9/11 discussion
 

:elephant:

:elephant:

oh lord.

So 9/11 and the subsequent invasion and occupation of Afghanistan were simply part of an insurance scam so that Silverstein could knock down the towers and rebuild at no real cost to himself?

Yeah that stands up to scrutiny.

:elephant:

Damning evidence my arse, a series of circumstances that conspiracy nuts weave into something that my nipper could rip apart.

I dont know Silverstein, therefore I dont know how he acts and reacts in real life, is he naturally nervous, or just in front of people? Some people do get nervous when public speaking or appearing on TV, even businessmen.

:elephant:

No I didnt say maybe he is nervous. I said some people are naturally nervous. I dont judge a person or what they are saying solely on appearing to be of a nervous disposition.

Although he does stutter at times and is quite verbose in his explanations, other aspects of his body language are not betraying him as a liar.

You are the one saying he is a liar, find some real evidence to back up your assertion.

Yes the Saudi Terror Gang
did well at 9/11.

Making GW Bush as Evil as Bin Laden

Carpet Bombing the Iraqi public
had nothing to do with 9/11

:elephant:

What about the second conclusion, he is telling the truth, feels self doubt, guilt etc for not being in the building at the time of the crash? Lots of people who miss aircraft that crash during the flight they were supposed to be on act and react in a similar vein.

What was interesting is the conspiracy theory backers dont show the full interview either, a few seconds earlier in that particular interview the words "firefighting effort" were used.

He didnt refer to firemen but the concerted act of fighting the fire in the building when he says pull it. If as the conspiracy theorists he had charges prelaid to demolish the building wouldnt he have just said blow it, or drop it? Bear in mind the theorists use two tactics here, one is question his choice of words and the context they were said in, the second is then to question that the actual conversation happened by throwing into doubt who he was speaking to, then implying the conversation didnt take place at all.

Not this old pish again. Move on ffs.

If there was anything more to it there would be solid and truthful evidence of it by now in this age of wikileaks and such. Given that it's just conspiracy nuts going on about it though, I can't take it seriously.

Ive read/watched a LOT about this. I agree some of the official explanations dont really add up. However, I think its a bit silly to assume that it was all manufactured for whatever reason.

The conclusion I have come to myself (and call me a conspiracy nut if you like)...is that the American government KNEW what was going to happen/elements of it at least, and allowed it to happen. For what reason...I dont know. Maybe it was for money, maybe it was for a reason to go to war, maybe it was something else entirely. I just find it hard to believe that with all the security around the pentagon/WTC that nothing at all could be done to prevent it or anything :/

Dont be ridiculous and stick to the evidence

Evidence?

I have yet to see any 'evidence' that the government did not know that the attacks were going to happen. Please show me...

We have had this thread before
Best to lock it Dezzy
the Wise one here

It's not breaking any rules yet Arista and all topics always pop up eventually which I find good as old topics can always benefit from fresh perspectives.

If it leads to an argument or grossly off topic then I'll do something but there's nothing wrong with the topic for the moment.

OK

and do you have any evidence that the masons ordered the attack or the hells angels?

is there any evidence to suggest that katy perry was not aware the attacks were happening?

thats you told off Arista. Dont let this happen again. :nono:

Nope. Yet I refuse to lap up all the bulls*** I get told without questioning anything. Thats all ;)

No you are ignoring evidence and believing speculation. The 9/11 information came from a myriad of sources not from the US government solely.

LOL. Ok. No problem.

But if its ok by you I will continue believing that we are not getting the full story ;)

The bit where he says "pull it and we watched the building fall" can be taken in so many ways: the way i heard it was that he said to pull everyone out of the buildings and then it fell and so he ha saying they made the right decision. But consipracy wants to see this as pull it and then the building fell. What i don't understand is, if it was a secret that they pulled the buildings down then why would he say it in the way the consipracy theorists believe he said it? surely thats just shooting yourself in the foot.

Because of this i don't think thats what he meant by that comment at all. Why would he say that if it was a big secret. I don't think so. He meant pull the emergency services out, and then the building fell so they were out just in time.