Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 106 to 119 of 119

Thread: 9-11

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mplarson7 View Post
    Forgive me if someone has already answered this, but if 9/11 really was a conspiracy, what reason would they have for doing it?
    i know that you weren't responding to me, but i'll offer a possible explanation.

    before 2001, most historians and politicians believed that the "vietnam syndrome" had basically ended u.s. involvement in military adventurism. problem is that this same military adventurism had been a great tool for rallying citizens around a single banner. having a common enemy that we could all rally against would allow those in power to do things that they normally would not have been able to do (invade at least a half a dozen countries since then).
    Summum ius, summa iniuria


  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mplarson7 View Post
    Forgive me if someone has already answered this, but if 9/11 really was a conspiracy, what reason would they have for doing it?
    It was a complex operation, so its going to involve complex reasons.

    Top Reasons
    1. Provide Israel a military force. Take out a bunch of Middle East countries, take out their dictators, and make the middle east a waste zone. Taking away threats to Israeli security. Plan has been working. Just need to finish off Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw. Lots of dual Isreal - US citizens in Bush's admin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7NsXFnzJGw Gen. Wesley Clarke called it a "policy coup." Please watch the entirety of both these quick videos.

    2. Industrial military complex reborn - As bigtenchamps 1999 alluded to, it was peace time. The country needed a reason to go to war, and gave themselves one. Lots of money lost out for defense contractors if the country isnt using its bombs. Dick Cheney was an executive with Halliburton, and had deferred stock options after he left in 2000. That's just one example. Defense companies need for the US to be at war to be successful. Our country has been at war for about 95% of the time since its inception.

    3. To keep the US as the only super power. The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC. It was a neo-conservative think tank created in 2000 riddled with soon to be Bush administration officials and advisers. Some of those involved were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowiitz, Jeb Bush, and Lewis Libby.

    PNAC, issued a document, entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century" calling for the radical restructuring of U.S. government and military policies. It advocated the massive expansion of defense spending, the re-invasion of Iraq, the military and economic securing of Afghanistan and Central Asia, increased centralized power and funds for the CIA, FBI, and NSA, among a slew of other policies that would, in the near future, be enacted upon their ascension to power. The paper states that because of the American Public's slant toward ideas of democracy and freedom, "this process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." I think 9/11 was their new pearl harbor. They wanted to make America the only superpower, and make a lot of money from it. To them, with Russia in decline after the cold war, it was their time to make America the only super military power.

    4. Patriot Act - gave the government an excuse to spy on us and take away freedom/liberty.

    5. Money and promotions, including Larry Silverstein's twin tower insurance payout

  3. Default

    Denial of the facts is completely understandable

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUquZrZBddA

  4. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post
    There was evidence of a plane that flew by the pentagon, but didn't actually hit it. A diversion. Many eye witnesses describe a different flight path than the one in the official narrative.
    Jimmy, your narrative is so full of holes, why keep this up? You seem like a reasonably smart guy; so why go and do this to yourself? Is this just for fun and excitement, or do you really believe what you are writing?

    This is about as bad as the Sandy Hook Truthers, the Obama birth certificate Truthers, and AGW denial. None of these make any sense other than individual groups making **** up and packaging propaganda in an attempt to fool the masses to advance political objectives. Nothing more.
    Last edited by cncmin; 09-26-2017 at 11:37 PM.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cncmin View Post
    Jimmy, your narrative is so full of holes, why keep this up? You seem like a reasonably smart guy; so why go and do this to yourself? Is this just for fun and excitement, or do you really believe what you are writing?

    This is about as bad as the Sandy Hook Truthers, the Obama birth certificate Truthers, and AGW denial. None of these make any sense other than individual groups making **** up and packaging propaganda in an attempt to fool the masses to advance political objectives. Nothing more.
    I see so many holes in the official story I have to call them out. The government did its best to not even investigate it. When they did due to pressure, the amount of money spent was minuscule compared to what was spent on Whitewater and Clinton getting a BJ. Yes, I do believe what I'm writing/posting. I'm not the only one, there is literally 10's of thousands of people who don't believe the government's narrative. Citizens tend not to believe government, not sure why they believe this story.

