9/11. What really happened?

[Vicky.]

OK I've been reading some threads on DS. I have watched the loose change program, and also the one that 'supposedly' proves that the loose change program is a lie. But it doesn't do that very well to be honest.

Apologies if this thread has been done before, but its interesting to find out other peoples views on this, as I'm totally torn.

On the one hand, I don't understand why America would WANT this to happen...or cause it. And other theory is that they just allowed it to happen...which would make more sense, but why?

On the other, how on earth, if the government did not plan/allow this, did this all happen without some kind of intervention?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
Loose change video...its like 1 hour 20 long.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#

The video that is supposed to disprove loose changes theories. Some, it does, others it doesn't. So there are still lots of loose ends in my eyes. This one is like 3 hours long though, so i doubt many will watch it :p


Apologies if this is a touchy subject at the minute, but I am so confused by the whole thing after watching both of the above videos, and sitting thinking about all the inconsistencies in the official story.

[Captain.Remy]

On the one hand, I don't understand why America would WANT this to happen...or cause it. And other theory is that they just allowed it to happen...which would make more sense, but why?

Fear > War > Iraq > Fuel > $$$

We all know 9/11 was bollocks. It's sad to see people died for money.

[Vicky.]

Fear > War > Iraq > Fuel > $$$

We all know 9/11 was bollocks. It's sad to see people died for money.
Well it seems we dont all know, as I was quickly branded a lunatic for daring to question the whole thing over on DS.

There is no denying that somethine is very very off about the whole thing, so many things just don't add up at all.

[Vicky.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg&feature=related

A much shorter mini video.

The pentagon thing is what I find the most suspicious to be honest. Why not release the official footage to shut people up if there is nothing amiss here? One of the most guarded buildings in America...there must be at least one tape from the many CCTV cameras that actually show the plane hitting it. Surely.

[Mystic Mock]

i dont think the goverment was involved because george.w.bush was really upset.

[Harry!]

i dont think the goverment was involved because george.w.bush was really upset.

He was so upset he even continued to read a story book to a classroom for 7 mins after he heard the news of the second tower being hit.

[ILoveTRW]

I remember The Real World: Chicago cast having an argument over the phone on the night of 9/11.

[arista]

I watched it live on TV
so I do not need videos.

This was a the Clever Saudi Attack on NYC.

And what shocked me was Atta one leader Killer
was in Florida months before learning how to Fly
but not take off.
One FBI woman was told about him
but because it was a Femail FBI officer
it was not checked out enough.

So it could have been stopped.

[Shasown]

It happened pretty much the way mainstream press and the governments say it did, there was no conspiracy, there was a few mistakes made by Intelligence Analysts and their bosses over the strike group.

There will always be conspiracists who link coincidence and the loosest of evidence to claim a big cover up but the evidence they provide is incredibly flimsy.

For the US government to have instigated or even colluded with the attacks, would mean one of the greatest conspiracies ever, with far too many people involved to keep it quiet even this long.

Incidentally if it was ever proven that Bush and Co had been part of it, they would have to stand trial, there would be no chance of any sort of pardon or immunity from prosecution and depending which state they were arrested in would mean not only the top echelons of his government but also many lesser politicians and bureaucrat not only being sentenced to long periods in jail, but most would face the death penalty.

That is just internally within the country they would also be subject to prosecution internationally for the follow up attacks on other sovereign countries, again the death penalty being the punishment.

[Vicky.]

I watched it live on TV
so I do not need videos.

This was a the Clever Saudi Attack on NYC.

And what shocked me was Atta one leader Killer
was in Florida months before learning how to Fly
but not take off.
One FBI woman was told about him
but because it was a Femail FBI officer
it was not checked out enough.

So it could have been stopped.

Arista, this is not just a video of the towers collapsing. Most people saw that live on TV. I did myself and even then I found it strange that the buildings just went straight down, I remember thinking at the time that it wasn't right, and I was only 13/14 then.

It explains the many inconsistencies in the official story. The second does challenge some of it, but it does not totally disprove that something was fishy about it all. It doesnt even come close to disproving it.

[Shasown]

He was so upset he even continued to read a story book to a classroom for 7 mins after he heard the news of the second tower being hit.

Bush was to all intents and purposes a dullard, his brain couldnt cope with what was happening. He didnt know what to do for the moment so continued reading. It also served to prevent panic in the class, or would you have preferred to see him jump around like a headless chicken screaming about America being under attack.

[arista]

A Yank Pipeline
was going across land Bin Laden did not want it to.

So GW Bush and his Attitude before 9/11
ensured it would happen.
And Attacking Iraq had Feck all to do with 9/11

[InOne]

Arista, this is not just a video of the towers collapsing. Most people saw that live on TV. I did myself and even then I found it strange that the buildings just went straight down, I remember thinking at the time that it wasn't right, and I was only 13/14 then.

It explains the many inconsistencies in the official story. The second does challenge some of it, but it does not totally disprove that something was fishy about it all. It doesnt even come close to disproving it.

oXxynEDpwrA

[arista]

Arista, this is not just a video of the towers collapsing. Most people saw that live on TV. I did myself and even then I found it strange that the buildings just went straight down, I remember thinking at the time that it wasn't right, and I was only 13/14 then.

It explains the many inconsistencies in the official story. The second does challenge some of it, but it does not totally disprove that something was fishy about it all. It doesnt even come close to disproving it.


Yes I know
but I do not need more views on it.

It went down Live on Worldwide TV
it is a Fact that Atta and the Saudis
hit those buildings and with so much oil in those planes
they both went down.

I have been up the World Trade Center , before 2001,
and not all offices were taken.

The Metal in those buildings structure melted
they went down due to the Clever Saudi Attack.
Fact.


There was a Docu on why it went down like that
all due to Metal in the Cement melting.
All logical
once you understand what it is made of.

[Vicky.]

oXxynEDpwrA

Whilst that video is interesting, I never claimed to believe that the towers melted ;) That is ridiculous beyond belief to even consider that they just melted :S

Its the way they fell straight down, exactly LIKE a controlled demolition that gets me. But that still isn't what confuses me the most about it all.

The whole pentagon side of it is.

Why not just release the bloody tapes of the plan crashing into it? It would shut the conspiracy theorists up. At least about that part of it. There has got to be footage. Its one of the most guarded buildings in america...if not THE most guarded. They released two tapes that I am aware of, and neither show a plane. They also released stills, of which, none show a plane.

[InOne]

Whilst that video is interesting, I never claimed to believe that the towers melted ;) That is ridiculous beyond belief to even consider that they just melted :S

Its the way they fell straight down, exactly LIKE a controlled demolition that gets me. But that still isn't what confuses me the most about it all.

The whole pentagon side of it is.

Why not just release the bloody tapes of the plan crashing into it? It would shut the conspiracy theorists up. At least about that part of it. There has got to be footage. Its one of the most guarded buildings in america...if not THE most guarded. They released two tapes that I am aware of, and neither show a plane. They also released stills, of which, none show a plane.

Even if they did release the tapes, they still wouldn't shut up. These people spend far too much time thinking up these theories rather than getting on with their own lives.

[arista]

Vicky they Melted
due to Metal in the structure.

A Docu proved it.

