911 Truth Movement

[snaps truly]

You ask 10 random people what day Pearl Harbour occurred and see how you go. My bet is 1 or 2 out of 10

I'm not sure if i'm following where your going with this mate. Are you implying it doesn't matter who did it as in time no one will remember or care?

 

[tigersnake]

I'm not sure if i'm following where your going with this mate. Are you implying it doesn't matter who did it as in time no one will remember or care?

Just drawing some similarities. I was making the point that at the moment, most people would think that sept 11 will never be forgotten, will always be at the forefront of peoples minds. People thought that about Pearl Harbour as well. Now most people wouldn't be able to tell you what day it happened, Dec 7 used to be just as evocative as Sept 11 is now.

 

[Baloo]

Weekend is here so this needs to be my last real post on this thread as the kids take precedence and I start a new job on Monday.

Still, if he was able to make two claims there must have been seperate policies for each. If the entire centre was insured as a whole only one claim could have been made.

Already answered by others, he was claiming two distinct attacks to maximize his payout.

I also don't think it's being obtuse to question the motive of over-insuring. If I had a 99 year lease I'd insure only for replacement cost because the extra payment every month would add up to a small fortune over the life of the lease. It only makes sense to me if the insurer has some idea that such an event may occur. What I'd like to know, but can't find, is whether or not Larry over-insured against all events and not just terrorist attack. That would be quite revealing IMO.

What's obtuse is assuming because WTC7 wasn't the target of the previous terrorist attack then it shouldn't be considered a risk.

The premise being implied isn't measurable. You don't know how powerful those running the implied cover up are. You don't even know who they are so how can you specualte as to their ability to cover it up? The circumstantial evidence exists whether anyone likes it or not. It should be fully examined if only to bring closure for the families that lost their loved ones.

This one gave me a laugh. I'm not allowed to speculate on faceless power brokers that you have no proof a) exist or b) were invoked in a WTC coverup? You've made them up and made up their role in this but I can't speculate ? Ok.

So lets give these power brokers an easy to use acronym. Global Overseerers of Doom, or GOD for short. If I am to believe what you and Harry are claiming GOD has done, and can do, I need to believe they are powerful beyond imagination, they work in mysterious ways, we don't know who the are but we truly believe they exist. Basically, GOD is a mystery which we can't begin to understand but if you look all around you you can see proof of GOD's existence.

Then you wonder why I keep falling back on the ID analogy.

ID on the other hand completely states their theory and it's been completely disproved. Not one credible expert gives it even the slightest recognition. Again, not even remotely close to the 9/11 situation.

ID proponents are using bogus science to try and champion a theory which is totally bogus. 9/11 TM'ers are only asking for a thourough and independent investigation of the large amount of existing circumstantial evidence. Again, obviously world's apart.

There is no difference. You need belief without proof and a healthy dose of filling in the blanks to come up with an argument you feel is convincing.

That's where the entire issue begins. People from all walks of life disbelieve the official narrative. Experts from every relevant field with no alterior motive included. It's nothing like ID in that regard as well because clearly Christian "scientists" trained at the "Alabama Evangelists School of Creation Science" have an alterior motive.

I reckon more people believe in ID than they do in a 911 conspiracy theory.

The more parallels you try and draw between ID and 9/11 TM the more it's obvious how poor the analogy is. In fact there isn't a single aspect of either that can be reasonable equated to its counterpart. If anything, almost every aspect of each is in direct contrast to eachother.

Your opinion. In mine there is no difference really as detailed above. One camp believe that God created everything, the other believe GOD are behind everything.

Strange then that there's a NYPD firefighters for truth webpage.

Why is t strange ? There are gullible people in all walks of life. I doubt they are anywhere close to a majority in their numbers despite most of them having a better idea of wha happened at ground zero than most,

You're now trying to give detail to a scenario that we possibly don't know anything about. Unless you know how much power the conspiritors have you can't speculate as to how many people needed to be involved. Certainly firefighters on the ground needn't have been complicit. They're only doing as they're trained and ordered. If they're told to get out of the building, it doesn't matter if the motive is to conceal controlled explosions. All they know is that's the order. It could have come from extremely high up the chain of command or anywhere in between. Still though it only requires one conspiritor with the appropraite power to make it happen. Again, you have no idea of a potential conspiritor's power so there's no way of knowing how much they were able to control the event.

