911 Truth Movement

[Disco08]

I'd need to look deeper into the facts. Where those decisions to disarm the pilots something that was being debated a while, we're they out of the blue ? What was the reasoning behind it ?

Without that knowledge I couldn't make any call other than coincidence.

So all the Twoofists have is a "maybe" for this ? I said earlier that I wouldn't be shocked to hear Larry sat on his hands and did nothing extra to try and keep his building up. I mean he's just seen his new investment literally crumble to the ground. Despite the insurance it's hard to know what went through his mind.

But to plant explosives and blow the building up in the middle of what was happening ? That's the difference between not trying to stop it collapsing and trying t Mae it collapse.

Oh, in this maybe, did he plan the explosives before the WTC event or during it ?

Depends I guess. Do you believe all the eyewitness testimony of explosions inside WTC7 right before it collapsed? I suggest maybe looking up Barry Jennings' testimony, among others. Do you put any stock at all in the hundreds of experts who say the official explanation is flawed? Do you believe the demolition experts who say the collapse had all the trademarks of a controlled demolition? Or do you simply dismiss all this out of hand because the burden of a wider explanation is too difficult to ponder?

Larry tried to sue for two separate attacks, each insured for $3.5B. His motivation therefore was $7B. As I said, far more than required to rebuild which begs the question as to why you'd pay presumably much higher premiums to specifically cover such an unlikely event to the extent you make a sizeable profit. Why not just pay the premium required to rebuild if the probability is obviously very low? I mean, what chance was there that WTC7 was going to collapse because of a terrorist attack? Obviously the implication is if Larry had prior knowledge then so did others which opens up a veritable can of worms.

I can't believe youre hung up on this particular fact. I've been involved in small scale business deals, and been on the periphery of some biggish ones, what I've learnt is, as the $$ gets bigger, the contracts get fatter and the possibilities covered get more remote and whacky. Its just the way things work, they want to cover every single base. And the WTC had been attacked before anyway. The thing is, with all these eyebrow raising anomolies, I bet there is a heap more that would suggest the opposite. Business deals signed just before the disaster that resulted in huge losses that nobody saw coming. But Conspiracy theorists just don't notice that stuff, it doesn't register, they just trawl for stuff that fits their pre-concieved view.

Noam Chompsky, you really didn't like his analysis right? Too clean? Too sensible?

Noam presumes a massive conspiracy. I think this isn't necessary. I also entirely disagree with his final assertion about world snapshots being too complex to draw conclusion from. I agree that one snapshot reveals nothing, but in this case there are potentially hundreds. At what point do you stop ignoring them and attempt to make sense of them? I also think his description of how little emphasis Bush put on protecting his country from terrorism is quite revealing. If GW was so incompassionate about it why is it so inconceivable he might also try and profit from it?

 

[tigersnake]

This is what I believe, and they squeezed it for everything they could get.

But its just too big a risk for not enough gain. The companies that profited, the US military, would still have made money elsewhere, maybe not as much, but still a lot. Buts its not like their existence was threatened unless they did something unpredictable and catastrophic and reprehensible. It just doesn't wash. Also, it isn't naive to say that there just wouldn't be enough cold-blooded psychos to carry this out and keep it quiet for money. There MIGHT be a few, a handful, but you'd need a good number to pull it off.

To keep a wartime massacre of civilians on foreign soil quiet is one thing, to keep the calculated murder of thousands of your own citizens quiet is another altogether.

 

[Disco08]

Possibly why GW put so many restrictions on the enquiry and why he demanded he and Cheney not be made to testify under oath. If he had nothing to hide, why would have taken such measures?

 

[tigersnake]

Possibly why GW put so many restrictions on the enquiry and why he demanded he and Cheney not be made to testify under oath. If he had nothing to hide, why would have taken such measures?

He would have made a goose of himself. There were stuff-ups, no doubt about that.

 

[Baloo]

Depends I guess. Do you believe all the eyewitness testimony of explosions inside WTC7 right before it collapsed? I suggest maybe looking up Barry Jennings' testimony, among others. Do you put any stock at all in the hundreds of experts who say the official explanation is flawed? Do you believe the demolition experts who say the collapse had all the trademarks of a controlled demolition?

Does Barry know what the explosions were ? You have a building that's been burning for a while. It's not difficult to believe that there would be things exploding in there. Oil tanks for heating ? Gas lines ? Transformers ? It's more likely it was those types of things exploding than there would be of Larry blowing it up.

The hallmarks of the way it collapsed may, to some, have resembled a controlled explosion, but that doesn't mean that what caused WTC7 to collapse was a controlled blast.

Or do you simply dismiss all this out of hand because the burden of a wider explanation is too difficult to ponder?

What am I dismissing ?

Again, when did Larry plant these explosives ? Before WTC7 or after the planes hit ?

Larry tried to sue for two separate attacks, each insured for $3.5B. His motivation therefore was $7B. As I said, far more than required to rebuild which begs the question as to why you'd pay presumably much higher premiums to specifically cover such an unlikely event to the extent you make a sizeable profit. Why not just pay the premium required to rebuild if the probability is obviously very low? I mean, what chance was there that WTC7 was going to collapse because of a terrorist attack? Obviously the implication is if Larry had prior knowledge then so did others which opens up a veritable can of worms.

Are you surprised he didn't try to maximise the insurance claim ? Really ? The fact that someone is trying to extract as much as possible from insurance when there is a claim is just standard procedure.

There had already been a terrorist attempt to bring down the WTC with the car loaded with explosives in the basement. To exclude that possibility of happening again when looking at insurance coverage would be stupid and negligent on Larry's part. he's neither if he can afford the WTC.

 

[snaps truly]

I really don't know the answers to your questions, as i'm sure most people on the planet would'nt either. There are so many questions left unanswered, and the government seems to have hindered a lot of them being answered. Some of the reasoning given, not unlike Bush himself, is farfetched, not unlike some of the conspireces i agree. But I believe there's a lot more than meets the eye unfortunately.


I can remember being chilled as I watched it unfold on the day, and am still just as chilled by it now, even moreso.

I would like to think a government would be remotely honest (we all know sensative info is often kept from the public for one reason or another) with it's people. Unfortunately the US doesn't have a good track record in regards to this IMO.

 

[Baloo]

I really don't know the answers to your questions, as i'm sure most people on the planet would'nt either. There are so many questions left unanswered, and the government seems to have hindered a lot of them being answered. Some of the reasoning given, not unlike Bush himself, is farfetched, not unlike some of the conspireces i agree. But I believe there's a lot more than meets the eye unfortunately.


I can remember being chilled as I watched it unfold on the day, and am still just as chilled by it now, even moreso.

I would like to think a government would be remotely honest (we all know sensative info is often kept from the public for one reason or another) with it's people. Unfortunately the US doesn't have a good track record in regards to this IMO.

It's a big leap from believing there is more than meets the eye to categorically believing the US government knew it was going to happen, let it happen and tried to extract every possible advantage out of it.

 

[Disco08]

Does Barry know what the explosions were ? You have a building that's been burning for a while. It's not difficult to believe that there would be things exploding in there. Oil tanks for heating ? Gas lines ? Transformers ? It's more likely it was those types of things exploding than there would be of Larry blowing it up.

The hallmarks of the way it collapsed may, to some, have resembled a controlled explosion, but that doesn't mean that what caused WTC7 to collapse was a controlled blast.
What am I dismissing ?

Again, when did Larry plant these explosives ? Before WTC7 or after the planes hit ?

Are you surprised he didn't try to maximise the insurance claim ? Really ? The fact that someone is trying to extract as much as possible from insurance when there is a claim is just standard procedure.

There had already been a terrorist attempt to bring down the WTC with the car loaded with explosives in the basement. To exclude that possibility of happening again when looking at insurance coverage would be stupid and negligent on Larry's part. he's neither if he can afford the WTC.

Of course I'm surprised. Why try to maximise a claim on an event that would be millions to one to happen? Like I asked already, how likely is it that WTC7 would be destroyed by terrorist attack?

It takes weeks/months to rig a building for demolition so clealy if WTC7 was brought down this way the explosives were positioned prior to 9/11.

Barry Jennings gives a very detailed description as the last person inside WTC7 before it collapses. He describes multiple explosions and entire floors missing and dead bodies everywhere. It's worth watching and also noting that he died of unexplained causes 2 days before the official report on WTC7 was finally released 7 years after the event.

http://barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.com.au/

What you seem to be dismissing is a large amount of circumstantial evidence pointing towards the controlled demolition of WTC7 because the concept of a conspiracy is too much of a burden the explain.

 

[Disco08]

It's a big leap from believing there is more than meets the eye to categorically believing the US government knew it was going to happen, let it happen and tried to extract every possible advantage out of it.

It would be if there weren't a large number of coincidences all pointing in that general direction.

 

[Baloo]

Of course I'm surprised. Why try to maximise a claim on an event that would be millions to one to happen? Like I asked already, how likely is it that WTC7 would be destroyed by terrorist attack?

You're being niave if you don't expect anyone to maximise an insurance claim. My point is once the event happened, he tried to maximise the payout. Not that he deliberately increased terrorist destruction of the WTC insurance because he knew it was going to happen. A very distinct difference.

It takes weeks/months to rig a building for demolition so clealy if WTC7 was brought down this way the explosives were positioned prior to 9/11.

So you're implying Larry wired up WTC7 weeks and months in advance because he and by default the Government and security forces knew that planes were headed for the WTC ? So not only do we have intelligence and government people in the know and keeping quiet, we now have explosives experts and their support people in the know and keeping quiet about it ?

Barry Jennings gives a very detailed description as the last person inside WTC7 before it collapses. He describes multiple explosions and entire floors missing and dead bodies everywhere. It's worth watching and also noting that he died of unexplained causes 2 days before the official report on WTC7 was finally released 7 years after the event.

http://barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.com.au/

I'll read up on Barry but it's convenient for both sides that he's no longer around.

What you seem to be dismissing is a large amount of circumstantial evidence pointing towards the controlled demolition of WTC7 because the concept of a conspiracy is too much of a burden the explain.

Yep, precisely. Just like ID. I think the possibility that a conspiracy of this magnitude being pulled of and everyone involved keeping quiet, for reasons that really don't make sense, are just as likely as ID. There is no chance, IMO, that the US government could or would do this.

 

[Baloo]

It would be if there weren't a large number of coincidences all pointing in that general direction.

I was querying snap's stance. One post is that he has no doubt the US Gov knew in advance and maximised it's advantage, the next he said there is more to it than meets the eye. I'm trying to work out what is stance is.

 

[Disco08]

I think he's defining his position based on his interpretation of the evidence. Nothing wrong with that if you ask me.

You're being niave if you don't expect anyone to maximise an insurance claim. My point is once the event happened, he tried to maximise the payout. Not that he deliberately increased terrorist destruction of the WTC insurance because he knew it was going to happen. A very distinct difference.

To maxximise his claim he had to insure the terrorist event to that level when he took out the policy. Why do that when the likelihood of such an event is so remote?

So you're implying Larry wired up WTC7 weeks and months in advance because he and by default the Government and security forces knew that planes were headed for the WTC ? So not only do we have intelligence and government people in the know and keeping quiet, we now have explosives experts and their support people in the know and keeping quiet about it ?

I don't see why we need to make assumptions as to the number of people involved at this point. Isn't it better to test the CD hypothesis extensively first and worry about the implications later? That's all anyone's asking for as far as I can see.

I'll read up on Barry but it's convenient for both sides that he's no longer around.

How is it convenient for those who disbelieve the official narrative?

In case you don't have a watch of the 10 minute video I linked to, the major point is that Barry reports experiencing explosions inside WTC7 before either tower had collapsed. He was also told to evacuate the command center (he was deputy commander of the Emrgency Services Department of NY Housing) before either tower had collapsed and is witness to the fact the command center had already been evacuated at that point. He made these statements on 9/11 and stuck by them the entire time. He worked for NY housing for 33 years.

Yep, precisely. Just like ID. I think the possibility that a conspiracy of this magnitude being pulled of and everyone involved keeping quiet, for reasons that really don't make sense, are just as likely as ID. There is no chance, IMO, that the US government could or would do this.

So indeed, you're dismissing evidence that demands explanation. Like I said, investigate first and draw conclusion after.

FWIW, ID has no such "evidence" that demands explanation so again, terrible analogy.

 

[Harry]

But its just too big a risk for not enough gain.

very little risk of being exposed actually. the media tell the people what they need to believe, investigations are orchastrated by insiders, lies are fabricated into the truth and people questioning the authorities are labelled unpatriotic conspicarcy theorists. don't underestimate the herd mentality in society, people are influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviours.

news reporters on the day reported hearing explosions everywhere, reported the buildings falling like a controlled demolition, reported no evidence of plane wreckage at the pentagon and pennsylvania. This was real time reporting but they quickly changed their tune. A brief chat with the senior execs who had a tap on the shoulder from those above them, and those from those above them, instructed to not question the official story. None of these people need to be involved or have any knowledge, but the herd mentality quickly set's in otherwise it's your job and lively hood on the line if you don't' toe the party line. Those with doubts quickly come around.

how did they get the explosives in? let's see. all you need is full access of the security of the building - reports indicate that Bush's brother's security company had the contract. give full building access to one or two demolition experts and they could wire it up over a month or 2. disguise the operation as elevator remodelling or something like that and the senior guys in the security company would instruct his men to allow these blokes carrying boxes into the buildings after hours. Again only one person needs to know what's really happening within the security comp and who's gonna question the man on the top.