    What political objective are people trying to advance by pointing out evidence that may show an inside job?

  6. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post
    the amount of money spent was minuscule compared to what was spent on Whitewater and Clinton getting a BJ.
    Just testing your claims here. As you should be doing.


    Congress's 9/11 Commission expenses were about $14 million.
    NIST was $16 million
    FBI placed 7,000 agents on the investigation and evaluated 500,000 leads (4,000,000 man hours). I've never seen an expense data point for that, but you can imagine. Ten dollars per hour is $40,000,000 for the FBI.

    14+16+40? = Can we call it roughly $70 million? Is that fair?

    How much was the BJ investigation that makes $70 million seem miniscule?

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Navin View Post
    Just testing your claims here. As you should be doing.


    Congress's 9/11 Commission expenses were about $14 million.
    NIST was $16 million
    FBI placed 7,000 agents on the investigation and evaluated 500,000 leads (4,000,000 man hours). I've never seen an expense data point for that, but you can imagine. Ten dollars per hour is $40,000,000 for the FBI.

    14+16+40? = Can we call it roughly $70 million? Is that fair?

    How much was the BJ investigation that makes $70 million seem miniscule?
    Ok. I have no idea how much the FBI investigation cost, You can make a rough estimate, sure. But I didn't find anywhere its quantified.

    The Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation cost almost $80 million.

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...l.probe.costs/

    This article listed in these costs "special services" by the FBI. Maybe they had other costs outside of the $80 million too. You can speculate all you want.

    Even if it is 80 vs 70 million. The government still spent more on investigating Bill Clinton then they did the worst "terrorist" attack in US history. You would think all the different avenues of this complex investigation would be wayyyyy more expensive than whitewater/lewinsky.

    Then you have Bush and Cheney trying to prevent an independent investigation.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLIT....terror.probe/
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-op...1-query-panel/
    http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/...inger.resigns/
    https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...d-obfuscation/
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-ch...-closed-doors/


    And a favorite youtube clip. Bush going out of his way at the UN to preach that everyone should ignore people question the official story
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Hj-Y6o6ec

  8. Default

    Let's not forget the Bush/Bin Laden family ties, dating back to the 70's.

    http://www.denverpost.com/2006/09/11...m-anniversary/
    There's a host of articles that go in more detail on the Bush/bin Laden connection.

    Let's not forget the CIA and ISI training and partnership OBL received

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340101/t/.../#.Wc0bw1tSyUk

    And my favorite 9/11 clip, Bill Cooper predicting a terrorist attack, and it getting blamed on OBL two months before it happened. Watch the first 1:55

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEsesnzDBvA

  9. #114

    Default

    ^^ You really are the cliche "Wake up SHEEPLE" guy.

    I took you at face value early in the thread when you said you researched the evidence. "...would be WAAYYYYYY more expensive" This boils down to your gut and what feels right to you -- that much is obvious.

    Which 9/11 conspiracy element is so crazy even you reject it? And why?

    Come back when you've read the NIST reports on the WTC collapses, which is a basic first step and is required if you want to deal honestly with this subject.

  10. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post
    I see so many holes in the official story I have to call them out. The government did its best to not even investigate it. When they did due to pressure, the amount of money spent was minuscule compared to what was spent on Whitewater and Clinton getting a BJ. Yes, I do believe what I'm writing/posting. I'm not the only one, there is literally 10's of thousands of people who don't believe the government's narrative. Citizens tend not to believe government, not sure why they believe this story.

    What political objective are people trying to advance by pointing out evidence that may show an inside job?
    I'll answer your question first: My serious posts on here are generally to debunk crapola. My "political" objective, as always, is the truth and realism. I cannot speak for others, but my guess is that, in this particular case, those promoting the consensus are trying to propagate what is by far the best-known, best-supported, and most reasonable explanation. Those people are also extremely likely to be correct, or damn near close to it.

    The problem with your standpoint based on "holes" in the consensus description of events is that even if someone (not you, whoever you are copying your ideas from) found "holes" in the argument - and mind you, with enough digging, one will ALWAYS find "holes" in almost every argument since essentially no argument can be 100% proven and there is never "complete" evidence for any significant event - they/you are filling those "holes" with crap and debunkable/false theories; some of them bordering on the ridiculous and absurd.