You invented these mysterious all powerful GODs. How can I debate them without making assumptions. There's certainly no proof they exist or we're involved. If you expect me to have the faith and belief that GOD exists just because you say so then I'm sorry but I can't.

 

[tigersnake]

Weekend is here so this needs to be my last real post on this thread as the kids take precedence and I start a new job on Monday.

That whole post gave me some good laughs Baloo but this opener cracked me up, I've got to get back to work, I've been on holidays allegedly to landscape the garden. Yeah got heaps of that done . I have enjoyed it though I have to admit.

 

[Harry]

If you expect me to have the faith and belief that GOD exists just because you say so then I'm sorry but I can't.

Suppose it's the same as you expecting him to accept the official version as the truth when it contains way too many holes and unanswered questions.

 

[evo]

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.

Sure, but as tigersnake rightly pointed out documentaries like Loose Change only present the snapshots that support their case. What about all the snapshots of witnesses who did see a plane flying lowc over the Pentagon, or the fireman and other tpeople at the scene that don't believe it was a controlled demo; or all the engineers who think it was 'pancaking' etc. they are conveniently ignored when compiling these snapshots.

 

[Baloo]

Suppose it's the same as you expecting him to accept the official version as the truth when it contains way too many holes and unanswered questions.

Amen

 

[Disco08]

What's obtuse is assuming because WTC7 wasn't the target of the previous terrorist attack then it shouldn't be considered a risk.

You don't think the twin towers were a far greater terrorist target than WTC7?

Ironic you calling me stupid when you recently bitched about me playing the man and not the ball.

This one gave me a laugh. I'm not allowed to speculate on faceless power brokers that you have no proof a) exist or b) were invoked in a WTC coverup? You've made them up and made up their role in this but I can't speculate ? Ok.

So lets give these power brokers an easy to use acronym. Global Overseerers of Doom, or GOD for short. If I am to believe what you and Harry are claiming GOD has done, and can do, I need to believe they are powerful beyond imagination, they work in mysterious ways, we don't know who the are but we truly believe they exist. Basically, GOD is a mystery which we can't begin to understand but if you look all around you you can see proof of GOD's existence.

Then you wonder why I keep falling back on the ID analogy.

Speculate all you like. All I did was suggest it's better to fully investigate all the facts before trying to do so. If you think that's funny you're obviously missing the point.

I don't see why those involved in a cover up (if it occured) need to be "powerful beyond imagination" either. As long as they had sufficient power to change a few protocols and manipulate the armed forces they had enough to accomplish the cover up. The fact they left so much suspicious evidence behind also suggests they're not that smart.

There is no difference. You need belief without proof and a healthy dose of filling in the blanks to come up with an argument you feel is convincing.

My only "argument" is to support the call for a full independent inquiry. I thought I'd made that quite clear. You're the one specualting about facts with no supporting evidence.

Weekend is here so this needs to be my last real post on this thread as the kids take precedence and I start a new job on Monday.
Already answered by others, he was claiming two distinct attacks to maximize his payout.
What's obtuse is assuming because WTC7 wasn't the target of the previous terrorist attack then it shouldn't be considered a risk.
This one gave me a laugh. I'm not allowed to speculate on faceless power brokers that you have no proof a) exist or b) were invoked in a WTC coverup? You've made them up and made up their role in this but I can't speculate ? Ok.

So lets give these power brokers an easy to use acronym. Global Overseerers of Doom, or GOD for short. If I am to believe what you and Harry are claiming GOD has done, and can do, I need to believe they are powerful beyond imagination, they work in mysterious ways, we don't know who the are but we truly believe they exist. Basically, GOD is a mystery which we can't begin to understand but if you look all around you you can see proof of GOD's existence.

Then you wonder why I keep falling back on the ID analogy.

There is no difference. You need belief without proof and a healthy dose of filling in the blanks to come up with an argument you feel is convincing.

I reckon more people believe in ID than they do in a 911 conspiracy theory.

Your opinion. In mine there is no difference really as detailed above. One camp believe that God created everything, the other believe GOD are behind everything.
Why is t strange ? There are gullible people in all walks of life. I doubt they are anywhere close to a majority in their numbers despite most of them having a better idea of wha happened at ground zero than most,

You invented these mysterious all powerful GODs. How can I debate them without making assumptions. There's certainly no proof they exist or we're involved. If you expect me to have the faith and belief that GOD exists just because you say so then I'm sorry but I can't.

