War on terrorism , 9-11, Iluminati etc

weisses

RecordStraight wrote: »

I did. Gravity. It is a pretty well accepted theory these days.

I await your answer - unless this is the 'ask questions and refuse to answer any' forum...

Really ???

This is getting boring now ........ I thought you where into the science and facts... trolling is neither

DamagedTrax

weisses wrote: »

Really ???

This is getting boring now ........ I thought you where into the science and facts... trolling is neither

ignore list

DeanAustin

DamagedTrax wrote: »

the world trade centre had thousands of workers and was undergoing elevator work just before the attack. it would have been easy for a small covert team to be working within the structure in the months leading up to it.

motivation is as i stated above - re-entry into middle east wars and getting the patriot act thru.

So you believe that a team posing as elevator technicians planted explosive materials and no one has ever spilled the beans about it. Who do you think got them to do it?

You believe that the US government allowed this to happen to get into a war that cost them billions. Would the planes hitting the towers not have been enough to justify a war in Iraq/Afghanistan in itself?

weisses

RecordStraight wrote: »

On a side note, I detest people who wrap themselves in flags and declare themselves 'patriots', as if that somehow makes them better people than those who don't. Whip the flag off a patriot, and there's usually an arsehole under there somewhere.

Isn't it tough dealing with ordinary scientific minded people who don't agree with the official story?

Or are they all Conspiracy theorists as well ?

Ahh well I detest some people as well .. we all do i guess

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

the world trade centre had thousands of workers and was undergoing elevator work just before the attack (source NSIT report). it would have been easy for a small covert team to be working within the structure in the months leading up to it.

Where is the evidence of this team? Even if we assume nobody noticed a team bringing tons of explosives into the building and wiring the place for months, surely they would have needed an official cover story. Where is this cover story?

Are you suggesting the elevator team was the cover story? Well it can't be rocket science to find out exactly who they were, can it? They would be all over CCTV, and of course the elevator maintenance company (Otis, or one of those guys?) would either have to be complicit, or the whole elevator maintenance company would have to be a front. In which case, who hired a front company out of all the possible companies to do their elevator maintenance? Only someone complicit would hire some unknown, newly created maintenance company to do the work - so whoever was in charge of making maintenance hiring decisions must also have been complicit (if a reputable elevator company was not complicit).

You could go on and on like this, each step more ridiculous than the last, until the whole freaking world ends up complicit to make the theory work.

weisses

ScumLord wrote: »

How do you know that? Were you part of some investigation committee?

It was in the official report published by NIST

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

ignore list

Some folks just can't take a beating.

RecordStraight

weisses wrote: »

It was in the official report published by NIST

But...you don't believe that report?

Or you accept the bits that bolster your argument and reject the rest?

Scientific minded...:)

ScumLord

weisses wrote: »

I get your point

I do not think you talk about the people listed in the link below

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

I think its important to differentiate the different conspiracy theorists

Unfortunately even the best educated people can make horrible assumptions, sometimes they can be the worst because of their experience giving them a sense of infallibility.

the only way anyone could be certain of what happened is if they did a full inspection of the building and it's structure before the planes hit so they knew exactly the state of the building beforehand. They would then need to put sensors all over the building to monitor the collapse and then go through the rubble for the final data.

People can make educated guesses but that's all they'll be. I give you the way the Americans handled it leaves to much room for guess work and that their explanation wasn't satisfactory but there are a multitude of reasons for that. They've opened the door for conspiracy theories which would leave me to believe that if the US government did plan it in advance they would have had a much better plan laid out for the cover up. Flying a plane into a building then bombing another one is all just too haphazard to be a planned action.

DamagedTrax

DeanAustin wrote: »

So you believe that a team posing as elevator technicians planted explosive materials and no one has ever spilled the beans about it. Who do you think got them to do it?

i dont believe it as there is no proof of it. i can see it as a possibility judging on previous form of intelligence agencies.

as to who got them to do it? that depends on who paid for the job. there are various reports on this man being behind it. but little proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_Ahmed

You believe that the US government allowed this to happen to get into a war that cost them billions. Would the planes hitting the towers not have been enough to justify a war in Iraq/Afghanistan in itself?

again the word believe, i dont believe any of it without proof but i digress.

i dont quite get what you mean by the last part? the planes were the justification for war, thats what i said earlier. although how iraq became entangled is still a mystery.

as for the cost of war? if you look at who benifitted financially from the war and the clean up/rebuild, you would be forgiven for thinking they are the same military & engineering companies that made massive donations to the republican party.