    From my standpoint, if you want to identify "holes", then fine, identify them. Discuss them. But when (1) the "hole" is shown not to be such and (2) your argument is proven false - and that's already happened multiple times in this very thread, IMO you should admit its failures and drop it, lest it damage your own credibility.

    Starting your argument over and leaving out your own very deep holes in your own argument would be a quality start, IMO, Jimmy.

    I will finalize my post here by admitting that, for many years, I was a believer in some JFK assassination conspiracy, due to all of the potential holes in the plot line; as pointed out by a JFK-conspiracy-loving history teacher in grade school that got me into the subject. Fact is, indeed I still think it possible that LHO did not act alone; though I leave open the possibility/probability that he did. Regardless, realization that the single bullet theory was actually firmly realistic was my wake-up call; combined with the bulk of evidence, indeed LHO was very likely the shooter.
    Last edited by cncmin; 09-28-2017 at 06:30 PM.

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Navin View Post

    Which 9/11 conspiracy element is so crazy even you reject it? And why?
    There is a theory that a "directed energy weapon" took out the first 2 towers by a PhD and has a lot of people that follow it. I've never seen evidence that some energy or laser weapon exists to do that, so I don't believe it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navin View Post

    Come back when you've read the NIST reports on the WTC collapses, which is a basic first step and is required if you want to deal honestly with this subject.
    I have read the NIST report. Some I understand, some I don't. I'm not a structural engineer, so maybe I am at a disadvantage. But their main premise is the "pancake theory." On my understanding of physics, that doesn't jive with me. The buildings fell at or near free fall speed. Meaning, NO RESISTANCE. If it was truly pancaking, it would slow down. Physics.

    So I obviously believe this was a big government sham. Last I checked, NIST is a government entity. So I'm going to believe every thing they state as fact and their models? You might,but I won't.

    Here is a good summary of faults in the NIST study http://www.ae911truth.org/images/art...10-19-14-3.pdf
    Last edited by JimmyJamesMD; 09-29-2017 at 11:12 AM.

  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cncmin View Post
    I'll answer your question first: My serious posts on here are generally to debunk crapola. My "political" objective, as always, is the truth and realism. I will remember that all your posts are 100% truthful and to never question you. You should change your name to OnlyTheFacts or TruthSeekerI cannot speak for others, but my guess is that, in this particular case, those promoting the consensus are trying to propagate what is by far the best-known, best-supported, and most reasonable explanation. Those people are also extremely likely to be correct, or damn near close to it. The only consensus is the governments story and sham of an investigation that Bush didnt even want to do. I have the MSM telling me to believe it all. That's the only consensus I've heard

    The problem with your standpoint based on "holes" in the consensus description of events is that even if someone (not you, whoever you are copying your ideas from) found "holes" in the argument - and mind you, with enough digging, one will ALWAYS find "holes" in almost every argument since essentially no argument can be 100% proven and there is never "complete" evidence for any significant event - they/you are filling those "holes" with crap and debunkable/false theories; some of them bordering on the ridiculous and absurd. My "holes" are physics. Disappearing airplanes and buildings dont give me much faith

    From my standpoint, if you want to identify "holes", then fine, identify them. Discuss them. But when (1) the "hole" is shown not to be such and (2) your argument is proven false - and that's already happened multiple times in this very thread, IMO you should admit its failures and drop it, lest it damage your own credibility. So I say the buildings were taken down by explosives. Then someone says, nope, NIST says otherwise. Oh darn, I was wrong. Yes, my argument was proven false. No.

    Starting your argument over and leaving out your own very deep holes in your own argument would be a quality start, IMO, Jimmy.