The NORAD situation? who's gonna question within if they have been instructed from above to go out for a daytrip and play simulation games, and follow new policies recently introduced?

I see it everyday at my workplace, when the guy at the top rants and raves and is clearly out of step with reality, people do not dare question him.

It would take less people involved than most think if these people held positions of significant power in the right places.

 

[Baloo]

I read the following excerpts from Barry Jennings. http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Barry_Jennings

Nothing there that I think would be considered a smoking gun. The guys has been stuck in the middle of collapsing buildings for 4 or 5 hours. Even the stepping over bodies bit. He doesn't say he saw bodies, he said he was told not to look down and that he felt he was walking over bodies.

Where is Hess's interview collaborating Jennings' account of what happened ?

To maxximise his claim he had to insure the terrorist event to that level when he took out the policy. Why do that when the likelihood of such an event is so remote?

How is it remote ? Someone had already tried to do exactly that to the WTC.

I don't see why we need to make assumptions as to the number of people involved at this point. Isn't it better to test the CD hypothesis extensively first and worry about the implications later? That's all anyone's asking for as far as I can see.

Let me get this straight. It's ok to make assumptions about why it's a conspiracy but not ok to make assumptions about how it couldn't be a conspiracy ?

How is it convenient for those who disbelieve the official narrative?

He can't be challenged any more. His mutterings are now set in stone so he can't be questioned. More convenient for the conspiracy theorists than it is for anyone else. Unless you're a conspiracy theorist of course.

In case you don't have a watch of the 10 minute video I linked to, the major point is that Barry reports experiencing explosions inside WTC7 before either tower had collapsed. He was also told to evacuate the command center (he was deputy commander of the Emrgency Services Department of NY Housing) before either tower had collapsed and is witness to the fact the command center had already been evacuated at that point. He made these statements on 9/11 and stuck by them the entire time. He worked for NY housing for 33 years.

Yes, but what caused those explosions ? In the confusion of being trapped in the building for hours, what's his time perception like ? With everything happening, smoke, sirens, confusion, where the explsions from within WTC7 or across the road ?

So indeed, you're dismissing evidence that demands explanation. Like I said, investigate first and draw conclusion after.

What"'evidence" ? There is no "evidence" pointing to a conspiracy. The conclusion comes from investigating the possibility of this being a conspiracy. No chance, in my mind, of that being possible.

FWIW, ID has no such "evidence" that demands explanation so again, terrible analogy.

To you maybe, but to me there isn't much difference which is why I keep making the analogy.

So, tell me, was it the US Government and it's agencies, Larry, face-lees power brokers or a combination that planned, plotted and executed WTC ?

Why did they do it ?

How could they have kept everyone in the loop quiet before, during and after the event ?

If any troofist can answer those questions with any sort of credibility I'll gladly spend more time digging into the details. Bet when what is being proposed is so fanciful and ridiculous there's no point in wasting my time.

 

[Disco08]

Here's a picture I'd love to see "reasonably explained". It's a still of a BBC broadcast and clearly shows WTC7 standing behind the newsreader. It's taken 23 minutes before the collapse occured:

If the collapse of WTC7 took 7 years to offically explain, how was it that anyone knew it was coming down up at an hour and a half prior? If the structural fault was that obvious surely an explanation was easy to find and would have taken less than a year to prepare. This faux pas occured on 6 different tv networks. Why?

 

[Willo]

This may help explain it.

 

[snaps truly]

I was querying snap's stance. One post is that he has no doubt the US Gov knew in advance and maximised it's advantage, the next he said there is more to it than meets the eye. I'm trying to work out what is stance is.

My stance is that I believe the US government had intel the towers would be hit. They warned people who then made money out of it. The government used the attacks to create a fear so great, the population would back any military action they wanted, thus making money out of it for people involved in military and resourse contracts.

There are some credible explanations that you guys have covered very well on both sides, and I would never claim to have more knowledge than posters on here on this topic, but I believe the government is hiding what really happened on 9/11. Whether that is incompitence or complicity, we will never know.