MOH

Maybe I'm missing something here, but if the planes crashing into the towers wasn't enough to bring them down ... so what?
Why bother demolishing them?

Surely the act of ramming a couple of passenger planes into office buildings in the middle of a major city is as much a justification as is needed, don't see why you'd need to bother having a massive conspiracy to demolish them as well.

You're only widening your risk of exposure for no real gain.

There is absolutely no logic to it.

weisses

whatstherush wrote: »

Your quote specifically mentions kerosene, which would be one of the twin towers?
"If fire from kerosene (jet fuel) and office debris were sufficient equipment to bring a steel-frame building neatly down into its footprint, then why the need for the intensely sophisticated demolition industry?"

So do you agree with the quote you posted in your demolition expert post?

Yes

RecordStraight

ScumLord wrote: »

They've opened the door for conspiracy theories which would leave me to believe that if the US government did plan it in advance they would have had a much better plan laid out for the cover up.

Let's be honest, they wouldn't have had to open the door at all. There isn't a single terrorist attack or mass-shooting anymore that isn't a false-flag attack - or a completely staged event - these days.

But there is good news in that that also means killing sprees by nutters and genuine terrorist attacks have somehow ceased since the internet conspiracy theorist culture developed.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i dont believe it as there is no proof of it. i can see it as a possibility judging on previous form of intelligence agencies.

as to who got them to do it? that depends on who paid for the job. there are various reports on this man being behind it. but little proof.

This man believes everything and nothing simultaneously. Well, except for what actually happened.

DamagedTrax

MOH wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something here, but if the planes crashing into the towers wasn't enough to bring them down ... so what?
Why bother demolishing them?

Surely the act of ramming a couple of passenger planes into office buildings in the middle of a major city is as much a justification as is needed, don't see why you'd need to bother having a massive conspiracy to demolish them as well.

You're only widening your risk of exposure for no real gain.

There is absolutely no logic to it.

there is always logic, sometimes its not as clear but the link below raises questions again.

the cost of redoing the buildings would have been astronomical. and larry silverstein got a 4.3 billion payout from the insurance.

http://www.asbestos.com/world-trade-center/

weisses

RecordStraight wrote: »

But...you don't believe that report?

Or you accept the bits that bolster your argument and reject the rest?

Scientific minded...:)

The fact if I believe it doesn't come into play ... I mention it to point it out to people who do believe the report to be factual and scientific.

"using" the fact that debris hit the building to counter the Conspiracy theorists point of view regarding the collapse of building 7 doesn't hold if you believe the official version

RecordStraight

MOH wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something here, but if the planes crashing into the towers wasn't enough to bring them down ... so what?
Why bother demolishing them?

Surely the act of ramming a couple of passenger planes into office buildings in the middle of a major city is as much a justification as is needed, don't see why you'd need to bother having a massive conspiracy to demolish them as well.

You're only widening your risk of exposure for no real gain.

There is absolutely no logic to it.

Indeed. And as I've pointed out, they would have had to demolish the buildings anyway even if they hadn't collapsed.

One of the buildings damaged in the IRA docklands bombing had to be completely demolished, and that was an attack involving only half a ton of explosives near the building.

RecordStraight

weisses wrote: »

The fact if I believe it doesn't come into play ... I mention it to point it out to people who do believe the report to be factual and scientific.

"using" the fact that debris hit the building to counter the Conspiracy theorists point of view regarding the collapse of building 7 doesn't hold if you believe the official version

Yes, but there is an explanation for the collapse in the NIST report. I don't see how it makes sense to reject some of it and use other parts to your advantage.

If the report was part of a vast cover-up, why didn't they just say 'yeah, sure, the debris DID play a role in bringing it down'?

ScumLord

DamagedTrax wrote: »

the cost of redoing the buildings would have been astronomical. and larry silverstein got a 4.3 billion payout from the insurance.

So it was the construction industry behind the attacks? the list of conspirators expands by a few thousand people on every page of this discussion.

weisses

ScumLord wrote: »

They've opened the door for conspiracy theories which would leave me to believe that if the US government did plan it in advance they would have had a much better plan laid out for the cover up. Flying a plane into a building then bombing another one is all just too haphazard to be a planned action.

My view is that it was allowed to happen to push the neoconservative policy.

RecordStraight

weisses wrote: »

My view is that it was allowed to happen to push the neoconservative policy.

But the whole executive was neo-con - they didn't need any help to push through anything.

DamagedTrax

ScumLord wrote: »

So it was the construction industry behind the attacks? the list of conspirators expands by a few thousand people on every page of this discussion.

what are you on about? the poster asked for a reason why the towers also had to come down. the asbestos lead is just another angle.

for the last time I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED AND DONT CLAIM TO.


do you guys seriously toe the line that hard that all you can see is joos, aliens, lizards and david icke? do you honestly not believe that there are forces on this planet that would be capable of wiping out you and your entire family and everyone that ever knew you without a second thought about it?

RecordStraight

ScumLord wrote: »

So it was the construction industry behind the attacks? the list of conspirators expands by a few thousand people on every page of this discussion.

I'm telling you, we're all going to be roped in by the end of this.

DeanAustin

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i dont believe it as there is no proof of it. i can see it as a possibility judging on previous form of intelligence agencies.

as to who got them to do it? that depends on who paid for the job. there are various reports on this man being behind it. but little proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_Ahmed

Why would he be behind it?

DamagedTrax wrote: »

again the word believe, i dont believe any of it without proof but i digress.

i dont quite get what you mean by the last part? the planes were the justification for war, thats what i said earlier. although how iraq became entangled is still a mystery.

as for the cost of war? if you look at who benifitted financially from the war and the clean up/rebuild, you would be forgiven for thinking they are the same military & engineering companies that made massive donations to the republican party.

So what do you believe?

By the last part, I mean, surely you don't believe that the planes didn't hit the buildings? If so, why was there a need to plant further explosives to bring them down?

Terrorist crashing passenger jets into the Twin Towers would have been justification enough for war. What you've suggested, unless I'm reading you wrong, is that the CIA knew that terrorists would crash planes into the Twin Towers but they also thought they'd help the terrorists by planting explosives to bring the towers down in order for the US government to go to war in the Iraq/Afghanistan.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

do you honestly not believe that there are forces on this planet that would be capable of wiping out you and your entire family and everyone that ever knew you without a second thought about it?

Sure. Tsunamis, earthquakes...

weisses

RecordStraight wrote: »

Yes, but there is an explanation for the collapse in the NIST report. I don't see how it makes sense to reject some of it and use other parts to your advantage.

Explanation using their own fabricated computer model which no one could use to reproduce it .... how scientific

RecordStraight wrote: »

If the report was part of a vast cover-up, why didn't they just say 'yeah, sure, the debris DID play a role in bringing it down'?

It could have had implications to the theory they presented ... no one know because the evidence/science/facts as to how they reached their conclusions where never published .... So it remains a theory

weisses

RecordStraight wrote: »

But the whole executive was neo-con - they didn't need any help to push through anything.

So you honestly believe the patriot act would be signed without 9/11 ??

DamagedTrax

DeanAustin wrote: »

Why would he be behind it?

who knows.

why did 70%(ish.. im looking for the source right now) of US soldiers think they were in iraq to avenge 911?

By the last part, I mean, surely you don't believe that the planes didn't hit the buildings? If so, why was there a need to plant further explosives to bring them down?

yea i believe they hit the building. see my asbestos link above for a possible reason they were taken down.


you have to ask yourelf. to the type of people involved was the 4000 odd lives worth the billions of dollars gained?

weisses

RecordStraight wrote: »

One of the buildings damaged in the IRA docklands bombing had to be completely demolished, and that was an attack involving only half a ton of explosives near the building.

I know of a building that had a few office fires and completely collapsed without the need for demolition later ...... who needs 500 kg of explosives ?

RecordStraight

weisses wrote: »

Explanation using their own fabricated computer model which no one could use to reproduce it .... how scientific

You would prefer if they used an organic computer model they found in nature?
They had to make a computer model - unless you have another idea?

weisses wrote: »

It could have had implications to the theory they presented ... no one know because the evidence/science/facts as to how they reached their conclusions where never published .... So it remains a theory

If they were trying to cover up stuff, they should have claimed that everything contributed to the collapse. The fact that they didn't suggests there was some scientific rigour involved.

RecordStraight

weisses wrote: »

So you honestly believe the patriot act would be signed without 9/11 ??

I honestly don't know. Do you honestly believe they couldn't get it passed in a way that didn't cost thousands of US lives and expose hundreds or thousands of them to the death penalty for treason?

RecordStraight

weisses wrote: »

I know of a building that had a few office fires and completely collapsed without the need for demolition later ...... who needs 500 kg of explosives ?

Excellent. So you agree that it would make no sense for 'THEM' to have all the buildings wired up for demolition AS WELL as having the planes crash into the Twin Towers?

ScumLord

DamagedTrax wrote: »

what are you on about?

I was just having the craic lad.

do you guys seriously toe the line that hard that all you can see is joos, aliens, lizards and david icke? do you honestly not believe that there are forces on this planet that would be capable of wiping out you and your entire family and everyone that ever knew you without a second thought about it?

The Americans could wipe us all out but the pres couldn't just decide to push the button one day, there would be procedures.

I don't believe there is an organised force working together to subjugate the rest of the human race. There is a small minority of super wealthy people that hang out in the same circles and end up doing deals with each other because they need to do deals with other super rich people but they're all competing with each other at the same time. On the outside everything they do mostly serves themselves and their circle but from the inside they're all probably trying to topple each other.

It's hard enough to keep people organised and content enough to toe the line. The problem with these global wealthy conspiracies is that once one person gets disgruntled or see's an opportunity to take someone else wealth by releasing information about them, they won't hesitate to spill the beans.

All it takes is for one of them to get drunk and start bragging for the whole conspiracy to come crumbling down. It's too hard to maintain the lie on this scale.

Fighting Irish

DeanAustin wrote: »

So you believe that a team posing as elevator technicians planted explosive materials and no one has ever spilled the beans about it. Who do you think got them to do it?

You believe that the US government allowed this to happen to get into a war that cost them billions. Would the planes hitting the towers not have been enough to justify a war in Iraq/Afghanistan in itself?

It didn't cost them billions

weisses

RecordStraight wrote: »

If they were trying to cover up stuff, they should have claimed that everything contributed to the collapse. The fact that they didn't suggests there was some scientific rigour involved.

They just traded one possibility for the other

They couldn't explain (make a model) of a symmetrical collapse due to debris from 1 of the towers ... assume it yes

They could however make a model from known facts (building plans etc) all the rest is also guess work In the end they could kinda make the model do what they wanted but even that is not even close to resembling the actual collapse sequence as is demonstrated in various articles online

weisses

RecordStraight wrote: »

I honestly don't know. Do you honestly believe they couldn't get it passed in a way that didn't cost thousands of US lives and expose hundreds or thousands of them to the death penalty for treason?

Yes

And don't forget the 200.000 deaths in Iraq as a result of this

DeanAustin

DamagedTrax wrote: »

who knows.

why did 70%(ish.. im looking for the source right now) of US soldiers think they were in iraq to avenge 911?

What's that got to do with what I asked?

DamagedTrax wrote: »

yea i believe they hit the building. see my asbestos link above for a possible reason they were taken down.


you have to ask yourelf. to the type of people involved was the 4000 odd lives worth the billions of dollars gained?

Didn't see the asbestos link. What's the short version?

So you think already incredibly wealthy people would risk going down in history as the people who conspired to kill 4,000 of their own and they would risk the death penalty to make themselves a bit richer? Bear in mind that these aren't small risks. You have a big operation that could be uncovered by anyone in the WTC or you would have to have a lot of people involved and assume that none would spill the beans at some stage.

DeanAustin

Fighting Irish wrote: »

It didn't cost them billions

You're right, it was trillions. Point still stands though.

http://nation.time.com/2011/06/29/the-5-trillion-war-on-terror/

weisses

DeanAustin wrote: »

You believe that the US government allowed this to happen to get into a war that cost them billions. Would the planes hitting the towers not have been enough to justify a war in Iraq/Afghanistan in itself?

http://www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-iraq-war-contracts-kbr-395-billion-decade-1135905

Hey Halliburton gets mentioned

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/24/chris-matthews/chris-matthews-says-cheney-got-34-million-payday-h/

RecordStraight

weisses wrote: »

Yes

And don't forget the 200.000 deaths in Iraq as a result of this

Why do you think 'THEY' (who are they, by the way?) were so keen to get this snooping act passed that they would risk their own lives and kill thousands of others to do it?

And they could think of no other way at all, even though they controlled the US executive (and congress, for all we know)?

Would it not have been easier to identify the 10 or 15 or whatever senators they needed to persuade to pass such a bill (in its exact form, with no compromises) and threaten/bribe/kill/honey-trap them, as necessary?

(Edit - actually the senate was split 50-50 in 2001 - if the Republicans voted with their president, you'd only need ONE democrat to abstain to carry the vote. Seems like that might have been easier than a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people committing treason and thousands of deaths)

DeanAustin

weisses wrote: »

http://www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-iraq-war-contracts-kbr-395-billion-decade-1135905

Hey Halliburton gets mentioned

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/24/chris-matthews/chris-matthews-says-cheney-got-34-million-payday-h/

Not sure what your point is.

The poster was saying the planes weren't enough to bring the towers down on their own and there was potentially a covert team of elevator technicians who planted explosives to finish the job.

My question is, wouldn't the planes hitting the towers have been enough to justify the war that gave Halliburton their big pay day in Iraq? Why the need to take the risk of also planting explosives?

RecordStraight

DeanAustin wrote: »

My question is, wouldn't the planes hitting the towers have been enough to justify the war that gave Halliburton their big pay day in Iraq? Why the need to take the risk of also planting explosives?

Stop asking awkward/obvious questions, or brace yourself for a torrent of insults from DT!

weisses

RecordStraight wrote: »

Why do you think 'THEY' (who are they, by the way?) were so keen to get this snooping act passed that they would risk their own lives and kill thousands of others to do it?

Who's live was in Danger

And may I remind you of operation Northwood

Among the most elaborate schemes was to "create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

RecordStraight wrote: »

And they could think of no other way at all, even though they controlled the US executive (and congress, for all we know)?

Imagine the backlash from the voters ... You need the people behind you and letting 9/11 happen they got the people behind them

DeanAustin

weisses wrote: »

Who's live was in Danger

And may I remind you of operation Northwood



http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html



Imagine the backlash from the voters ... You need the people behind you and letting 9/11 happen they got the people behind them

So you believe that the US (government or intelligence agencies) allowed terrorists to crash planes into the WTC rather than played an active part in it?

weisses

DeanAustin wrote: »

Not sure what your point is.

The poster was saying the planes weren't enough to bring the towers down on their own and there was potentially a covert team of elevator technicians who planted explosives to finish the job.

My question is, wouldn't the planes hitting the towers have been enough to justify the war that gave Halliburton their big pay day in Iraq? Why the need to take the risk of also planting explosives?

My point is that you said it cost billions .. that is true but key figures in government got very wealthy because of this .... coincidence? .. I think not

RecordStraight

weisses wrote: »

Who's live was in Danger

Everyone who was involved in the conspiracy, all the way up to Bush.

weisses wrote: »

And may I remind you of operation Northwood



http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html



Imagine the backlash from the voters ... You need the people behind you and letting 9/11 happen they got the people behind them

You can remind me, but I'll remind you that the US government shot down the notion.

DeanAustin

weisses wrote: »

My point is that you said it cost billions .. that is true but key figures in government got very wealthy because of this .... coincidence? .. I think not

That doesn't address my question.

Do you think that the planes themselves brought down the towers or do you think that there was something else that brought, or helped bring, them down?

RecordStraight

weisses wrote: »

My point is that you said it cost billions .. that is true but key figures in government got very wealthy because of this .... coincidence? .. I think not

I'll point out that US presidents and senior staff before and since get very wealthy out of their positions. That's one of the reasons they do it - most of them could earn far more outside public office. How wealthy is Bill Clinton now, who was nearly bankrupted when president?

weisses

DeanAustin wrote: »

So you believe that the US (government or intelligence agencies) allowed terrorists to crash planes into the WTC rather than played an active part in it?

Both ... Just look into the lack of response from the fighters and the FAA (exercises)

weisses

RecordStraight wrote: »

Everyone who was involved in the conspiracy, all the way up to Bush.

Why ?? from who ?

RecordStraight wrote: »

You can remind me, but I'll remind you that the US government shot down the notion.

Kennedy did that ...... 1 person