    I will finalize my post here by admitting that, for many years, I was a believer in some JFK assassination conspiracy, due to all of the potential holes in the plot line; as pointed out by a JFK-conspiracy-loving history teacher in grade school that got me into the subject. Fact is, indeed I still think it possible that LHO did not act alone; though I leave open the possibility/probability that he did. Regardless, realization that the single bullet theory was actually firmly realistic was my wake-up call; combined with the bulk of evidence, indeed LHO was very likely the shooter. I'm happy for you that you finally decided to be reasonable and come back to the conclusion LHO did it by himself. Good job. In fact, eventually, I will probably do the same thing with JFK and 9/11 and move along.
    Is there anything that doesn't make sense to you on 9/11 thats not explainable? Or do you prefer the nookie blanket the government provides you and you can just cuddle up to the official story?

  13. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post
    There is a theory that a "directed energy weapon" took out the first 2 towers by a PhD and has a lot of people that follow it. I've never seen evidence that some energy or laser weapon exists to do that, so I don't believe it.
    Do you have evidence that passenger jet-sized drones exist?

    On my understanding of physics, that doesn't jive with me.
    Your gut intuition is not a reliable method to decide what's true about the physical world. We have science which is immensely more powerful.


    The buildings fell at or near free fall speed. Meaning, NO RESISTANCE. If it was truly pancaking, it would slow down. Physics.
    We both agree the laws of physics didn't break during the three WTC collapses. The NIST version doesn't violate any laws of physics. For example, in the WTC7 collapse, the interior collapsed first out of view, then the shell/exterior collapsed in turn (visible on many videos, as I'm sure you've seen). The WTC7 shell overall collapsed 40% slower than free-fall speed, although for about 2 seconds it did hit free-fall due to no resistance. This is in the NIST report, which you read.

    And your next comment about the "nookie blanket" has it backwards. The government's (NIST's) version is terrifying for its implications. Especially the collapse of WTC7 which was due only to fires -- and not even fire from the diesel fuel supplies -- just the office materials burning unabated. Many existing skyscrapers need different designs of their sprinklers or floor supports based on what we learned and I don't think that's going to happen. (Although important to note, all people evacuated safely with no deaths at WTC7 and the firefighters were pulled three hours before collapse because it was obvious the deterioration was going to be irreversible.)

  14. #119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post
    I have read the NIST report. Some I understand, some I don't. I'm not a structural engineer, so maybe I am at a disadvantage. But their main premise is the "pancake theory." On my understanding of physics, that doesn't jive with me. The buildings fell at or near free fall speed. Meaning, NO RESISTANCE. If it was truly pancaking, it would slow down. Physics.
    First question I must ask, is, exactly how much physics training have you had in your life, Jimmy? The "Pancake Theory" doesn't exactly have a lot of big holes. I have enough understanding of both to know that the Pancake Theory is plenty feasible.

    A logical tangent to your question is, can you describe the forces and momentum that are involved when 30+ stories worth of concrete and steel begin accelerating at the gravitational constant? And what kind of forces are required to slow down that momentum? If you cannot, should you really be doubting things you cannot understand well enough to question?

    Now for some of your theories' improbable coincidences:

    If "they" were willing to take out thousands of innocents in WC1 and WC2, then why didn't they kill hundreds more innocents in WC7 instead of let them escape?

    Why bring down the towers in reverse order to which they were hit? Wouldn't that seem "fishy" if all of this was planned?

    Why didn't the two jets hit in the same location on both towers? Would one really set up a planned demo and risk the chance that the planes would miss their intended targets? What was the backup plan if a building failed to come down? What if they had the whole building rigged and the other plane missed? What if the plane hit in a location that couldn't lend to a plausible physical explanation of bringing down the building due to fire (e.g., what if fires didn't catch so vastly, or what if one of the planes missed and only winged a corner of the building)?

    Why attack a face-less Pentagon, instead of some other more emotional D.C. target? Why couldn't anyone in the Defense Department detect an incoming missile?

    Where did all the evidence of the massive explosives that would be needed to bring down the towers go? (This right here should be your main question) Every explosive leaves a trace.

    How did they get suicidal pilots onto the commercial airliners that day that were so into the Neocon plan that they sacrificed their lives and those of the innocent passengers (none of them terrorists, of course!) all in the hopes to start a war to ... take out Saddam Hussein and make military bases in the Middle East??
    Last edited by cncmin; 09-30-2017 at 12:57 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •