Who the hell is Barry Jennings?

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

Edit: I mean, it couldn't possibly be the man who made a cool $4.55 billion from an insurance claim for buildings he leased only two months before the towers fell. Why would he lie about what happened?

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

Podman

demonspawn wrote: »

Jennings was obviously a liar and had an ulterior motive. Duh!!

Edit: I mean, it couldn't possibly be the man who made a cool $4.55 billion from an insurance claim for buildings he leased only two months before the towers fell. Why would he lie about what happened?

Silverstein gets his money/new plaza

Bush gets his war

The US government gets a police state

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

Oh, and before you claim that the beam was cut by workers. That angle shown in the photo is consistent with the angle needed in all controlled demolitions to ensure the beam slides sideways and down to ensure it doesn't get caught and stop other parts of the building from falling. The cuts made by the workers do not resemble this whatsoever.

nah - no resemblance whatsoever.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

Apparently the jet fuel melted the beams and both buildings pancaked in the exact same fashion. :rolleyes:

Shocking that buildings built in the same way would collapse in the same way. Don't recall anyone saying steel melted other than the Ct'ers.

alastair

Mahatma coat wrote: »

in the timeline that Jennings is Discussing

BOTH TOWERS WERE STILL STANDING

So how could it be damage from the collapsing towers that caused the fires and instability in B7???????

Because he was confused. The fact that he was confused is evident from the other claims he makes, so why not on the sequence he presents? It's a fact that debris from WTC1 hit the north side of WTC7 - causing exactly the sort of damage he related, and it's also a fact that no-one else heard (or recorded) any explosion inside the building that couldn't be accounted for by the collapse of WTC1.

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

Apparently the jet fuel melted the beams and both buildings pancaked in the exact same fashion. :rolleyes:

Care to point to anyone (other than CTers) claiming that steel was melted anywhere in the wtc on the day? 100% straw man.

demonspawn

alastair wrote: »

nah - no resemblance whatsoever.

No, nothing even remotely similar. That cut is not straight, as you can plainly see. The picture I linked all cuts are perfectly straight, because the charges used to melt steel beams are very rigid. Try again.

In fact, that picture looks like it was photoshopped. How did melted material get onto that thin strip of metal yet that strip isn't cut? Surely if the cutter was powerful enough to push molten metal onto that strip, it would be powerful enough to cut it.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

No, nothing even remotely similar. That cut is not straight, as you can plainly see. The picture I linked all cuts are perfectly straight, because the charges used to melt steel beams are very rigid. Try again.

In fact, that picture looks like it was photoshopped. How did melted material get onto that thin strip of metal yet that strip isn't cut? Surely if the cutter was powerful enough to push molten metal onto that strip, it would be powerful enough to cut it.

Sorry you think that explosive charges will l cut a neat straight line across a steel girder? Exactly like a cutting torch would?

You also noticed this isn't a finished cut right?

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

No, nothing even remotely similar. That cut is not straight, as you can plainly see. The picture I linked all cuts are perfectly straight, because the charges used to melt steel beams are very rigid. Try again.

In fact, that picture looks like it was photoshopped. How did melted material get onto that thin strip of metal yet that strip isn't cut? Surely if the cutter was powerful enough to push molten metal onto that strip, it would be powerful enough to cut it.

So just to be clear - it's nothing like another angle cut beam, and even if it is, it's obviously photoshopped. :rolleyes:

demonspawn

Let's see what the experts say.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

Let's see what the experts say.

Ah change the subject... I don't think anyone is saying WTC7 didn't fall like a controlled demolition, because clearly it did fall like a controlled demolition.

However we have a dilemma. If explosives were used they would show up on the seismic record but they don't, nor did people hear the very distinctive sounds of it. Where in we have thermate being used and the CT world inventing a new way for demolition that no one has ever used or has proven to work properly in the situation.

They estimate to get thermate to work, assuming you could actually keep in under control would take 45kg's per beam. But sure no would notice the walls being stripped and truck loads of a odd substance being brought in or the cables being run. etc.

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

Ah change the subject... I don't think anyone is saying WTC7 didn't fall like a controlled demolition, because clearly it did fall like a controlled demolition.

However we have a dilemma. If explosives were used they would show up on the seismic record but they don't, nor did people hear the very distinctive sounds of it. Where in we have thermate being used and the CT world inventing a new way for demolition that no one has ever used or has proven to work properly in the situation.

If this is as big a CT as everyone thinks then seismic records can easily be doctored or fabricated.

,nor did people hear the very distinctive sounds of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

And if you bothered to actually watch the video I posted you will see that the demo expert clearly states that it could easily be done with the right team in a very short time using existing methods. You keep lining them up and I keep shooting them down.

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

If this is as big a CT as everyone thinks then seismic records can easily be doctored or fabricated.

Thing is, why would they bother saying it fell naturally if they did it under a controlled explosion. Why would they risk a controlled explosion on the same day and then tell everyone it fell naturally, when they could have just left it standing and carried out a controlled demolition within the next few days, and tell everyone that it need to be domolished because it was unstable and posed a safety risk?

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

If this is as big a CT as everyone thinks then seismic records can easily be doctored or fabricated.

You know this kind of stuff brings a smile to my face... so as long as we believe that literally thousands of people are in on it and not one speaks out even after all this time then the CT makes sense. My experience of governments is they are inept and couldn't keep the weather forecast to themselves. Even Nixon a US president wasn't able to stop himself being found out and he wasn't accused of killing 3000 (mostly) Americans.

demonspawn wrote: »

And if you bothered to actually watch the video I posted you will see that the demo expert clearly states that it could easily be done with the right team in a very short time using existing methods. You keep lining them up and I keep shooting them down.

So existing methods would involve explosives? Which no one saw being brought in or the wiring or the damage to the walls to place them, in a full building with thousands of people in it. And then have the all the people who run the seismographs in on it. You see at this point it sounds like the plot of a bad movie, one that we'd all laugh at if we saw it on the TV.

alastair

meglome wrote: »

Sigh... I have looked into this in great detail. I haven't however read every single last stupid theory. To be honest some of them make my brain hurt as they make no sense whatsoever. Some people read Mills and Boon and good luck to them but I don't. So if you could get off your high horsey for a moment and make your point.

Heaven forbid that anyone might string the various contradictory 'theories' into a logical sequence of events. Nah - why expose the ludicrous nature of each and every fantasy. Much better to quickly pass over the glaring cracks in these propositions and instead mutter darkly about omnipotent forces that lurk behind every corner.

xone

meglome wrote:

Sigh... I have looked into this in great detail. I haven't however read every single last stupid theory. To be honest some of them make my brain hurt as they make no sense whatsoever. Some people read Mills and Boon and good luck to them but I don't. So if you could get off your high horsey for a moment and make your point.

In order for silverstein to collect insurance, all 3 buildings part of the trade center had to be destroyed.

he spent $3.2 billion acquiring buildings 6 months before the attacks which never made any profit and had to be subsidized by the government.

It required $200 million in renovations and some of the materials used in the construction were considered hazardous, is he stupid? i wouldn't think so.

Silverstein insured the trade center for terrorist attack and low and behold he makes a net profit of $1.3 billion settling with insurance company in 2004.

not a bad profit for 3 year investment.

meglome

xone wrote: »

In order for silverstein to collect insurance, all 3 buildings part of the trade center had to be destroyed.

he spent $3.2 billion acquiring buildings 6 months before the attacks which never made any profit and had to be subsidized by the government.

It required $200 million in renovations and some of the materials used in the construction were considered hazardous, is he stupid? i wouldn't think so.

Silverstein insured the trade center for terrorist attack and low and behold he makes a net profit of $1.3 billion settling with insurance company in 2004.

not a bad profit for 3 year investment.

Unfortunately doesn't appear to be true.

http://www.911myths.com/html/losing_money_at_the_wtc_.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

The story...

The Silverstein group purchased the lease on the World Trade Center for $3.2 billion. With two claims for the maximum amount of the policy, the total potential payout is $7.1 billion, leaving a hefty windfall profit for Silverstein.

Our take...

As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.

And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006, see here).

$4.6 billion in insurance money, $6.3 billion in costs? Not such a great deal, then. What’s more, don’t imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money. As we write (June 2006) there are other problems...

alastair

xone wrote: »

In order for silverstein to collect insurance, all 3 buildings part of the trade center had to be destroyed.

You are aware that there were 7 buildings in the centre? And that it wouldn't really matter how many of the buildings were destroyed for an insurance payout?

meglome

xone wrote: »

meglome, what do you think?

the response on that website are the opinions of others.
i have my own opinions based on what i've read.

Of course anything we read we have to form our own opinions on. However the links on that 911myths site use actual articles from the time and before for reference. Now either i assume all the external links are faked (though using archive.org i can see they are not) or that part of the CT about Silverstein doing it for the money simply isn't true and is provably not true. It's one of the major problems I have with CT sites, they all parrot each other and not one of them actually bothered to really check the details. Better to blame the Jew.

Podman wrote: »

Don't waste your breath xone, trying to get through to those children isn't worth the effort.

Your being drawn into a downward spiral, quit while your ahead.

hehe Yet again we look at the fine details and they don't actually show what is claimed in the CT. But way easier to call people names than accept the evidence. I'm wondering when i'll be put on ignore as anyone who puts people on the spot in here is likely to be.

xone

meglome wrote:

Of course anything we read we have to form our own opinions on. However the links on that 911myths site use actual articles from the time and before for reference. Now either i assume all the external links are faked (though using archive.org i can see they are not) or that part of the CT about Silverstein doing it for the money simply isn't true and is provably not true. It's one of the major problem I have with CT sites, they all parrot each other and not one of them actually bothered to really check the details. Better to blame the Jew.

You're deriving opinions from other sceptics and pro-war, neo-conservative websites.

Citing references to other sceptics and then assuming anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of nutjob.

meglome

xone wrote: »

You're deriving opinions from other sceptics and pro-war, neo-conservative websites.

Citing references to other sceptics and then assuming anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of nutjob.

Em no... I'm using articles from before and around 911 from several different publications, on different WTC topics. These show that Silverstein is very unlikely to have orchestrated 911 for the money. The links are linked from a well researched 'sceptics' site but i have gone and checked them and they all appear fully legit. The CT sites on the other hand make claims about Silverstein but they don't back them up like this at all. They usually have one CT site parroting another and all after fact. So if i have to choose one to believe I'll choose the one that has the best evidence every time.

I didn't call anyone names however I'd have to wonder about people's agenda or state of mind when it clearly appears Silverstein didn't do it for the money yet people still choose to believe it. Science, logic and evidence have bought us a long way it would be a shame if we stopped believing in them. Feelings and intuition are all well and good but they shouldn't get in the way of provable reality.

demonspawn

I'd like to point out that the only reason Silverstein is not getting the full amount of the insurance payout is because the insurance company smelled a rat and took Silverstein to court over the wording of the contract. Some parts of the contract were still incomplete I believe. That's the only reason Silverstein settled for a lesser payout.

It's not too different to how insurance companies will investigate a claim for a car to see if the owner deliberately destroyed the car. I bet if anyone knows the real truth it's the insurance company. So please stop quoting that ridiculous 911myths website, it was set up to debunk every single theory and nothing more.

Also, there's a very good possibility that Silverstein got a very large envelope for his assistance to the United States government. The insurance money is chump change compared to what they could have given him. Alternatively he could have simply been threatened and told to keep him mouth shut and accept whatever he got.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

I'd like to point out that the only reason Silverstein is not getting the full amount of the insurance payout is because the insurance company smelled a rat and took Silverstein to court over the wording of the contract. Some parts of the contract were still incomplete I believe. That's the only reason Silverstein settled for a lesser payout.

I believe you'll find he failed to complete policy negotiations and sought to have the attack classed as two separate events, one for each plane/building. So he got half of what he wanted... not very smart for a guy who's in on it. So there's no smelling a rat, it's quite clear why they didn't want to pay the full amount.

demonspawn wrote: »

It's not too different to how insurance companies will investigate a claim for a car to see if the owner deliberately destroyed the car. I bet if anyone knows the real truth it's the insurance company. So please stop quoting that ridiculous 911myths website, it was set up to debunk every single theory and nothing more.

You think the insurance company would have paid him 3.6 billion if they had any reason not to?

Oh you mean the site that uses proper references for everything it says. The site that shows from articles of the time that the CT with Silverstein doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I mean why get in the way of the CT with fact, silly of me really.

demonspawn wrote: »

Also, there's a very good possibility that Silverstein got a very large envelope for his assistance to the United States government. The insurance money is chump change compared to what they could have given him. Alternatively he could have simply been threatened and told to keep him mouth shut and accept whatever he got.

He had to get Liberty bonds from the government or would have been bankrupted. Maybe you should actually read the links I provided and see for yourself in detail.

You seem to have this idea that some of us are here to just debunk everything you say for the laugh. The Silverstein story doesn't stand up to any scrutiny and those of us who actually keep an open mind get tired of listening to the same made up crap.

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

Oh you mean the site that uses proper references for everything it says. The site that shows from articles of the time that the CT with Silverstein doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I mean why get in the way of the CT with fact, silly of me really.

You do realize that every CTer sees mainstream media as the propaganda machine for the government, right?

Well, I'm not asking you to believe any of this. Why would I? I don't care what you believe to be quite honest. You live you life with blinkers on and you're free to do so, life's much easier when you can only see straight ahead.

It's difficult to question the official story because many times you'll be frustrated and you just want to give up. I'm not the type to give up so easily. Debunk all you want, it wont change my mind. I've done more research than you on this subject and I'm confident with my conclusions.

If you think you can come here and make me doubt myself with simple refutation then I'm afraid you're wasting your time.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

You do realize that every CTer sees mainstream media as the propaganda machine for the government, right?

Well to be fair here the CT world eye's mainstream media with suspicion except where the story agrees with the CT in some way, then they don't seem to be suspicious at all.

demonspawn wrote: »

Well, I'm not asking you to believe any of this. Why would I? I don't care what you believe to be quite honest. You live you life with blinkers on and you're free to do so, life's much easier when you can only see straight ahead.

Ah back to the name calling and sheeple references. I'll believe what can be proven within reason. Which is why I don't believe that Silverstein did it for the money.

demonspawn wrote: »

It's difficult to question the official story because many times you'll be frustrated and you just want to give up. I'm not the type to give up so easily. Debunk all you want, it wont change my mind. I've done more research than you on this subject and I'm confident with my conclusions.

The official version may not be perfect but it has a number of things over the CT. It uses logic, science and evidence... it even has a consistent story... all of which are sadly lacking in most of the CT. It's amazing how you know you've done more research than me on this topic, all without the slightest proof of that. Well you're consistent I'll give you that.

demonspawn wrote: »

If you think you can come here and make me doubt myself with simple refutation then I'm afraid you're wasting your time.

I haven't the slightest desire to make you doubt yourself. However I'd be delighted if you could see that many aspects of the CT make no sense, have no evidence and blatantly contradict each other. Personally I don't assume anything... sometimes governments are good and sometimes they are bad, since they are made up of individuals who can be good and bad. I don't assume CT sites good, and governments bad... both are well capable to lying to me. I have no agenda whosoever, I post here because I'm interesting in the CT's but these vast conspiracy's don't work for me. Every time you ask a critical question you're told "oh they are in on it". For 911 to work as the CT's outline thousands of people would need to be in on it, many thousands. History and human nature tells me you cannot keep that secret. And that's aside from the fact the details never match up.

demonspawn

Ok man, how's about this. You list the reasons why you think the terrorists did it and I'll list the reasons why I think the U.S. government and their business buddies did it. Deal? You'll have to wait until tomorrow because I'm heading to bed and don't want to spend the next two hours searching the interwebs for evidence to back up my reasons. I have it, it's all true, I'm just a bit tired atm.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

History and human nature tells me you cannot keep that secret.

What an arrogant and to be honest pointless thing to say. Your claiming in absolutes that you are aware of ALL secrets made by large groups in history. History hasn't shown you how many secrets have been kept from you and to which you have no idea about, for the very reason that they are secrets.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What an arrogant and to be honest pointless thing to say. Your claiming in absolutes that you are aware of ALL secrets made by large groups in history. History hasn't shown you how many secrets have been kept from you and to which you have no idea about, for the very reason that they are secrets.

And we're back to the faith-based foundation of the CT. I'll put my stake behind logic and science before the fairy stories. Not one of the 911 theories actually makes an ounce of sense when you put the patchwork together (ignoring the reality that most of the patches don't either). That's where the real blinkers come into play.

humanji

Enough of the bickering people. I've deleted a few nonsense posts and I don't want to have to keep doing it. If you can't post politely, then don't post.

Soveriegn

meglome wrote: »

I haven't the slightest desire to make you doubt yourself. However I'd be delighted if you could see that many aspects of the CT make no sense

Of course, unlike the official fairy tale.

It was the brown foreigners from the cave. They couldn't fly jets but they did anyway. They flew them into 2 buildings in New York, 3 buildings pancaked to the ground due to fire. There were explosions in building 7 prior to the towers collapsing though, but ignore that. The hole in the pentagon was to small to have been made by a large plane, even one with no wings. The other "plane" went nose first into the ground and vanished. Apparently the plane was found deep underground, yet debris was found scattered for miles. Good old NORAD were on a training mission that day, they were practicing for just such an event, planes hitting skyscrapers in NY city, 1,000,000,000/1 coincidence ? Funny the exact same scenario happened on 7/7, London (they were training for several bombs in the underground) another 1,000,000,000/1 coincidence. Anyhow....
First time in history jet liners are flown into skyscrapers, first time in history that skyscrapers collapsed due to fire, but 3 times in one day !!!! :eek: Another 1,000,000,000/1 coincidence ? Oh and the terrorists were not on the flight manifests (that's weird).
The pentagon wont release pictures or video footage of the "plane" hitting it because of "national security" reasons, why wouldn't they just put this to bed (if they could)....
Wasn't bush caught bullsh!tting about what he saw on the tv that day ?
Then there is all that steel that was illegally removed from the crime scene immediately after the collapses, to be melted down.
Then there is Bin Laden's poster on the FBI website which states noting of 911 (because they have not enough evidence linking him to it) http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Perhaps they would have more evidence if they didn't destroy the evidence, oh and move all of his relatives out of the country a couple of days after 911, one would think they would be interviewed.
Incidentally didn't Bin Laden's family construction help build the twin towers ? yeah, that's another weird coincidence...
Wasn't there some incredible phone calls made from the planes when it was not possible to make calls at those altitudes, yup.
Wasn't Jed Bush head of security at the towers at the time of 911 ? That's a weird coincidence inst it.. Didn't many important figures call in sick that day, cancel flights etc etc... Some people got mysterious warnings etc etc almost like some people (aside from bin and the guys) knew of a pending attack. Didn't the BBC predict the collapse of building 7 ??? 20 or so minutes before it collapsed :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky90eEIzStw

The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

(don't reffer me to your debunking911 or 911myths bible please, I don't buy that sh!t)

Here are 300+ other funny coincidences..

http://oldmanjoe.tripod.com/9-11_probabilities.htm

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

It was the brown foreigners from the cave.

Actually it was mostly a bunch of well to do Saudis who had been living in the US for some time, but utimately there could have been a cave involved - is that the problem or the brown skinned thing?

Soveriegn wrote: »

They couldn't fly jets but they did anyway.

They demonstrabaly could fly the planes well enough to do the job - if you'd asked them to take off or land I suspect, they'd not have been up to the job.

Soveriegn wrote: »

They flew them into 2 buildings in New York, 3 buildings pancaked to the ground due to fire.

And associated impact damage - yep.

Soveriegn wrote: »

There were explosions in building 7 prior to the towers collapsing though, but ignore that.

There was? Was it recorded by anyone? Did the scores of emergency workers at the building give evidence of these explosions?

Soveriegn wrote: »

The hole in the pentagon was to small to have been made by a large plane, even one with no wings.

No - it was (like Goldilocks porridge) just the right size - and the biggest clue was the plane inside the building.

Soveriegn wrote: »

The other "plane" went nose first into the ground and vanished.

Not really - as you notice yourself...

Soveriegn wrote: »

Apparently the plane was found deep underground, yet debris was found scattered for miles.

So not vanished then?

Soveriegn wrote: »

Good old NORAD were on a training mission that day,

Yep.

Soveriegn wrote: »

they were practicing for just such an event, planes hitting skyscrapers in NY city, 1,000,000,000/1 coincidence ?

No - they were practising for a soviet bomber incursion - which is why most planes were over ocean. A separate training exercise that had nothing to do with NORAD (or any planes for that matter) related to a light aircraft crashing into the HQ of the National Reconnaissance Office in Virginia. It was a purely internal exercise for that building.

Soveriegn wrote: »

Funny the exact same scenario happened on 7/7, London (they were training for several bombs in the underground) another 1,000,000,000/1 coincidence. Anyhow....

The exact same scenario? Nope - and yes it's a coincidence that there was a training drill the same day, but there were training drills other days too.

Soveriegn wrote: »

First time in history jet liners are flown into skyscrapers, first time in history that skyscrapers collapsed due to fire, but 3 times in one day !!!! :eek: Another 1,000,000,000/1 coincidence ?

It wasn't exactly an accident that all three happened on the same day now was it?

Soveriegn wrote: »

Oh and the terrorists were not on the flight manifests (that's weird).

It would be, if it was true, but it isn't.

Soveriegn wrote: »

The pentagon wont release pictures or video footage of the "plane" hitting it because of "national security" reasons, why wouldn't they just put this to bed (if they could)....

They did release what they had after a freedom of information request - you just don't like what shows.

Soveriegn wrote: »

Wasn't bush caught bullsh!tting about what he saw on the tv that day ?

Was he, is he caught bull****ting any other days? Do you think he was involved beyond looking like a paniced flailing leader who didn't know what to do?

Soveriegn wrote: »

Then there is all that steel that was illegally removed from the crime scene immediately after the collapses, to be melted down.

Nothing was illegally removed.

Soveriegn wrote: »

Then there is Bin Laden's poster on the FBI website which states noting of 911 (because they have not enough evidence linking him to it)

He's wanted for other previous accused crimes. That's all that is required.

Soveriegn wrote: »

Incidentally didn't Bin Laden's family construction help build the twin towers ? yeah, that's another weird coincidence...

No they didn't.

Soveriegn wrote: »

Wasn't there some incredible phone calls made from the planes when it was not possible to make calls at those altitudes, yup.

Phone calls only made at altitudes that allowed calls. Nothing incredible there.

Soveriegn wrote: »

Wasn't Jed Bush head of security at the towers at the time of 911 ? That's a weird coincidence inst it..

