Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 2

[Boston tiger]

How many people do the conspiracy theorist think are in on all these conspiracies.
I would think you would a fair few to pull off the 9/11.

Hey pssst... do your want to kill 5000 innocent people, but you mustn't tell anyone.

 

[Thrawn]

How many people do the conspiracy theorist think are in on all these conspiracies.
I would think you would a fair few to pull off the 9/11.

Hey pssst... do your want to kill 5000 innocent people, but you mustn't tell anyone.

There are plenty of psychopaths out there who wouldn't baulk at the suggestion. Especially when it might involve vast sums of money and a confidence of not getting caught.

My question to you is why would the 9/11 commissioners say that their own commission was set up to fail? Why were they considering pressing charges against lying Pentagon officials? Why were they getting stonewalled by the CIA? Why were a few commissioners told things and others weren't? Why did the Whitehouse refuse to give them more than half the relevant documents?

They're all fair questions. Would it then, not be fair to say, that all these questions smell of a cover-up of some sort?

 

[Boston tiger]

There are plenty of psychopaths out there who wouldn't baulk at the suggestion. Especially when it might involve vast sums of money and a confidence of not getting caught.

My question to you is why would the 9/11 commissioners say that their own commission was set up to fail? Why were they considering pressing charges against lying Pentagon officials? Why were they getting stonewalled by the CIA? Why were a few commissioners told things and others weren't? Why did the Whitehouse refuse to give them more than half the relevant documents?

They're all fair questions. Would it then, not be fair to say, that all these questions smell of a cover-up of some sort?

How many psychopaths would you need then? I would just like to know what numbers are being put out there to pull of this stunt. Does the Pres know?, people from the airlines, building blown up guys etc.

I would say if the Gov planned this to start a war .. Flying planes into the buildings would be enough..no need to bring the whole thing down.

What I've found in conspiracy theories such the moon etc is that the crazier theory the less bothered the authorities are in defending them.

I was getting sucked in on the moon one there for awhile and then a scientist who finally had a enough answered all the dodgy claims in about 30 seconds.

 

[Thrawn]

How many psychopaths would you need then? I would just like to know what numbers are being put out there to pull of this stunt. Does the Pres know?, people from the airlines, building blown up guys etc.

I would say if the Gov planned this to start a war .. Flying planes into the buildings would be enough..no need to bring the whole thing down.

What I've found in conspiracy theories such the moon etc is that the crazier theory the less bothered the authorities are in defending them.

I was getting sucked in on the moon one there for awhile and then a scientist who finally had a enough answered all the dodgy claims in about 30 seconds.

Only the organisers and the footsoldiers, really. How many people would it take to rig a few buildings in a complex, assuming they were under the guise of, oh say, art students or elevator technicians? And the security firm for both the WTC complex and airports is just a front? This is just a hypothetical, mind you.

Bush would have known unless Cheney and his administration was keeping certain details from him. Remember, the same Cheney who wanted the CIA to look in a "certain direction" when it came to WMDs in Iraq. The same Cheney who was pretty much in control of the US airspace at the time. The same Cheney who made a killing from the Iraq war with his ties to Halliburton. Really, he was the guy in charge pulling the strings, not 'ol George. The people looking at radar blips in NORAD wouldn't have had a clue, especially with the confusion created from wargames that conveniently happened to be running at the same time. Only those really high up would have known. Some of the commanding officers were conspicuously absent.

I don't think just flying into them would have been enough. The real shock factor and loss of life, and the sense of un-believability came from when they buildings toppled so spectacularly. Just the right amount to beat the drums of war, and impose legislation that takes away people's rights, which the latter conveniently happened to be signed into law shortly after as if it was waiting for a key event.

Even if you don't believe in the "US guvment dun it" line, they certainly used it to their advantage. There were many people and companies that had a lot to gain from the attacks. Hell, the MIC is full of psychopathic people who do not care who dies just as long as they get their lion's share of wealth and influence. Eisenhower warned them, they did not listen.

 

[CatFan79]

Eisenhower warned them, they did not listen.

Pivotal point, yet I doubt many understand what you're referring to.

 

[mdizzle]

Came across this today, slightly relevant to 9/11 but mainly demonstrates the complete lack of empathy in these political psychopaths. If she can justify the deaths of over 500,000 children so casually I doubt knocking off a couple thousand Americans is going to bother her too much

 

[SaintsSeptember]

This is it..



It's never happened before, it'll never happen again but it sounds reasonable to your regular Joe who'll accept it and move on because we all want to trust that western governments have our safety as their no1 priority and they'd never lie to us about something serious like 911.

Viewing 911 in isolation without considering the numerous other false flag events in history that have 'occurred' to justify going to war is foolish. Its the same story every time.

FWIW the controlled demolition of a similar building without anyone knowing beforehand has never happened before. But it only counts one way i guess.

 

[Present Not Past]

Came across this today, slightly relevant to 9/11 but mainly demonstrates the complete lack of empathy in these political psychopaths. If she can justify the deaths of over 500,000 children so casually I doubt knocking off a couple thousand Americans is going to bother her too much

As Prime Minister of Australia John Curtin oversaw the deaths of 50 million people during World War 2. Present me with an argument now that demonstrates that John Curtin is a psychopath or leave this thread now and never return.

 

[CatFan79]

FWIW the controlled demolition of a similar building without anyone knowing beforehand has never happened before. But it only counts one way i guess.

I assume you're trolling...

 

[Werewolf]

As Prime Minister of Australia John Curtin oversaw the deaths of 50 million people during World War 2.

Say what?

 

[BustedWing]

I assume you're trolling...

I dont know about that mate. You guys constantly hang your hat on the "Its never happened before in the history of the world!!" as somehow proof that the OS is wrong (I would deny that steel weakening, then buckling due to heat from fires has never happened before, but that's for another post!). Why cant we use the same logic in its defense?

If "its never happened before" is a logical point for you, why cant it be for us?

If something must have occured before, for it to be a reasonable premise, then surely the fact that two skyscrapers have never been secretly rigged with super duper secret military grade nano thermite that no one has ever seen before but must surely exist because....just because it fits my favourite theory, surely if thats never happened before, then it couldnt have happened on 9/11!

 

[CatFan79]

I dont know about that mate. You guys constantly hang your hat on the "Its never happened before in the history of the world!!" as somehow proof that the OS is wrong (I would deny that steel weakening, then buckling due to heat from fires has never happened before, but that's for another post!). Why cant we use the same logic in its defense?

If "its never happened before" is a logical point for you, why cant it be for us?

If something must have occured before, for it to be a reasonable premise, then surely the fact that two skyscrapers have never been secretly rigged with super duper secret military grade nano thermite that no one has ever seen before but must surely exist because....just because it fits my favourite theory, surely if thats never happened before, then it couldnt have happened on 9/11!

If you're happier to 'take their word for it' rather than consider the most likely scenario that's fine.

But falling buildings and other events of that day barely makes up 1% of what made my mind up who's responsible for 911.

As far as us guys claiming "Its never happened before in the history of the world!!' I'll requote NIST..

The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.

extraordinary
adjective

1. very unusual or remarkable.

They said it, not us.

 

[BustedWing]

If you're happier to 'take their word for it' rather than consider the most likely scenario that's fine.

But falling buildings and other events of that day barely makes up 1% of what made my mind up who's responsible for 911.

As far as us guys claiming "Its never happened before in the history of the world!!' I'll requote NIST..





They said it, not us.

Unusual?? Absolutely - no one can dispute it wasn't an unusual event. For gods sake planes flew into the buildings!!

But to say that steel was weakened by fire, and then ultimately failed....you're implying that THIS has never happened before (correct me if I am wrong here) and that is certainly NOT what NIST is saying. They are saying that the uncontrolled fires on exposed steel supporting beams (and that all this was in place because of planes flying into them, and then exploding) was an extraordinary event. Whats controversial about that claim????

While we are on NIST, you just believed something they said, yet in the same breath tell us that NIST cant be trusted. Why do you believe them here, but not elsewhere?

Either NIST is to be believed or they are not. Which is it?

 

[BustedWing]

If you're happier to 'take their word for it' rather than consider the most likely scenario that's fine.

But falling buildings and other events of that day barely makes up 1% of what made my mind up who's responsible for 911.

As far as us guys claiming "Its never happened before in the history of the world!!' I'll requote NIST..





They said it, not us.

Oh and wait....the "More likely Scenario"???? To you the more likely scenario is what exactly? No planes? Planes, but explosives as well? What sort of explosives? The super duper nanothermite that they rigged up in secret, secretly in a public building, with no one noticing, a job that would've taken months and months? And the whole planes into buildings thing was just for show? THATS the more likely story for you?

Oh dear....

 

[Glacier]

There are plenty of psychopaths out there who wouldn't baulk at the suggestion.

Yes and many are in positions of power in governments around the world

Can you imagine Trump as president ??

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yes and many are in positions of power in governments around the world

Can you imagine Trump as president ??

Trump in the same room as Putin would scare the crap out of me.

 

[Glacier]

Trump in the same room as Putin would scare the crap out of me.

Its not out of the realms of possibility SS

 

[CatFan79]

Unusual?? Absolutely - no one can dispute it wasn't an unusual event. For gods sake planes flew into the buildings!!