[Shaun]

It makes me sick that people think this could have been faked. Or done by the Government.

Just...wow. Get a real grip on politics. Then we'll 'discuss' (there's very little solid claim to discuss) it.

[arista]

Even if they did release the tapes, they still wouldn't shut up. These people spend far too much time thinking up these theories rather than getting on with their own lives.



Yes sad that Vicky has been sucked into all these wrong stories.


Fact it melted.
Oil from the Planes did the trick.
It was clever of those Saudi's

[Vicky.]

Even if they did release the tapes, they still wouldn't shut up. These people spend far too much time thinking up these theories rather than getting on with their own lives.

It may not shut everyone up, but it would help.

And if these tapes exist(which surely they must), there is no reason at all to not release them.
Vicky they Melted
due to Metal in the structure.

A Docu proved it.

The fire weakened the steel. It did not melt the towers. The weakening caused them to collapse. I never questioned this.

[arista]

It makes me sick that people think this could have been faked. Or done by the Government.

Just...wow. Get a real grip on politics. Then we'll 'discuss' (there's very little solid claim to discuss) it.


Well its Vicky.

I would lock this thread.

[arista]

"The fire weakened the steel. It did not melt the towers. The weakening caused them to collapse. I never questioned this. "


Good vicky
you can lock this now

[Vicky.]

It makes me sick that people think this could have been faked. Or done by the Government.

Just...wow. Get a real grip on politics. Then we'll 'discuss' (there's very little solid claim to discuss) it.
Not saying it was faked, or wasn't. Just questioning a few things.

Someone pointed me to those videos...never thought about it all before to be honest.

I think actually, it is more likely that the government stood back and allowed it, rather than that they actually did it. Though the reasoning for it is unclear...except for what Remy said above.

[Vicky.]

Why would I lock it arista?

[Shasown]

The reinforcing of the buildings was affected by the impacts of the aircraft and the subsequent fires, floors above eventually collapsed down the stressed structure of the building wasnt designed to withstand downward impacts so a very fast ripple collapse occurred.

[arista]

Why would I lock it arista?


Because there is no need to Question why the buildings went down
it was a Clever Saudi Attack.
Level with Japans Pearl harbour Attack.

[Vicky.]

Because there is no need to Question why the buildings went down
it was a Clever Saudi Attack.
Level with Japans Pearl harbour Attack.

But I am not questioning why the buildings went down :S

[arista]

"On the other, how on earth, if the government did not plan/allow this, did this all happen without some kind of intervention? "


Saying "If "
GWBush planned this is Crazy

Thats why you would Lock it.


and all from DS threads
they are below this Forum

[Shasown]

The whole pentagon side of it is.

Why not just release the bloody tapes of the plan crashing into it? It would shut the conspiracy theorists up. At least about that part of it. There has got to be footage. Its one of the most guarded buildings in america...if not THE most guarded. They released two tapes that I am aware of, and neither show a plane. They also released stills, of which, none show a plane.

The pentagon wasnt highly guarded, no air defence measures, and very little physical defence, ie men on the ground. It had and still has IR fences and seismic detectors mostly. Clear zones and high crash proof fences.

Videos would have mostly been pointed at entries for people as opposed to an air threat up until this point in time the air threat was never considered. It was always though National Guard air defence assets could be scrambled in time, multiple hijack occurences and real time confusion sort of blew that one out of the air.

Videos have been released from local petrol stations etc though grainy do show a passenger aircraft.

[Vicky.]

The pentagon wasnt highly guarded, no air defence measures, and very little physical defence, ie men on the ground. It had and still has IR fences and seismic detectors mostly. Clear zones and high crash proof fences.

Videos would have mostly been pointed at entries for people as opposed to an air threat up until this point in time the air threat was never considered. It was always though National Guard air defence assets could be scrambled in time, multiple hijack occurences and real time confusion sort of blew that one out of the air.

Videos have been released from local petrol stations etc though grainy do show a passenger aircraft.

Interesting. Will look for those videos.

I was never saying that I totally bought into these theories, but a lot of it did confuse me.

Just thought it would be an interesting discussion :)

And arista, I will not be locking this thread. There is no reason to do so.

[arista]

Vicky
what is it you do not understand, yourself.

Not all the Freaks from DS.

[Shasown]

Interesting. Will look for those videos.

I was never saying that I totally bought into these theories, but a lot of it did confuse me.

Just thought it would be an interesting discussion :)

And arista, I will not be locking this thread. There is no reason to do so.

Mentions them here Vicky

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4990686.stm

[Smithy]

It's weird because I was thinking about it a few days ago, and although some things don't seem to make sense I doubt that the US government were involved.

But it does make you think, especially after the terrorists VISA card was found amongst the rubble of the towers

[King Gizzard]

short change 9/11 documentary = one of the best i've ever watched

[Vicky.]

Mentions them here Vicky

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4990686.stm

So the video still doesn't actually show a 757?

I tried looking on youtube for it, but just got loads more videos just showing the explosion :S

[Captain.Remy]

It makes me sick that people think this could have been faked. Or done by the Government.

Just...wow. Get a real grip on politics. Then we'll 'discuss' (there's very little solid claim to discuss) it.

Shaun, if you actually studied politics and spent over 10 hours studying the 9/11 topic at Uni, you would know things aren't what they look like on TV. That's what politics + media are all about: people buy what they see on TV and don't make an opinion by themselves.

People also need to understand that governments don't do things on their goodwill or because they have a nice heart: money rules the world. The more dominant you are on natural resources, the more powerful you are. The next big battle will be about water, because trust me, water is the next gold.

As for my short reasoning above, I could have gone for a very very very very very long post describing everything from A to Z but I made it short.

[Smithy]

The next big battle will be about water, because trust me, water is the next gold.


If they can ever develop the technology

[Shasown]

So the video still doesn't actually show a 757?

I tried looking on youtube for it, but just got loads more videos just showing the explosion :S

Try this,

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5658198482624505213#

Thats about the best copy I could find of the time lapse vid from one of the filling stations.

[Captain.Remy]

If they can ever develop the technology

No need for big technology, what we have now is already good for it. Politicians are starting to get very interested on the subject because we know we're screwed for fuel, now water is about to become a hot topic.

[MTVN]

What happened? Terrorists flew two planes into the Twin Towers in an organised attack. That's it.

[Vicky.]

Try this,

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5658198482624505213#

Thats about the best copy I could find of the time lapse vid from one of the filling stations.

Yeah thats the one that I already saw.

It shows something going towards it, then the explosion...but it really does not look like a passenger plane to me tbh :/

[Vicky.]

Just looking into it more now. No doubt the videos below will be rubbished, but I think they are quite interesting. Not saying I believe one way or the other, but its interesting to find some experts in stuff like this that agree that it is dodgy. When quite a lot of people who deny anything was off about that day claim that no experts agree with the conspiracists ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av9ZE7X9sFI

Physics professor Stephen jones...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA

Dutch demolition expert on wtc7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns_hjONWZ88

Tom Sullivan-Explosives technician...



The way wtc7 collapse is also quite interesting. I can take the explanation of weakened steel and parts collapsing onto of each other, causing the flatpack effect that we saw with the other towers. But wtc7, started collapsing from the bottom. No top floors collapsed, causing the others to collapse... like with the other 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Straight down...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=related

A new camera angle on it. Still nothing collapsing ontop of other floors..to make it flatpack.