Even if that were true, do you not understand the point I made earlier about the vested interest ID proponents have in believing it? What vested interest do 9/11 TM'ers have?

FYI - only 46% of people in the world believe Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11. In America, 10% or so specifically believe in ID. Over 80% believe that God either created man in some fashion or another. Worldwide however ID would be lucky to claim 1% of the world's population.

Why is t strange ? There are gullible people in all walks of life. I doubt they are anywhere close to a majority in their numbers despite most of them having a better idea of wha happened at ground zero than most,

Gullible firefighters. Gordon Bennett.

You invented these mysterious all powerful GODs. How can I debate them without making assumptions. There's certainly no proof they exist or we're involved. If you expect me to have the faith and belief that GOD exists just because you say so then I'm sorry but I can't.

I'm not asking you to do that at all.

 

[Disco08]

Sure, but as tigersnake rightly pointed out documentaries like Loose Change only present the snapshots that support their case. What about all the snapshots of witnesses who did see a plane flying lowc over the Pentagon, or the fireman and other tpeople at the scene that don't believe it was a controlled demo; or all the engineers who think it was 'pancaking' etc. they are conveniently ignored when compiling these snapshots.

They're not really the facts I'm talking about. IMO there's a ton of small coincidences/oddities that on their own would mean little but in combination are quite convincing. I'll try and come up with a list later.

 

[tigersnake]

They're not really the facts I'm talking about. IMO there's a ton of small coincidences/oddities that on their own would mean little but in combination are quite convincing. I'll try and come up with a list later.

I think we've heard them all duckatron.

 

[poppa x]

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.

Odds of millions to one?
Let me do the maths for you.
They'd been built and opened for just over 10,200 days and been attacked once already before Larry insured it.
That makes the odds about 10,000 to 1 of it possibly happening again.
Better odds of it being attacked again than me winning Tattslotto.

Or looked at another way, I take more care arranging the insurance of my B&B's in a bushfire zone than I do with my suburban residence.
Why?
Because fire has threatened my B&B's twice in the past 5 years.
So for much the same reasons only bigger I reckon Larry would have made sure that all the i's were dotted and t's crossed.

 

[Ian4]

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.

yeah thats generally my view, although its angled towards the side of incompetence rather than the inside job theory.

On a different note, it's incredible the US government spend nearly $100 million on the Bill Clinton scandal Commission and only $15 million on the commission to examine the loss of over 3000 American lives on their home soil, and seemingly seriously handicapped in doing so. Seems like tring to find out whether the President having extra-marital affairs was $85 million dollars more important....

wow

You ask 10 random people what day Pearl Harbour occurred and see how you go. My bet is 1 or 2 out of 10

nah you're wrong. its a day that will live in infamy. FDR told us so.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

They're not really the facts I'm talking about. IMO there's a ton of small coincidences/oddities that on their own would mean little but in combination are quite convincing. I'll try and come up with a list later.

This is the problem with this type of evidence, as pointed out in the Chomsky clip and mentioned by evo. One of our biggest frailties in perception is our inclination to 'connect the dots' to see patterns where they don't necessarily exist. It is sometimes referred to as 'meaning in the mundane'. I'm sure we have been involved in discussions on other topics where this has been raised.

Your contention that it is more believable because of the extra vision, witnesses etc. actually makes the likelihood of coincidences greater. Evo points this out in his previous post on all of the evidence against a conspiracy being ignored to construct the conspiracy.

Your posting of the BBC image evoked the same response in me. What was the point? The worldwide media was in on it? Really?

 

[Disco08]

Yeah, I understand the point you guys are trying to make, but the facts I'm talking about are the ones not in contention. Examples like the low spending snaps posted, changing protocols to make it easier for the plan to succeed, allowing the Bin Laden family to leave the US on 9/12 when no other plane was allowed to take off that day, Bush severely limiting the powers given to investigators, Bush demanding that he and Cheney not be made to testify under oath, the Bin Laden task force being dismissed shortly before despite warnings from 50 other countries about a possible Al Qaeda attack, Silverstein buying the lease and overinsuring against terrorist attack on the WTC one month prior, a main witness dying of unknown causes two days before the highly contentious official report on WTC7, the fact the official report on WTC7 took 7 years to produce, an engine being found in WTC2 that didn't come from a 767, none of the hijacker's names appearing on pqassenger manifests of any of the hijacked flights, a passport and bandana of a hijacker miracoulously surviving the crash into WTC2 and the ensuing fire which incinerated almost everything in its vicinity, building material evidence being shipped to China and destroyed before it could be forensically examined, Giulliani banning photos of ground zero, WTC7 collapsing a free fall speed into its own footprint, FDNY tapes being classified and not considered in the official report, NEAD forces reporting being confused as the whether the attacks were real or simulated, three separate exercises involving similar scenarios to the actual attack being conducted on 9/11, one flight being recognised as hijacked flew for an hour and 45 minutes without being intercepted, molten steel found in the debris pile 6 weeks after the collapses, Bush taking over a year to allow an investigation into the attacks to take place, US intelligence releasing a fake video of Bin Laden claiming responsibility for the attacks, people claiming to have heard explosions in all the building that collpased just prior to collapse, all ATC interview tapes were destroyed and the parts scattered into different bins, Condoleeza Rice calling SF mayor Willie Brown to warn him not to travel on 9/11, etc, etc. I could keep going, but these all appear to me to be uncontested facts. How many do you need before you're allowed to deem the situation suspicious and hold an independent inquiry with proper clearances and funding at least on a par with the Lewinsky affair?

Odds of millions to one?
Let me do the maths for you.
They'd been built and opened for just over 10,200 days and been attacked once already before Larry insured it.
That makes the odds about 10,000 to 1 of it possibly happening again.
Better odds of it being attacked again than me winning Tattslotto.

Or looked at another way, I take more care arranging the insurance of my B&B's in a bushfire zone than I do with my suburban residence.
Why?
Because fire has threatened my B&B's twice in the past 5 years.
So for much the same reasons only bigger I reckon Larry would have made sure that all the i's were dotted and t's crossed.

I was talking about WTC7 specifically though poppa. If the entire site was insured as a whole obviously the point is null.

 

[AngryAnt]

Odds of millions to one?
Let me do the maths for you.
They'd been built and opened for just over 10,200 days and been attacked once already before Larry insured it.
That makes the odds about 10,000 to 1 of it possibly happening again.
Better odds of it being attacked again than me winning Tattslotto.

That's assuming terrorist attacks are chance occurrances - they are not - they are planned carefully over a number of years usually. Given the significance of the buildings as both a previous and a symbolic target the odds were probably significantly less - I wonder if the actuaries had upped the policy cost to cover this.

 

[1eyedtiger]

I just wanted to say that I find the most important aspect of this whole thread is the willingness of those who question the official story (whatever the issue might be) putting forward their doubts and demanding reasonable explanations from those in positions of power (which are often unanswered).

I think it's very important for people to question what they are being told if they find reason not to believe and try to keep some accountability within the circles of power.

Cheers

 

[Disco08]

After reading up on Operation Northwoods (a 1962 plot by the US government to fake terrorist attacks as a means to justify war against Cuba, includng the use of drone planes) I find this evidence quite compelling.

[youtube=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBBOYHayDps[/youtube]

Reasonable explanations anyone? If those planes were United and American Airlines wouldn't they be painted and have windows?

It's a shame the commission didn't see fit to investigate these abnormalities, but in the words of co-chair Lee Hamilton "in a major investigation you get thousands of things come at you so you can't possibly sort through them all". Well, not for $15M anyway.

 

[jb03]

After reading up on Operation Northwoods (a 1962 plot by the US government to fake terrorist attacks as a means to justify war against Cuba, includng the use of drone planes) I find this evidence quite compelling.

[youtube=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBBOYHayDps[/youtube]

Reasonable explanations anyone? If those planes were United and American Airlines wouldn't they be painted and have windows?

It's a shame the commission didn't see fit to investigate these abnormalities, but in the words of co-chair Lee Hamilton "in a major investigation you get thousands of things come at you so you can't possibly sort through them all". Well, not for $15M anyway.

So the plot was so detailed and conspiratorial that they forget to ensure the planes had the appearance of windows.

 

[Disco08]

Can you see windows in the freeze frames on that video jimbob? Would all those witnesses saying it had no windows be blinded somehow?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Can you see windows in the freeze frames on that video jimbob? Would all those witnesses saying it had no windows be blinded somehow?

No. They are a group of 'eye witnesses'. Notoriously unreliable source of information at best.