But to say that steel was weakened by fire, and then ultimately failed....you're implying that THIS has never happened before (correct me if I am wrong here) and that is certainly NOT what NIST is saying. They are saying that the uncontrolled fires on exposed steel supporting beams (and that all this was in place because of planes flying into them, and then exploding) was an extraordinary event. Whats controversial about that claim????

Which plane flew into WTC7 again? Whoops!

While we are on NIST, you just believed something they said, yet in the same breath tell us that NIST cant be trusted. Why do you believe them here, but not elsewhere?

Either NIST is to be believed or they are not. Which is it?

I believe... NIST were left having to describe the situation as 'extraordinary' because there is no scientific precedent that even comes close to explaining why WTC7 fell the way it did.

Oh and wait....the "More likely Scenario"???? To you the more likely scenario is what exactly? No planes? Planes, but explosives as well? What sort of explosives? The super duper nanothermite that they rigged up in secret, secretly in a public building, with no one noticing, a job that would've taken months and months? And the whole planes into buildings thing was just for show? THATS the more likely story for you?

Oh dear....

Pointless comment.

I'm not going to pretend I know exactly how the buildings were brought down but does that mean I'm going to switch my brain off and digest an incomplete official story which was admittedly setup to fail and full of lies and inconsistencies?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Which plane flew into WTC7 again? Whoops!



I believe... NIST were left having to describe the situation as 'extraordinary' because there is no scientific precedent that even comes close to explaining why WTC7 fell the way it did.



Pointless comment.

I'm not going to pretend I know exactly how the buildings were brought down but does that mean I'm going to switch my brain off and digest an incomplete official story which was admittedly setup to fail and full of lies and inconsistencies?

So what is your explanation of what happened, or are you simply shaking your head saying "not buying it"? ( which can be a perfectly rational thing to do ).

 

[CatFan79]

So what is your explanation of what happened, or are you simply shaking your head saying "not buying it"? ( which can be a perfectly rational thing to do ).

I'm not going to pretend I have an explanation as to why WTC7 fell as I don't, but only with absence of critical thinking could anyone accept the official story.

If you're asking me why 911 happened that's a question that can be answered without having to talk about planes and falling buildings.

 

[mdizzle]

As Prime Minister of Australia John Curtin oversaw the deaths of 50 million people during World War 2. Present me with an argument now that demonstrates that John Curtin is a psychopath or leave this thread now and never return.

Ahahah nice derailment attempt m8, false equivalence much

 

[Present Not Past]

Ahahah nice derailment attempt m8, false equivalence much

How so? Australia played it's part in the Second World War - it was an active participant in all Theatres of War.
Australia did so as well in the First World War.
So let's get this clear - you think that when Australia stops for a minutes silence to remember the fallen from the First World War (and all wars really) - this is a fallacy?
Well I don't know about you, but to me my friend - you are wrong.
For me, Australia's particpation in the Gulf War is no different to any other participation in any other war Australia has been a party to. For me Gulf War vetererans are free to stand beside any other veterans.
I's like to hear your view on this.

 

[Present Not Past]

Trump in the same room as Putin would scare the crap out of me.

Didn't Abbot say he was going to shirtfront Putin when they met in Australia? What was the result there
Trump wants to be a politician - he talks the talk before the election - he'll find the scapegoats and blame the Apprentices however if he actually gets to the Whitehouse - mark my words.
Very few politicians actually have the balls to stand up for what they believe in.
I think the last politician to do so was Winston Churchill when he said at the Tehran Conference in 1943 in regard to the suggestion that the most important 50,000 Germans in the German civilian goverment and military be executed after the Second World War: “I would rather be taken out into the garden here and now and be shot myself rather than sully my own and my country’s honour by such infamy".

 

[BustedWing]

Which plane flew into WTC7 again? Whoops!

See this is what shits me about you guys. Instead of keeping on topic (WTC 1 and 2) you deviate to a different topic (WTC7) then use language in a triumphant "check mate" type way, when in fact you have said absolutely nothing of substance.

What hit WTC7 you ask? Not a plane, sure, but how about a SKYSCRAPER?!?!

I believe... NIST were left having to describe the situation as 'extraordinary' because there is no scientific precedent that even comes close to explaining why WTC7 fell the way it did.

What you believe is irrelevant .What can you PROVE? you say all the science is wrong. Show us where, which evidence, not positions of incredulity. Not "you expect me to believe blah blah blah! LOL!", Tell us where, and WHY a specific claim is incorrect, and then you will have some credibility.

 

[BustedWing]

I'm not going to pretend I have an explanation as to why WTC7 fell as I don't, but only with absence of critical thinking could anyone accept the official story.

Why? Again I ask, what is wrong with the OS? Show me WHERE, and WHY its wrong.