If this building did indeed collapse due to fire weakening the steel, like the other two buildings...how on earth did it fall in the way it did? Straight down, like the other 2. But no reason for it. The first two went down because the fire and impact weakened the steel structure and made floors collapse onto of each other, that does actually make sense. But with wtc7... it does not.

[Smithy]

Vicky your gonna get killed by the FBI tonight :bored:

[arista]

What happened? Terrorists flew two planes into the Twin Towers in an organised attack. That's it.


Yes Bang On Right
sadly the DS forums
have sent Vicky the wrong way.

[Vicky.]

Yes Bang On Right
sadly the DS forums
have sent Vicky the wrong way.

You are making out like the only reason I made this was because of a thread on DS. No, the thread on DS got me thinking about it, then I watched loads of stuff and confused myself even more and have come to the conclusion that everything is not as it appears IMO.

Sorry if I dare to question the official line.

[MTVN]

You are making out like the only reason I made this was because of a thread on DS. No, the thread on DS got me thinking about it, then I watched loads of stuff and confused myself even more and have come to the conclusion that everything is not as it appears IMO.

Sorry if I dare to question the official line.

I just dont see why, after every major event, there always have to be conspiracy theories. There's conspiracies about man landing on the moon, 7/7, the New World Order etc. all of which could probably appear convincing after some twisting of the facts and some biased, edited footage.

Maybe I'm narrow-minded but I have very little time for conspiracies, I tend to hold the view that the simplest, obvious explanation is the right one

[BBfan46]

In all honesty, it's human nature to doubt big events in society. As corrupt and ignorant the US Government they couldn't possibly justify destroying the World Trade Center and launching an attack on the president's home! They'd have had no way of knowing the passengers would fight back and take back the plane. Theories like this are up all the time, there's a really interesting one on Michael Jackson's death. It's fascinating but lies most likely. :)

www.michaeljacksonsightings.com

[ange7]

Well it seems we dont all know, as I was quickly branded a lunatic for daring to question the whole thing over on DS.

There is no denying that somethine is very very off about the whole thing, so many things just don't add up at all.
DID THEY!!!!!!?
What else did they call you? ...

[Vicky.]

DID THEY!!!!!!?
What else did they call you? ...

Ha, a few choice words that I cant really repeat on here :laugh:

I don't understand why people are branded stupid just for questioning what they are told though. Its silly really.

[Smithy]

I blame you Vicky

[Vicky.]

I blame you Vicky

Theres a bloody change :bored:

[Mystic Mock]

Vicky your gonna get killed by the FBI tonight :bored:

:joker:

[ange7]

Ha, a few choice words that I cant really repeat on here :laugh:

I don't understand why people are branded stupid just for questioning what they are told though. Its silly really.
Conspiracy theories sell well because some people like to believe that it's all out of their control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

[Omen]

I read a good article written by Eamon Dunphy. He wrote many newpaper articles on the subject in The Irish Mail. Anyway, his hypothesis ws that 9/11 was used as the causus belli to unleash the Project For A New American Century. I think there can be little doubt that this was the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

"The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from early 1997 to 2006....The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War."

9/11 was a gift for these guys.

[Zippy]

I believe the attack was a genius terrorist masterstroke. Worked to perfection.

With a little help along the way by incompetence from those whose job it was to stop such events occuring.

But no conspiracy. Why would the US goverment make themselves look so useless?

[BBfan46]

I believe the attack was a genius terrorist masterstroke. Worked to perfection.

With a little help along the way by incompetence from those whose job it was to stop such events occuring.

But no conspiracy. Why would the US goverment make themselves look so useless?

The attack was not genius, it was largely down to the unassuming American government, the FBI knew Muslim activists were training to be pilots in the States and even granted them permits to take such lessons and there were suspicions raised about the motives of the inevitable hijackers when they got aboard the plane but it was dropped, I do agree, it wasn't the government's doing but it was their fault I mean they didn't even ****ing evacuate the second tower? Accident or not, you would have thought it was a basic safety feature and when United 93 was on course for the White House, the nearest military jet was 100 miles away despite many calls from distressed passengers, the FBI only knew the plane had been hijacked four minutes AFTER it had gone down.

[Omen]

I've read that if the terrorists hadn't knocked them down then someone else would have had to sooner rather than later, so they did their new owner, who had them insured for double their value, a huge favour. Their demolition was, I believe, well under consideration already.

[Omen]

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4373

On 9/11: Was the Asbestos-Laced World Trade Center "Disposable"?

But in exposing this evidence, the 9/11 Truth effort is also shedding light on a significant story-within-the-story: that the World Trade Center (WTC) was obsolete and asbestos-laced, and that its destruction on 9/11 may, for certain interests in the U.S., have been both desirable and profitable--independent of any interest in war.

[Grimnir]

first off in Britain we should call it 11/9 as we have our time and date format the correct way round

11/9 was just another step on the road to a New World Order led by the Illuminati

Global Warming scam is another step

World Economic Crisis is another step

soon all the ostriches that have their heads stuck in the sand will stand up and take notice, but by then it will be too late

billions will die at the hands of a worldwide virus pandemic including 99% of this forum, this virus will be man made and used as a biological weapon
HIV/AIDS is another man-made biological weapon

any rebels will be labelled terrorists and hunted down by a non-human UN police force

world war 3 is closer than you think

[Shasown]

first off in Britain we should call it 11/9 as we have our time and date format the correct way round

11/9 was just another step on the road to a New World Order led by the Illuminati

Global Warming scam is another step

World Economic Crisis is another step

soon all the ostriches that have their heads stuck in the sand will stand up and take notice, but by then it will be too late

billions will die at the hands of a worldwide virus pandemic including 99% of this forum, this virus will be man made and used as a biological weapon
HIV/AIDS is another man-made biological weapon

any rebels will be labelled terrorists and hunted down by a non-human UN police force

world war 3 is closer than you think

You should get that fantasy of yours down on paper and send it to a movie producer.

[Omen]

first off in Britain we should call it 11/9 as we have our time and date format the correct way round

11/9 was just another step on the road to a New World Order led by the Illuminati

Global Warming scam is another step

World Economic Crisis is another step

soon all the ostriches that have their heads stuck in the sand will stand up and take notice, but by then it will be too late______________________________________________ _______________

billions will die at the hands of a worldwide virus pandemic including 99% of this forum, this virus will be man made and used as a biological weapon
HIV/AIDS is another man-made biological weapon

any rebels will be labelled terrorists and hunted down by a non-human UN police force

world war 3 is closer than you think

You're half right.

[Z]

I was watching a 9/11 documentary last week with my family; and my dad mentioned a conspiracy theory that 9/11 was linked to Lockerbie; and that 9/11 was some kind of permitted revenge attack that the Americans would capitalise on to go to war... I don't really remember the details of what he said, but if anyone else has heard said theory, feel free to fill in the blanks for me!

To be honest I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. Two planes crashed into two world famous buildings; lots of people were killed and it was a tragic, horrific event. I find it fascinating to watch footage from that day. I think, if there is a conspiracy behind 9/11, it's best if it remains just that - it would spoil the memory of those who died on that day, in my opinion. R.I.P, it does not seem like nine years since it happened!