 

[Baloo]

Here's a picture I'd love to see "reasonably explained". It's a still of a BBC broadcast and clearly shows WTC7 standing behind the newsreader. It's taken 23 minutes before the collapse occured:

If the collapse of WTC7 took 7 years to offically explain, how was it that anyone knew it was coming down up at an hour and a half prior? If the structural fault was that obvious surely an explanation was easy to find and would have taken less than a year to prepare. This faux pas occured on 6 different tv networks. Why?

From wikipedia

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[33] Over the course of the day fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[34][35] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[30] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[36] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[37] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[38] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[39] At 5:20:33 pm EDT the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, and at 5:21:10 pm EDT it collapsed completely.[2][40] There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

That seems to answer most of your questions.

 

[Baloo]

My stance is that I believe the US government had intel the towers would be hit. They warned people who then made money out of it. The government used the attacks to create a fear so great, the population would back any military action they wanted, thus making money out of it for people involved in military and resourse contracts.

Fair enough. I just don't see how a) the risk is worth the reward. Iraq showed us the US will make up reasons to go to war and don't need evidence to support the reasons. b) how everyone involved, and there would be many, have kept quiet before, during and after. To me that over rides everything else about this debate.

 

[Disco08]

I read the following excerpts from Barry Jennings. http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Barry_Jennings

Nothing there that I think would be considered a smoking gun. The guys has been stuck in the middle of collapsing buildings for 4 or 5 hours. Even the stepping over bodies bit. He doesn't say he saw bodies, he said he was told not to look down and that he felt he was walking over bodies.

Where is Hess's interview collaborating Jennings' account of what happened ?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080918031403456

Why would anything be exploding inside WTC7 before either tower collapsed? Why would the emergency services command center be evacuated in a hurry before either tower had collapsed?

How is it remote ? Someone had already tried to do exactly that to the WTC.

Who tried to previously destroy WTC7? Its policy was separate to the twin towers AFAIK. Certainly two claims were made.

Let me get this straight. It's ok to make assumptions about why it's a conspiracy but not ok to make assumptions about how it couldn't be a conspiracy ?

I'd say it's better to not make assumptions at all until all the evidence has been thouroughly explained. Again, all most deniers are asking is for a complete and independent investigation into the events. If there's nothing to hide, why resist?

He can't be challenged any more. His mutterings are now set in stone so he can't be questioned. More convenient for the conspiracy theorists than it is for anyone else. Unless you're a conspiracy theorist of course.

His "mutterings"? Seriously? The dude's a hero and a lifelong emergency services senior. He lived 7 years after his first testimony. Plenty of time for anyone to challenge his testimony if they felt it was necessary.

Yes, but what caused those explosions ? In the confusion of being trapped in the building for hours, what's his time perception like ? With everything happening, smoke, sirens, confusion, where the explsions from within WTC7 or across the road ?

Given the damage he describes inside WTC7 it would seem they were inside that building. I also don't see any reason to question his "time perception". If anything peoples senses become more alert in times of stress and this guy was trained to perform in such environments.

What"'evidence" ? There is no "evidence" pointing to a conspiracy. The conclusion comes from investigating the possibility of this being a conspiracy. No chance, in my mind, of that being possible.

Read a few TM sites and you'll find all sorts of evidence that people think is suspicious and requiring explanation. Like I said, every aspect of this event has facts involved with it that don't seem to add up. If they did, no one would be asking questions. This doesn't mean they need to create an alternate hypothsis. In fact, their position is the sensible one: Investigate fully and draw conclusion later.

To you maybe, but to me there isn't much difference which is why I keep making the analogy.

Did you manage to find anyone expert in their field that supports ID and hasn't been discredited yet? Let me know when you get to 2000 and I'll concede you may have a point.

So, tell me, was it the US Government and it's agencies, Larry, face-lees power brokers or a combination that planned, plotted and executed WTC ?

Why did they do it ?

How could they have kept everyone in the loop quiet before, during and after the event ?

If any troofist can answer those questions with any sort of credibility I'll gladly spend more time digging into the details. Bet when what is being proposed is so fanciful and ridiculous there's no point in wasting my time.

That's the thing. You really need to dig deeply into every detail of an event this complex to discover the truth. That's what people are asking for.

I don't have the answer to those questions. Nor do I particularly want to speculate on them. However I do believe that almost anything is possible when it comes to the people who really control the world. They're playing a different game to the rest of us and I bet they have resources at their disposal none of us could even fathom.