[ange7]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by ange7

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.

[ange7]

Originally Posted by Omen

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[Omen]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[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.

[ChristmasNeeve]

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.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Omen

Saddam Hussein had diddly-squat to do with it.

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

[Omen]

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

[ange7]

Originally Posted by Omen

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]

[QUOTE=ange7;3793979]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".[/QUOTE]


Make any inference you like.

[ange7]

[QUOTE=Omen;3793983]

Originally Posted by 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".[/QUOTE]


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?

[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]

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

[ange7]

Originally Posted by Omen

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.

[Omen]

Originally Posted by ange7

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?

[ange7]

Originally Posted by Omen

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]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

"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.