Jeb Bush or Jed Clampett? Neither were - weird eh?

Soveriegn wrote: »

Didn't many important figures call in sick that day, cancel flights etc etc... Some people got mysterious warnings etc etc almost like some people (aside from bin and the guys) knew of a pending attack.

Important figures? Some people took the day off - as they might any other day.

Soveriegn wrote: »

Didn't the BBC predict the collapse of building 7 ??? 20 or so minutes before it collapsed :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky90eEIzStw

Lots of people on the scene predicted the collapse of wtc7 - well before the 20 minute mark. It was obvious that it was likely to fall with the damage sustained.

Soveriegn wrote: »

The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

(don't reffer me to your debunking911 or 911myths bible please, I don't buy that sh!t)

Ah well.

Penn

The buildings did not collapse as a result of fire. They collapsed as a result of fire and damage to the structure which would also have compromised the fireproofing on other structural members. Seriously, of all the things constantly thrown about with regards 9/11, this one annoys me the most.

Happyman42

If I wanted to get away with something in a modern 'free' democracy where the press and internet are powerful forces; this is exactly what I would do. This thread is a microsm of what i would attempt to achieve on a worldwide scale. That is; create a huge smokescreen of doubt and myth, I would deliberately create doubt, plant evidence that CTers would have wet dreams about in the hope that in the hysteria and endless debate I could avoid answering the real questions. That's what seems to be happening to me. The Sceptics have been set against the Believers, divide and conquer.

I would ask the naysayers and those who say that the case is closed these questions;

Do you think Woodward and Bernstein where believed from the start, would Nixon have retired unimpeached if it wasn't for the persisent efforts of a few? Do you think you would have been conned by Nixon's protestations of innocence?

In Ireland; Do you think that 95% of people at one time believed that a priest couldn't abuse a child and that that figure has now swung the other way? Do you think you might have been one of those who tragically swallowed the official line and turned a blind eye to the pleadings of those children?

What I am trying to say is, that those who accept the official line and don't see the need of Governments to answer again and again to sceptics are actually undermining the only way that what is loosely called ''Democracy' can be maintained and kept in check..
As is so evident in the modern day, it only takes one or two pieces of the 'right' information to come out for the whole conspiracy to come tumbling down (apologies for the dodgy metaphor)
It has happened often enough. I don't know what happened on 9-11 but I do think there are questions and I want the questioning to continue however crazy and ludicrious it might get at times. Far too many people stood to gain from the aftermath of an event of that scale to blithely ignore the possibility of a conspiracy.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Do you think Woodward and Bernstein where believed from the start, would Nixon have retired unimpeached if it wasn't for the persisent efforts of a few? Do you think you would have been conned by Nixon's protestations of innocence?

Woodward and Bernstein employed actual evidence in making and proving their case. I'll listen to evidence from any source - and judge it on it's own merits. All the 'divide and conquer' argument presupposes that there's a viable alternative presented - which there isn't to date.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Woodward and Bernstein employed actual evidence in making and proving their case. I'll listen to evidence from any source - and judge it on it's own merits. All the 'divide and conquer' argument presupposes that there's a viable alternative presented - which there isn't to date.

That wasn't my question. Once more:

Do you think Woodward and Bernstein where believed from the start, would Nixon have retired unimpeached if it wasn't for the persisent efforts of a few? Do you think you would have been conned by Nixon's protestations of innocence?

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

And we're back to the faith-based foundation of the CT. I'll put my stake behind logic and science before the fairy stories. Not one of the 911 theories actually makes an ounce of sense when you put the patchwork together (ignoring the reality that most of the patches don't either). That's where the real blinkers come into play.

I'm sure you've put your stake behind many a thing

Serious question though, if that is how you really feel what in the world complels you to post here?

Your hatred is clear, so why not leave people alone to discuss the topics who don't consider it "fairy stories"? What harm is it too you? Why not discuss the "blinkers" and the faith based fairy stories in the skeptics forum? I'm not questioning your right to post here, just can't see the motivation for you, unless you enjoy the arguments that your attitude has and is inevetibaly going to cause.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

That wasn't my question. Once more:

Do you think Woodward and Bernstein where believed from the start, would Nixon have retired unimpeached if it wasn't for the persisent efforts of a few? Do you think you would have been conned by Nixon's protestations of innocence?

Maybe, maybe not - keep in mind that it was an insider who actually exposed the watergate conspiracy - once again undermining the notion that grand conspiracies can survive the complexities of human interaction. Nixon couldn't keep the lid on a small scale conspiracy. And you can't simply ignore the fact that Woodward and Bernstein had the persuasiveness of actual evidence behind their expose - not faith-based theories.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm sure you've put your stake behind many a thing

Serious question though, if that is how you really feel what in the world complels you to post here?

Your hatred is clear, so why not leave people alone to discuss the topics who don't consider it "fairy stories"? What harm is it too you? Why not discuss the "blinkers" and the faith based fairy stories in the skeptics forum? I'm not questioning your right to post here, just can't see the motivation for you, unless you enjoy the arguments that your attitude has and is inevetibaly going to cause.

The obvious question is why do you let it bother you.

Or do you prefer that these theories are not scrutinised robustly and their flaws exposed. Or would you rather everyone agree with everyone else, and nothing gets done about anything.

Di0genes

Happyman42 wrote: »

That wasn't my question. Once more:

Do you think Woodward and Bernstein where believed from the start, would Nixon have retired unimpeached if it wasn't for the persisent efforts of a few? Do you think you would have been conned by Nixon's protestations of innocence?

As Alaister pointed out, you really shouldn't be comparing 9/11 with Woodward and Bernstein, if anything it exposes how flawed these theories are. Watergate was a small conspiracy, which was still exposed. For 9/11 to have happened thousands of people would have been involved, yet this has been covered up for more than a decade.

Woodward and Bernstein among others investigated the break in, found an immediate money trail back to CREEP.

No one here is saying "well the US government said they didn't carry out 9/11 and thats good enough me". So your argument is a essentially a strawman. What we are saying however is that in the near decade since 9/11 conspiracy theorists have repeatedly claimed the US government/NWO carried out 9/11 but the evidence they present to support this allegation is deficient/spurious or non existent.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Serious question though, if that is how you really feel what in the world complels you to post here?

What compells you to post on this subject when you can't/won't commit to a singular and non-contradictory alternative to the documented facts of the events? It's like specifics are kryponite to the various 'theories'.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not - keep in mind that it was an insider who actually exposed the watergate conspiracy - once again undermining the notion that grand conspiracies can survive the complexities of human interaction. Nixon couldn't keep the lid on a small scale conspiracy. And you can't simply ignore the fact that Woodward and Bernstein had the persuasiveness of actual evidence behind their expose - not faith-based theories.

They 'eventually' had the persuasiveness of actual evidence, what they started with was a hunch and nose for bull**** and a vocation to do their jobs.
I agree with you though about keeping a lid on things, but lids have been blown off many many things in the past. But I have faith in the fact that if this was a conspiracy that the truth will eventually come out, but that faith also has a responsibility. That is why I get nervous when people who should know better (and who should look to history) try to supress, ridicule or otherwise impede genuine sceptics. Let them do the questioning if your moral imperatives are skewed, at it's most ludicrious it's at least entertaining and at it's honest best it is doing us all a service.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Let them do the questioning if your moral imperatives are skewed, at it's most ludicrious it's at least entertaining and at it's honest best it is doing us all a service.

Do you see anyone stopping the questioning? Nor do I. My moral imperatives are in grand working order, cheers.

What I see are, yes, ludicrous and half-baked theories repeatedly produced despite the hard facts that disprove them. Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have lasted long at the Washington Post with that approach. Entertainment value? Significant first time out - subsequently very boring.

Di0genes

Happyman42 wrote: »

They 'eventually' had the persuasiveness of actual evidence, what they started with was a hunch and nose for bull**** and a vocation to do their jobs.

No actually what started them off, was the watergate break into the democratic party headquarters before the election, and soon afterwards a cheque which linked one of the burglars to CREEP.

Hey don't let facts get in the way of your analogy.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have lasted long at the Washington Post with that approach.

Correct....you and your like would have sacked them. Nobody knew the whole story at the begning of their investigation. W&B didn't know it would lead to the Oval Office nor did their editor, there was a leap of faith.
You believe you know the whole story of 9-11, you are saying again and again 'Stop with the conspiracy theories'.
I believe the Bush administration was in bed with the defence industry, therefore it is entirely possible that situations were exploited and that mercenary tactics were employed to create benefits.

Watergate was a conspiracy perpretrated in the highest echelons of the US Government, that imo is not minor. Nixon was believed and indeed protected by his cabinet and a huge majority of the American public also believed him until the truth came out.
Is the US government capable of something like this? I think it's possible. There are certainly those within government and benefiting from their tenure in office capable of it.
Are there facts that might emerge as a result of persistent digging? That's possible too, so keep digging.
As I said, it only takes one or two facts to emerge (supplied by insiders who can't continue with the conspiracy, as was the case with Woodward and Bernstein -Deepthroat, The Money Trail etc etc.) for the whole story to change.
I stress the word 'possible' throughout this reply.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Correct....you and your like would have sacked them.

Any editor would have sacked them if they continually presented unfounded theories - their entire investigation was based on the evidence, not groundless abstract theories. The fact is that they followed and tested actual evidence - and that's what, A. Kept them in their jobs, and B. distinguishes them from the world of CT'ers and their faith-based constructs.

Watergate may well have been important, but it was also small - the numbers of people involved were limited and certainly far far below the notional numbers required for any (take your pick) 9/11 CT. If you as president can't contain a small scale conspiracy, how do you expect to contain one that requires the ongoing complicity of thousands?

meglome

alastair wrote: »

Any editor would have sacked them if they continually presented unfounded theories - their entire investigation was based on the evidence, not groundless abstract theories. The fact is that they followed and tested actual evidence - and that's what, A. Kept them in their jobs, and B. distinguishes them from the world of CT'ers and their faith-based constructs.

Watergate may well have been important, but it was also small - the numbers of people involved were limited and certainly far far below the notional numbers required for any (take your pick) 9/11 CT. If you as president can't contain a small scale conspiracy, how do you expect to contain one that requires the ongoing complicity of thousands?

This is it exactly. A small scale conspiracy and the president of the united states couldn't keep it secret or himself in a job. But somehow in 911 many thousands of people are involved but still manage to keep it secret. So utterly unlikely as to be impossible.

Sorry to be clear about this I don't rule out some sort of conspiracy but it would need to have way less people involved.

Di0genes

Happyman42 wrote: »

Correct....you and your like would have sacked them. Nobody knew the whole story at the begning of their investigation. W&B didn't know it would lead to the Oval Office nor did their editor, there was a leap of faith.

No again sorry. It was break in at the campaign headquarters of the democratic party. It was dramatic story from the get go.

It took months of persistence, investigation and research to trace it back to the president.

Meanwhile 9/11 conspiracy theorists have had 8 years and 361 days to explain how 9/11 was an inside job, and all they have to show for it is well nothing.

Penn

I agree in a sense with what you're saying Happyman42. Persistent digging may lead to some new evidence. But the majority of CTs about 9/11 have largely been disproven, yet are still being produced as 'evidence' or 'proof'. And how much longer should we keep digging for new evidence? Its been almost 9 years, and with the technology available, and the number of people who would have had to have been involved for half the theories to be true, the fact that no solid proof has been shown speaks volumes.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Any editor would have sacked them if they continually presented unfounded theories

At what point was the story 'founded'? Nobody knew where the buck was gonna stop. (The investigations and reporting went on for 2 and a half years?)
During this time the reluctance of the American public to believe their president could be involved in the conspiracy allowed him to stay in office. You would have been one of those people, you would have rubbished the veracity of Deepthroat and W&B because you need sources (W&B never revealed who he was) You would have accepted the official line because all the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed, a huge majority of the American public believed their president. There was plenty of ridicule bestowed on the sceptics then too. That tide quickly turned when Nixon was forced to release the tapes.

I didn't mean to hijack the thread with the Watergate analogy....my essential point is that governments have and are involved in unsavory practice for varied reasons. Therefore they cannot ever be trusted. I believe that the Bush Administration was more criminally corrupt than previous administrations and that a conspiracy was possible and that it is far too early and conveinient for some to stop digging.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

At what point was the story 'founded'? Nobody knew where the buck was gonna stop. (The investigations and reporting went on for 2 and a half years?)
During this time the reluctance of the American public to believe their president could be involved in the conspiracy allowed him to stay in office. You would have been one of those people, you would have rubbished the veracity of Deepthroat and W&B because you need sources (W&B never revealed who he was) You would have accepted the official line because all the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed, a huge majority of the American public believed their president. There was plenty of ridicule bestowed on the sceptics then too. That tide quickly turned when Nixon was forced to release the tapes.

I didn't mean to hijack the thread with the Watergate analogy....my essential point is that governments have and are involved in unsavory practice for varied reasons. Therefore they cannot ever be trusted. I believe that the Bush Administration was more criminally corrupt than previous administrations and that a conspiracy was possible and that it is far too early and conveinient for some to stop digging.

The point of the Deep Throat evidence was not the veracity of the informer - it was the veracity of the evidence he pointed them towards. It's that absent veracity if evidence that distinguishes their approach to the Truthers. The Washington Post took two years to piece together the information and draw logical connections between the players and events - unlike the truthers. The issue isn't about trusting in government, or stopping digging - it's in filtering out the dross from what you dig up, and not presenting it time and time again as a foundation for a nebulous and unverified theory.

I don't have to believe that the Bush administration wasn't tainted with corruption to call bull**** on absurd truther contentions - and so far that's all that been produced.