[Sticks]

Anyone asking whether this was a conspiracy theory on the part of the US Government should look at a real conspiracy that was perpertrated

That of Watergate

Not that many people involved compared to what would be needed for a Moon landing conspiracy or a 9/11 (11/9) conspiracy, and yet it unravelled and came to light fairly quickly.

If there were such a conspiracy, where are the deep throats? where are the Serpico's?

There is an old maxim known as "Occam's Rasor" which usually is the death knell for all conspiracy theories, that the most simplest explanation, no matter how unpalatable has to be true.

Conspiracies by their nature are complex unweildy beasts, which as we saw with Watergate have a habit of falling apart.

The explanation that is simplest and fits the test of Occam's rasor is that nineteen people got past incompetant security. The authorities emergency plans were based on a cold war mentality, where fighter jets where sent out over the sea under the old protocols which had not been changed. They also assumed that hijackers would always want to live and get away.

America is hated because of percieved support for Israel and because American troops who were in Saudi because of the first Gulf War were seen as infidels desecrating the holy sites of Islam.

As for the technical details of bringing down a building, ask any reputable demolition firm and they will tell you what preparations are needed before the explosives people go in. There is no way that could be hidden.

As for WT7, there was a fire that was allowed to burn unchecked because it had been evacuated and there was understandably problems with the water supply.

Again, application of Occam's Rasor points away from a US government conspiracy.

[Zippy]

The attack was not genius...

Er, yes it was. The most memorable terrorist attack in modern history.

The rest of your post is just speculation and opinion. I don't believe anybody allowed anything because at the end of the day people are accountable in their jobs and nobody chooses to look incompetent. Especially when it involves thousands of deaths.

[Omen]

Having watched the JFK prog on C4 last night/this morning I have come to the conclusion that you don't have to be proactive to participate in a conspiracy, just inactive, or let it happen. Cui bono? This act was a gift for the Bush administrtion. Bush probably was going to be defeated in 2004, he wasn't popular. The hawks got their excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, something they already planned.

However, it is fantastical to think there were controlled explosions, isn't it? Yet there's an organisation called Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth, numbering over 1000, who are still asking if these buildings were demolished by controlled explosion.

It's remarkable that such a hap-hazzard attack on a sky scraper should bring about an almost near perfect controlled-like demolition. It makes you wonder what these demolition experts get paid for.

[ange7]

I've read that if the terrorists hadn't knocked them down then someone else would have had to sooner rather than later, so they did their new owner, who had them insured for double their value, a huge favour. Their demolition was, I believe, well under consideration already.
sweet jesus! are you f-ing serious?
off the hook.
So who was responsible for 9/11 omen?
"insured for double their value"? were they in on it too? oh do tell!

[Omen]

sweet jesus! are you f-ing serious?
off the hook.
So who was responsible for 9/11 omen?
"insured for double their value"? were they in on it too? oh do tell!

Read the post, don't read into the post (that which isn't there).

Note: "I have read",

that the buildings were a health hazzard, full of asbestos, in need of demolition;

that the guy who had jus bought them from the Port Authority claimed twice, ie double, from their insurers.

[Niamh.]

I won't pretend to know alot about the subject but I did watch Farhanheit 911 which was very interesting. The guy in that reckons that the US government knew that it was Osama Bin ladan but went after Saddam Hussein instead because Osama Bin ladans family were influential in some way. Again my knowledge is very limited on the subject!

[Omen]

Saddam Hussein had diddly-squat to do with it.

[Niamh.]

Saddam Hussein had diddly-squat to do with it.

I know, that was that guy who did the films point.

[ange7]

Read the post, don't read into the post (that which isn't there).

Note: "I have read",

that the buildings were a health hazzard, full of asbestos, in need of demolition;

that the guy who had jus bought them from the Port Authority claimed twice, ie double, from their insurers.
lol what was funny was this part

"Their demolition was, I believe, well under consideration already."

"Authority claimed twice, ie double, from their insurers"
What was the claim and what was the actual value? If you don't know then I'll assume it's BS. Is it BS? And if it is true what conclusion can be made from it? I'm assuming you made the point for a reason. When I take the p*ss out of your assumption you reply with the accusation that I "read into the post" something that wasn't there. Odd ... what was the point you were trying to make with that "fact".

[Omen]

Their demolition was under consideration. And their owner did claim double indemnity on the basis it was a terrorist attack.

[ange7]

Their demolition was under consideration. And their owner did claim double indemnity on the basis it was a terrorist attack.
says who? .... no numbers means your quoting from the internet. And even if true you FAILED to answer what inference your making from this "fact".

[Omen]

.."it was well-known that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. Plans were made in 1989 to completely dismantle the WTC not only because of the asbestos problems but also the electrolytic corrosion problems. Apparently, the plans were dropped because they were considered prohibitively expensive. The only reason the building was still standing on 9/11 was it was too costly to disassemble floor by floor."

"But allfor the maximum amount of the policy, based on two, in Silverstein's view, separate at of Lucky Larry's problems disappeared on Sept. 11, 2001. Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims tacks."

http://www.rense.com/general82/whod.htm

[Omen]

says who? .... no numbers means your quoting from the internet. And even if true you FAILED to answer what inference your making from this "fact".


Make any inference you like.

[Omen]

Of course I'm quoting from the internet, or do you think I'm a principal in the affair?

[ange7]

says who? .... no numbers means your quoting from the internet. And even if true you FAILED to answer what inference your making from this "fact".


Make any inference you like.
LOL!!!!
Mate it's your point! You said it....now explain why you posted it. I'm guessing you posted this to make a point about something. Let's hear it!
Why don't you just say what you dying to say hehe.
...or do you think your job is to cut and paste BS from www.conspiracyTheories.com?

[ange7]

Of course I'm quoting from the internet, or do you think I'm a principal in the affair?
the site your quoting from isn't a reliable source. Don't you get that ANYONE can create a website. The fact that it is written on a website doesn't make it a FACT.

[ange7]

you like a pinatas full of conspiracy theories and I think if I keep thumping you a few will pop out. :P

[Omen]

the site your quoting from isn't a reliable source. Don't you get that ANYONE can create a website. The fact that it is written on a website doesn't make it a FACT.

So I'll ignore this then, OK?

It's not like I haven't quoted anything that can be attestified is it?

[Omen]

Oh and just because everything isn't true doesn't mean everything is false, which seems to be your position.

I laid out 2 facts which can be checked, the inference is yours to make, not mine.

[ange7]

So I'll ignore this then, OK?

It's not like I haven't quoted anything that can be attestified is it?
Mate ... don't state things as "fact" if you couldn't be @ssed.
My job isn't to prove you wrong...the onus is on you to back your "facts".

[ange7]

Oh and just because everything isn't true doesn't mean everything is false, which seems to be your position.

I laid out 2 facts which can be checked, the inference is yours to make, not mine.

"Oh and just because everything isn't true doesn't mean everything is false, which seems to be your position."
too zen for me. Reminds me of "just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get me!" lol

"inference is yours to make, not mine"
no... they are YOUR facts and YOUR implication is clear. You posted the facts (who's validity is extremely weak given the website you quoted from IS NOT a reliable source)....why not follow through. What point were you backing?... and tell us what you think these facts LEAD to.

[Omen]

I say the buildings were planned to be demolished. You disagree.

I say Silverstein claimed double. You disagree.

There we are.

Do we both either of us really know? Of course not, we go by what we read.

But here's another source anyway:

Insurance Payouts
Don Paul also documented the money flows surrounding the loss of Building 7.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

[Omen]

And another:

Insurance dispute
The insurance policies obtained in July 2001 for World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies

Wiki

[Omen]

I will make one inference:

His timing in buying the WTC 24 July 2001, 6 weeks before it was attacked, could not have been more fortuitious from a commercial POV.

[ange7]

I say the buildings were planned to be demolished. You disagree.

I say Silverstein claimed double. You disagree.

There we are.

Do we both either of us really know? Of course not, we go by what we read.

But here's another source anyway:

Insurance Payouts
Don Paul also documented the money flows surrounding the loss of Building 7.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html
I've neither said I agree or disagree with your points. I;m interested in why your so passionately sure you are right. Quoting form a website with the heading "9-11 Research
An Attempt to Uncover the Truth About September 11th, 2001 " .... doesn't instill confidence. Don't you get that?
Here's my question... for the third and final time. EVEN if those are facts, what inference do YOU make from them? These companies that run the old WTC are in the business of profit. If there lawyers see an opportunity to LAWFULLY claim money from insures then that isn't in the least shocking. I'm presuming your facts are spot on... so now what do you think it REALLY means hehe. What conclusion have YOU made.

http://www.pepperspollywogs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/WindowsLiveWriter/AppropriateAgeforaPinata_7628/j0185040%5B3%5D.jpg

[ange7]

I will make one inference:

His timing in buying the WTC 24 July 2001, 6 weeks before it was attacked, could not have been more fortuitious from a commercial POV.

just one question before I go
did man really land on the moon? :P

[Omen]

Passionate? Hardly. Lukewarm more like. It's a topic I posted on cos that's what you do on forums. But your 1st post to me was disparaging so I felt the need to back up what I said.

You should read Wiki on Larry Silverstein. He's made an absolute fortune out of this, all for just $14m down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein#Insurance_dispute

[Omen]

just one question before I go
did man really land on the moon? :P

:wink:

[lostalex]

I think it's funny that the same people who think George Bush is a complete idiot, also think he's the mastermind of such a huge conspiracy.

The idea that it would be possible to conceal such a large conspiracy in America is rediculous. If 9/11 was an inside job, it would require at least a hundred people to pull off, and you want us to think that not 1 single person would blow the lid, and try to get a book deal and be on Oprah????

You obviously don't know Americans very well. lol.

Americans have the biggest mouths on the planet.

[Omen]

To be part of a conspiracy you don't have to actively be part of it.

Take Larry Silverstein. Say he had foreknowledge of an attack and he saw an opportunity to make a killing. Or the shares in airline stocks reported to have been sold immediately before the attack. Aren't they conspirators too?

And say you knew everything, the whole truth, and you penned a book about it. Wouldn't you be labelled a conspiracist crank like any other?

And say you were the CIA, and you knew it was on its way, and you buried the information, because you were looking for a good excuse to invade Afghanistan, and mobilise what Eisehower called the Military Industrial Complex?- that economy within an econmy.

Look at the reasons for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism. Everything to do with installing puppet regimes and oil.

Cui bono? Cui bono?

[Omen]

I'm not saying it was a controlled demolition but,

For people who say a cotrolled demolition takes many weeks to do, it does, but these (if they were) did not have to be controlled demolitions. They just had to knock the buildings down, and could have been done without all the precautions that take time.

[Beso]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg&feature=related

A much shorter mini video.

The pentagon thing is what I find the most suspicious to be honest. Why not release the official footage to shut people up if there is nothing amiss here? One of the most guarded buildings in America...there must be at least one tape from the many CCTV cameras that actually show the plane hitting it. Surely.

there is.

[lostalex]

Hmmm, perhaps because the pentagon does not like to show footage of how to successfully attack the pentagon???

Maybe that has something to do with it???

Just a guess.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

it was thomas c

[Lucy.]

Conspiracy theorists have far too much time on their hands, simple.

[Chilltown]

Two planes crashed into two towers. That's what really happened.

[Chilltown]

I thought this was another one of those Conspiracy threads that the towers were blown up and not crashed into! Whoops, don't I feel silly.

Bush had ties to the Bin Laden's/Saudi family, so it wouldn't surprise me if he knew in advance it was to happen and that it was an inside job.

[Shasown]

I'm not saying it was a controlled demolition but,

For people who say a cotrolled demolition takes many weeks to do, it does, but these (if they were) did not have to be controlled demolitions. They just had to knock the buildings down, and could have been done without all the precautions that take time.


Sorry to disillusion you but xplosives have to be placed precisely to cut through steel reinforced concrete building supports. Its not as simple as they make it seem in the movies. You dont just run aorund and slap little packs onto the walls.

You position the charges correctly, sometimes for reinforced concrete the only effective way is to drill into the concrete in order to insert your charge.

To demolish buildings to come down cleanly like the twin towers did would take days to place the charges and the tamping necessary to ensure that it was clean.

Tamping is the material you place around the charge to ensure the force is directed into the object you want to destroy.

Then there is the matter of detonation. Timers? nah dont care what you seen in mission impossible three, you dont use them. too unreliable. Remote control, radio detonation, problem is certain types of mobile phones, remote control units etc could instigate them. So you have to use wired detonations.

We have an occupied building that has been set with explosives to bring it down, no one notices the explosives, the tamping or the means of detonation?

Plus you have to place the charges and protect them because you are going to have an aircraft fly into the building and the aircraft could possibly start fires, these fires cant be allowed to affect the explosives either.

The planes have to hit a relatively small area when you think about it otherwise the 'official explanation' of the fire weakening etc doesnt wash.

What happens though if the planes didnt make it to target and the hijackers had of been caught and prevented from boarding the aircraft?

What happens if they didnt seize control of both aircraft involved with the twin towers? Or they missed the buildings?

What would happen if the fire from the aircraft destroyed some of the charges or impact destroyed or disrupted some of the explosives and they failed to detonate and the building didnt collapse? What would happen if first time detonation didnt occur? That happens a lot with explosives.

If either or both of the Twin Towers had stayed upright, eventually investigation teams would have had a look around and they would have found your charges, from the chemical examination of the explosive they would have found out the origin of the explosive, and if it was made or sold in the west, the buyers would have been caught.

Then anyone involved in the conspiracy would eventually have been traced, caught arrested and charged with at least attempted murder on a grand scale.

[lostalex]

Sorry to disillusion you but xplosives have to be placed precisely to cut through steel reinforced concrete building supports. Its not as simple as they make it seem in the movies. You dont just run aorund and slap little packs onto the walls.

You position the charges correctly, sometimes for reinforced concrete the only effective way is to drill into the concrete in order to insert your charge.

To demolish buildings to come down cleanly like the twin towers did would take days to place the charges and the tamping necessary to ensure that it was clean.

