-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
911 Truth Movement
- Thread starter Harry
- Start date
Disco08 said:
On the first, I agree that the US government was in large part incompetent both in advance and after the events. Would a fresh inquiry throw more light on this? I doubt it. On the second, I've seen no compelling evidence that a controlled demolition of any of the buildings took place. I'm not sure what another technical inquiry could show to change this.
Disco08 said:
"Facts" is an interesting word to use in that sentence, given that your explanation that Larry obtained the lease, insured the building, hired a demolition squad to install explosives, which they did (without anyone noticing of course), then he had them all killed, all within a two month period in 2001. Actually probably less, given the attacks were on the 11th of September.
By all means, continue to discuss the "facts". Don't forget to throw in a sprinkle of "scientific method" too.
Disco08 said:No worries. This was a throw away line then?
Don't worry. I won't harp on and on about it. I'd hate to look like a desperate Christian trying to defend ID.
Fair point. Silly of me to use your facts without first verifying them for myself.
Disco08 said:
Yet you've got no qualms about trying to sell your crack pot facts as proof that we need to do the right thing by the families and friends of the 3000 that died ? The crack pot sites don't speak for the relatives of the 3000 who were killed. Claiming to do so is simply dishonest and morally bankrupt.
"An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse."
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
antman said:
A proper investigation wouldn't "throw more light" on the US government incompetence that contributed to the deaths of 3000 people than the 9/11 commission? That's the 9/11 commission that both co-chairs describe as "set up to fail"? The same one that Bush and Cheney refused to cooperate with? The same one whose executive director was Philip Zelikow.
http://911proof.com/6.html
http://911proof.com/7.html
Fair enough.
I'll presume you've seen the AE doco. You see no compelling evidence in that at all? The fact WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed and looks identical to every other controlled demolition isn't compelling to you?
antman said:
First - don't see why the word "facts" is interesting here given none of what you wrote was presented by me as fact. Second - Larry's mate and massive Bush/Cheney supporter Lewis M Eisenberg was the previous controller of the WTC. He could have arranged access for whoever his mates wanted. He couldn't have profited from a terrorist attack though obviously.
Interesting in this context is Bush's faux pas. How would any al Qaeda operative get inside any US building to plant explosives without help? How could al Qaeda possibly get enough operatives inside a US building to plant enough explosives to ensure people above the explosives couldn't escape? Why would Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tell anyone any of this?
So lets review the facts here. Larry's mate Lew is the controller of the WTC complex. The Port Authority had for years wanted to demolish the towers because they were full of asbestos, unprofitable and in need of $200m worth of repairs. Larry must have known this because he developed WTC7 in 1986 and his good mate ran the towers at the time. Larry ignored all this and became the first leaseholder of the WTC complex in its 33 year history, 7 weeks before 9/11. Larry profited $500m. Larry tried to profit $3B.
One clause in Silverstein Properties' insurance policies for the new WTC holdings soon proved instrumental. Quoting the British Financial Times of September 14, 2001, the American Reporter wrote that ‘ the lease has an all-important escape clause: If the buildings are struck by “an act of terrorism”, the new owners' obligations under the lease are void. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings that collapsed or were otherwise destroyed and damaged in the attacks.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=william_rodriguez
There you go again! youre unbeleivable!Disco08 said:
Now you're theorising the demolition teams were murdered? For the bloke who claims he doesn't know what happened you sure keep coming up with ridiculous paranoid theories. Do you think if they were murdered their families would be kicking up a bit of a fuss? Don't tell me, "the media" would stifle them! A cover up on the cover up?
Try and stay with us in the real world old boy.
Didn't Marvin leave Securacom in 2000? But he knew the attack was coming so had the building rigged a year beforehand right?
Is there any proof the CEo was their cousin?
Disco08 said:
Have you been using friends and families of the 3000 victims deserving a proper inquiry, or claiming we need to do the right thing by them, as a reason for your calls for a new inquiry ?
The answer to your question and mine are the same.
I support a proper inquiry because the first one was a sham. Everyone deserves better than that and many victims are demanding it. If you think that makes me dishonest and morally bankrupt I feel very sorry for you.
Why does this rile you so much? All I'm doing is playing devil's advocate to the claims a conspiracy is impossible.
Marv source:
http://www.utne.com/2003-02-01/Secrecy-Surrounds-911-Investigation.aspx
Wirt source:
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=wirt_d__walker_iii_1
tigertim said:
Why does this rile you so much? All I'm doing is playing devil's advocate to the claims a conspiracy is impossible.
Marv source:
http://www.utne.com/2003-02-01/Secrecy-Surrounds-911-Investigation.aspx
Wirt source:
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=wirt_d__walker_iii_1
Disco08 said:
Is it all 3000 or many ? Is it even half of the 3000 demanding it ? is it even more than 100 actively demanding a re-inquiry ?
Or have most accepted what happened, that terrorists flew took over 4 planes and crashed either into buildings or into the ground, and just want to get on with their lives without having to be reminded of what happened each and every day by crack pots with crack pot theories on their crack pot websites ?
Baloo said:
What exactly is crackpot about objecting to the manner in which the 9/11 commission was conducted?
Who knows how many victims support a new inquiry? Why does that matter? Wouldn't it be easier to ignore a new inquiry than to live with the feeling you were lied to and cheated by the people investigating your loved one's death?
Disco08 said:
It matters when the crack pots are using the argument that what they are demanding is on behalf of the families and friends of the 3000 victims when, many, if not most, are not demanding a new inquiry, they have accepted what's happened and want to just lead their lives.
What gives the crack pots the right to speak on behalf of the families of the 3000 victims ? There might be some, a few, or many that are demanding a new enquiry, but there sure as hell isn't all 3000. I'd wager not even half do.
Baloo said:
My support is for the victims calling for a new inquiry.
Do you think everyone who doesn't accept the OR is a crackpot?
Harry said:buildings 5 and 6 were between the twin towers and building 7
building 5
building 6
WTC5 was Larry's and WTC6 was the US customs HQ. The difference in damage is quite stark.
