were real issues there, it would be the talk of every town because there are plenty of true demolition experts in every town. The only people who make an issue of the demolition scenario are amateur liberals on the internet and maybe less than a thousandth of a percentage of the actual demolition experts who understand the full scope of every consideration. That point often gets mistaked for a "majority rules" point, which it is not. I am talking about the power of word travel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
It's fine to ask questions, but one should be careful about jumping to conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Quite obvious evidence of demolition style bombs.