Tamping is the material you place around the charge to ensure the force is directed into the object you want to destroy.

Then there is the matter of detonation. Timers? nah dont care what you seen in mission impossible three, you dont use them. too unreliable. Remote control, radio detonation, problem is certain types of mobile phones, remote control units etc could instigate them. So you have to use wired detonations.

We have an occupied building that has been set with explosives to bring it down, no one notices the explosives, the tamping or the means of detonation?

Plus you have to place the charges and protect them because you are going to have an aircraft fly into the building and the aircraft could possibly start fires, these fires cant be allowed to affect the explosives either.

The planes have to hit a relatively small area when you think about it otherwise the 'official explanation' of the fire weakening etc doesnt wash.

What happens though if the planes didnt make it to target and the hijackers had of been caught and prevented from boarding the aircraft?

What happens if they didnt seize control of both aircraft involved with the twin towers? Or they missed the buildings?

What would happen if the fire from the aircraft destroyed some of the charges or impact destroyed or disrupted some of the explosives and they failed to detonate and the building didnt collapse? What would happen if first time detonation didnt occur? That happens a lot with explosives.

If either or both of the Twin Towers had stayed upright, eventually investigation teams would have had a look around and they would have found your charges, from the chemical examination of the explosive they would have found out the origin of the explosive, and if it was made or sold in the west, the buyers would have been caught.

Then anyone involved in the conspiracy would eventually have been traced, caught arrested and charged with at least attempted murder on a grand scale.

^^^egggggsactly.

[Omen]

To expand on the hypothesis that cotrolled demolition finished off the twin towers:

Imagine Larry Silverstein knew in advance of the attack. 2 planes hit the towers and leav them standing in a perilous state. What then? They'd be too dangerous to go near, and almost impossible to demolish.

So, imagine he had them wired for deolition to avoid having 2 wrecked buildings hanging in the air. The buildings were constructed of an extremely strong core connected to the outer walls by steel beams which were the floors. To demolish them you'd just need access to the core. Prefabricate the explosives in a kind of loom to save time, and them install them in the core, where the public or employees don't have access.

What I have always found remarkable is how the antennae on top fell first, like the core was giving way first. Also remarkable was the complete disintegration of the core, which was extremely strong and where the structural strengh of the buildings lay.

Just a theory. A srtetch of the imagination, but until you explore ideas you can't debunk them.

[spitfire]

I've never been interested in conspiracy theories before but i must say,i'm enjoying this thread.

[lostalex]

so basically yur saying you agree that al Queada planned and executed the attacks, but that the owners of the buildings just finished them off?

Instead of warning people about the attacks, evacuating the buildings to make sure no human lives were lost, instead of informing the CIA or FBI, they instead chose to let it happen, and rig the whole thing with explosives???

hmmmm. sounds unlikely to me.

Why do you think such horrible things about people that you have no reason to think such horrible things about?

Because they are RICH men it MUST mean they are capable of doing such things?? that is basically what yur saying.

I don't buy it.

[Omen]

Sorry to disillusion you but xplosives have to be placed precisely to cut through steel reinforced concrete building supports. Its not as simple as they make it seem in the movies. You dont just run aorund and slap little packs onto the walls.

You position the charges correctly, sometimes for reinforced concrete the only effective way is to drill into the concrete in order to insert your charge.

To demolish buildings to come down cleanly like the twin towers did would take days to place the charges and the tamping necessary to ensure that it was clean.

Tamping is the material you place around the charge to ensure the force is directed into the object you want to destroy.

Then there is the matter of detonation. Timers? nah dont care what you seen in mission impossible three, you dont use them. too unreliable. Remote control, radio detonation, problem is certain types of mobile phones, remote control units etc could instigate them. So you have to use wired detonations.

We have an occupied building that has been set with explosives to bring it down, no one notices the explosives, the tamping or the means of detonation?

Plus you have to place the charges and protect them because you are going to have an aircraft fly into the building and the aircraft could possibly start fires, these fires cant be allowed to affect the explosives either.

The planes have to hit a relatively small area when you think about it otherwise the 'official explanation' of the fire weakening etc doesnt wash.

What happens though if the planes didnt make it to target and the hijackers had of been caught and prevented from boarding the aircraft?

What happens if they didnt seize control of both aircraft involved with the twin towers? Or they missed the buildings?

What would happen if the fire from the aircraft destroyed some of the charges or impact destroyed or disrupted some of the explosives and they failed to detonate and the building didnt collapse? What would happen if first time detonation didnt occur? That happens a lot with explosives.

If either or both of the Twin Towers had stayed upright, eventually investigation teams would have had a look around and they would have found your charges, from the chemical examination of the explosive they would have found out the origin of the explosive, and if it was made or sold in the west, the buyers would have been caught.

Then anyone involved in the conspiracy would eventually have been traced, caught arrested and charged with at least attempted murder on a grand scale.

The strenght of the building was in the core. The construction of each floor was analogous to a bicycle wheel - core/hub, floors/spokes, external walls/rim. One on top of another. Take down the core/hub, then the entire falls. Access to the core I presume was prohibitted to maintenance men only, under control of the landlord, Larry Silverstein.

The charges could have been prefabricated in a kind of loom and installed secretly in the core, where noone is allowed access. Also, no safety precautions necessary to prevent debris being catapulted out and damaging the surrounding buildings.

There are people who are still claiming there were traces of the explosive thermite in the rubble, and an organisation called Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth that won't go away until there is an investigation.

[lostalex]

Omen, what do you think happened on flight 93? do you also dispute the official story of the passengers fighting back on Flight 93?

[Omen]

so basically yur saying you agree that al Queada planned and executed the attacks, but that the owners of the buildings just finished them off?

Instead of warning people about the attacks, evacuating the buildings to make sure no human lives were lost, instead of informing the CIA or FBI, they instead chose to let it happen, and rig the whole thing with explosives???

hmmmm. sounds unlikely to me.

Why do you think such horrible things about people that you have no reason to think such horrible things about?

Because they are RICH men it MUST mean they are capable of doing such things?? that is basically what yur saying.

I don't buy it.

That's pretty much the substance of this hypothesis. I don't say I believe it, just trying to flesh out the bones of it and see where we are.

[Omen]

Omen, what do you think happened on flight 93? do you also dispute the official story of the passengers fighting back on Flight 93?

The hypothesis I'm exploring here does not question who did the hijacking, just whether there was foreknowledge, and what steps were/were not taken in advance of it.

[lostalex]

So do you believe the story of flight 93 (as we all know it) is accurate?

[Omen]

So do you believe the story of flight 93 (as we all know it) is accurate?

No reason to doubt it. Was that the one that flew into the Pentagon?

[lostalex]

No reason to doubt it. Was that the one that flew into the Pentagon?

No, the one that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, after the passengers fought back.
The one that was assumed to be targeting eigther the White House or the Capitol building.

[Omen]

No, the one that crashed in a field in Pennslyvania, after the passengers fought back.
The one that was assumed to be targeting eigther the White House or the Capitol building.

I don't know. Be something if it was shot down. I mean, if the only one the air force shot down was the one going for the WH. But I don't know.

[lostalex]

I don't know. Be something if it was shot down. I mean, if the only one the air force shot down was the one going for the WH. But I don't know.

No one was at the White House though. Bushie was on Air Force One, and Cheney and Condi were in the bunker. Rumsfeld was at the Pentagon, and they didn't shoot that one down...

[Shasown]

That's pretty much the substance of this hypothesis. I don't say I believe it, just trying to flesh out the bones of it and see where we are.

Ah so we are playing a game of lets pretend in that we ignore the reality and practicalities of such a plan and just pretend its possible.

Okay then to preplant the explosives could be done, what couldnt be guaranteed is what the impact of the aircraft would do. Even empty aircraft fuel tanks contain highly flammable fuel vapours which may cause a fire, destroying part or all of the explosives.

Too many things could go wrong within your plan. Would a businessman make such plans on the assumption that the events that did occur would have occurred.

It would only take one part of the plan to go wrong and the whole conspiracy is laid bare to the world.

Even then would someone knowingly blow the buildings when they were still full of people? Thats mass murder.

Why place explosives when the risk of discovery is high, even if the buildings didnt collapse he still picks up the insurance payoff, because of the dangerous state they were in. They would have been deemed to be unusable, unsafe till they were demolished and rebuilt.

[Omen]

No one was at the White House though. Bushie was on Air Force One, and Cheney and Condi were in the bunker. Rumsfeld was at the Pentagon, and they didn't shoot that one down...

True. Condi thought it was shot down at first, I saw her saying that.

I'd love to understand the mechanics of how the cores of the 2 towers disintegrated, right into a crater in the ground, while 10 - 20 stories of the external wall remained grotesquely standing. (I studied a little how they were built).

[Omen]

Ah so we are playing a game of lets pretend in that we ignore the reality and practicalities of such a plan and just pretend its possible.

Okay then to preplant the explosives could be done, what couldnt be guaranteed is what the impact of the aircraft would do. Even empty aircraft fuel tanks contain highly flammable fuel vapours which may cause a fire, destroying part or all of the explosives.

Too many things could go wrong within your plan. Would a businessman make such plans on the assumption that the events that did occur would have occurred.

It would only take one part of the plan to go wrong and the whole conspiracy is laid bare to the world.

Even then would someone knowingly blow the buildings when they were still full of people? Thats mass murder.

Why place explosives when the risk of discovery is high, even if the buildings didnt collapse he still picks up the insurance payoff, because of the dangerous state they were in. They would have been deemed to be unusable, unsafe till they were demolished and rebuilt.

My point is predicated that they would be impossible or near impossible to demolish after. Also, there was the possibility the centre of gravity may have shifted causing the towers to fall on their sides.

The question of mass murder is a doozy alright, but say the timing of the attack was unknown, so maybe there was a 50/50 chance the workers would be at home instead of at work. BUt I concede it is a tough one to answer, but I'm reminded of the Israeli attack on the US naval boats off Israel and how that nearly precipitated a nuclear strike on Cairo, and I wonder what cost is too high if this was indeed a Machaevellian scheme to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Omen]

Oh, and remember that there was an attack in 1993 which went undetected which had it suceeded would have taken the buildings down. So saying you couldn't, with access to the core, do this unnoticed I'm not sure holds water.

[Shasown]

My point is predicated that they would be impossible or near impossible to demolish after. Also, there was the possibility the centre of gravity may have shifted causing the towers to fall on their sides.

The question of mass murder is a doozy alright, but say the timing of the attack was unknown, so maybe there was a 50/50 chance the workers would be at home instead of at work. BUt I concede it is a tough one to answer, but I'm reminded of the Israeli attack on the US naval boats off Israel and how that nearly precipitated a nuclear strike on Cairo, and I wonder what cost is too high if this was indeed a Machaevellian scheme to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

Well for starters, knowing a crime is going to be committed and failing to act to prevent it is a crime.

As it was an act of mass murder that was then used as an excuse to invade another country. If you get found out, you are looking at charges of treason and mass murder, Aiding and abetting terrorist actions.

Thats several death penalties itself, do you honestly think those involved in the conspiracy would go for it?

Then you have not only the leaders but also the workmen who positioned and possibly detonated the explosives, you reckon all the people involved in the planning and execution of this could cope with the guilt? I suppose you could say that Silverstein bought everyones silence?

They may have carried out the work but do you suppose that someone in the whole scheme wouldnt have come forward by now?

[lostalex]

Oh, and remember that there was an attack in 1993 which went undetected which had it suceeded would have taken the buildings down. So saying you couldn't, with access to the core, do this unnoticed I'm not sure holds water.


the attack in '93 was just explosives in a van. Not strategically placed demolitions to implode the whole building. HUGE difference. GIGANTIC difference.

[Omen]

Well for starters, knowing a crime is going to be committed and failing to act to prevent it is a crime.

As it was an act of mass murder that was then used as an excuse to invade another country. If you get found out, you are looking at charges of treason and mass murder, Aiding and abetting terrorist actions.

Thats several death penalties itself, do you honestly think those involved in the conspiracy would go for it?

Then you have not only the leaders but also the workmen who positioned and possibly detinated the explosives, you reckon all the people involved in the planning and execution of this could cope with the guilt? I suppose you could say that Silverstein bought everyones silence?

They may have carried out the work but do you suppose that someone in the whole scheme wouldnt have come forward by now?


They might all be dead.

As for the rest of your post, aside from whoever was responsible for setting the explosives, the others are guilty of doing nothing. There are reports the intelligence community had wind of what was coming, yet didn't do anything.

Saw "The Special Relationship" on BBC2 the other night. Bit near the end with Clinton advising Blair he doesn't want to get into bed with the new Bush administration, saying (more or less) they play dirty.

[Omen]

the attack in '93 was just explosives in a van. Not strategically placed demolitions to implode the whole building. HUGE difference. GIGANTIC difference.

If you had free unhindered and unnoticed access to the core you could do what you like. Noone who works there would even see you doing whatever you're doing.

[Shasown]

They might all be dead.

As for the rest of your post, aside from whoever was responsible for setting the explosives, the others are guilty of doing nothing. There are reports the intelligence community had wind of what was coming, yet didn't do anything.

Saw "The Special Relationship" on BBC2 the other night. Bit near the end with Clinton advising Blair he doesn't want to get into bed with the new Bush administration, saying (more or less) they play dirty.

The intelligence community had information from unreliable(at that time) sources saying there would be an attack probably hijackings etc.

Because the sources were deemed to be unreliable they werent acted upon correctly. Also the report from a low grade embassy field worker was pretty much put down to being overly cautious.

Yes intelligence assessors kind of screwed up.

As for anyone else aware of the scale of the attack, to know of such a crime and not inform the authorities is a crime, its a form of complicity in the attack and would at least catch an aiding and abetting charge.

Prior knowledge of a crime and failing to inform the relevant authorities is a crime.

As for Bush and Co playing dirty of course they did, look at the way they rigged elections. That doesnt mean they would knowlingly sacrifice thousands of lives in a conspiracy which could not only bring down their own administration but would also sully Americas reputation throughout its allies as well as the rest of the world.

[Omen]

The intelligence community had information from unreliable(at that time) sources saying there would be an attack probably hijackings etc.

Because the sources were deemed to be unreliable they werent acted upon correctly. Also the report from a low grade embassy field worker was pretty much put down to being overly cautious.

Yes intelligence assessors kind of screwed up.

As for anyone else aware of the scale of the attack, to know of such a crime and not inform the authorities is a crime, its a form of complicity in the attack and would at least catch an aiding and abetting charge.

Prior knowledge of a crime and failing to inform the relevant authorities is a crime.

As for Bush and Co playing dirty of course they did, look at the way they rigged elections. That doesnt mean they would knowlingly sacrifice thousands of lives in a conspiracy which could not only bring down their own administration but would also sully Americas reputation throughout its allies as well as the rest of the world.

OK, let's assume the inelligence screwed up. What about the trade in airline stocks? Is that a fallacy? What about Larry Silverstein buying a 99 year lease, closing the deal in July of 2001? He invested $14m only in a $3.5b deal and made c.$500m in the insurance payout. FDNY officers said it looked like a controlled demolition? What about the political capital, the excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq?

There is a body of circumstantial evidence there.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”. Adolf Hitler

This event was the Pearl Harbour of the 21st century. There's another conspiracy theory, that Roosevelt knew it was coming and let it happen.

[Shasown]

OK, let's assume the inelligence screwed up. What about the trade in airline stocks? Is that a fallacy? What about Larry Silverstein buying a 99 year lease, closing the deal in July of 2001? He invested $14m only in a $3.5b deal and made c.$500m in the insurance payout. FDNY officers said it looked like a controlled demolition? What about the political capital, the excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq?

There is a body of circumstantial evidence there.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”. Adolf Hitler

This event was the Pearl Harbour of the 21st century. There's another conspiracy theory, that Roosevelt knew it was coming and let it happen.

No you use of NLP is pathetic. Lets assume it was one big conspiracy and Silverstein got lucky finding out about it. You honestly think out of all those that would need to be involved, not one of them would be sickened by guilt and so overcome by remorse they broke the scandal with overwhelming proof?

You do of course have proof of all those claims as being solely and directly causative to the tragedy? Of course you dont.

Thats what is good about conspiracy theories, and of course the believers in them; you string some real facts with completely bogus stuff and force the 'truth' to fit the conspiracy, ignoring the simple truth. It may have just happened the way it played out to the world with no conspiracy involved.

I have a good one for you, imagine a group of know nothings who think they have real intelligence but who despise the lot life has dealt them, they sit at home looking for some way to commit an act of anarchy, they cant find one, but they do find other sad gets who sit at home pitying themselves and hating their own gvernments administration.

Between them they find little facts that just happen to be so they cook up a theory of the 'system' trying to keep them at heel, trying to force them to stay poor, etc.

All of a sudden there have cooked up a conspiracy for others to jump on and support. Isnt that a conspiracy in itself? Suckering other people who feel the government deliberately keep them in their places?

[Omen]

NLP?

I don't know if the rest of your post was a go at me. I'm only here to amuse myself.

That 9/11 has been used as a causus belli there is absolutely no doubt - the Pearl Harbour of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The rest is conjecture and exploring conspiracies. Insults get us nowhere and they're no fun.

[Shasown]

NLP?

I don't know if the rest of your post was a go at me. I'm only here to amuse myself.

That 9/11 has been used as a causus belli there is absolutely no doubt - the Pearl Harbour of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The rest is conjecture and exploring conspiracies. Insults get us nowhere and they're no fun.

Neuro Linguistic Programming, its a way of using language to reinforce ideas, beliefs in suggestable people. The "lets assume" business in your posts, some would say was a bit patronising therefore insulting, I believed you are more intelligent than that. My post wasnt meant to insult you, if you taken umbrage at it I apologise. But it is my honest belief about most conspiracy theorists.

The attacks on the US in 2001 were indeed used as a precursor to invasion of Afghanistan, however if you trawled other policy documents put forward by think tanks for driving US governmental policies you will see scores of them advocate overt offensive action in many areas of the world.

Same happens with UK governmental advisory bodies, though not as often.
The members of the various bodies write different proposals for a variety of scenarios for all regions of the world. Regardless of what happens on a worldwide scale a lot of prepared governments have advisory documents wrote for it. That doesnt mean they intended to carry out any action/intervention taken prior to the circumstances of the intervention being needed.

An example would be in the event of another country using nuclear weapons or indeed any other weapons of mass destruction against the UK we have the plans and capabilities to retaliate with nuclear strikes. If that scenario developed and we did throw buckets of sunshine at another country, it doesnt mean because we had the options and plans for a retaliatory strike we intended to do it all along does it?

[Omen]

.You mean to say I have to go and read a huge big long article about neuro linguistic programming gobbledegook on Wiki or somewhere to see where it applies to what I wrote. No thanks. Just don't dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand because all the facts don't stack up. A chair with 6 legs can lose a couple and still stand and anyway it's fun to use your imagination. You're determined to have a I'm cleverer than you argument, that NLP mention demonstrates that.

And ask any, almost any, American with a flag in his garden, shop, car and window, why they went to Iraq, and he'll say 9/11.

[Omen]

Neuro Linguistic Programming, its a way of using language to reinforce ideas, beliefs in suggestable people. The "lets assume" business in your posts, some would say was a bit patronising therefore insulting, I believed you are more intelligent than that. My post wasnt meant to insult you, if you taken umbrage at it I apologise. But it is my honest belief about most conspiracy theorists.

The attacks on the US in 2001 were indeed used as a precursor to invasion of Afghanistan, however if you trawled other policy documents put forward by think tanks for driving US governmental policies you will see scores of them advocate overt offensive action in many areas of the world.

Same happens with UK governmental advisory bodies, though not as often.
The members of the various bodies write different proposals for a variety of scenarios for all regions of the world. Regardless of what happens on a worldwide scale a lot of prepared governments have advisory documents wrote for it. That doesnt mean they intended to carry out any action/intervention taken prior to the circumstances of the intervention being needed.

An example would be in the event of another country using nuclear weapons or indeed any other weapons of mass destruction against the UK we have the plans and capabilities to retaliate with nuclear strikes. If that scenario developed and we did throw buckets of sunshine at another country, it doesnt mean because we had the options and plans for a retaliatory strike we intended to do it all along does it?

100% true.

But it doesn't apply to Afghanistan and Iraq (A & I) because A's invasion was desirable to insert a govt. that would not oppose a pipeline across A, and I was invaded because it was unfinished business. Americans very reluctantly go to war, they needed a shove. 9/11 was it.

[Omen]

Neuro Linguistic Programming, its a way of using language to reinforce ideas, beliefs in suggestable people. The "lets assume" business in your posts, some would say was a bit patronising therefore insulting, I believed you are more intelligent than that. My post wasnt meant to insult you, if you taken umbrage at it I apologise. But it is my honest belief about most conspiracy theorists.



If I didn't insert Say, or let's assume in every sentence then I'd be quoted in isolation and accused of saying I said such and such. Some pedant would jump on me and say "but you said that"!

[Tom4784]

I believe it was a genuine Terrorist attack but I definitely think we went to war for money and oil. I struggle to believe it was an attack engneered by the government themselves.

At the end of the day though even if it was a conspiracy we'll never know the true details of it.