-
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
Im asking for clarification to make sure I understand what you are saying.
The last question you asked is how it implied you thought people were deadest against an inquiry. I answered that.
The one before that asked if I was ok with "trusters", I answered that too.
Which one are you getting all agitated over now ?
The last question you asked is how it implied you thought people were deadest against an inquiry. I answered that.
The one before that asked if I was ok with "trusters", I answered that too.
Which one are you getting all agitated over now ?
No, i dont think I'd ever actively support one for two reasons.
1) as mentioned, I know a family affected and they've had enough. They just want everyone to shut up, go away, and let them get on with their lives.
2) 911 has no bearing on me or my family so I really don't care if the US have another or not. It would be interesting but nothing that would register highly on my care factor scale.
1) as mentioned, I know a family affected and they've had enough. They just want everyone to shut up, go away, and let them get on with their lives.
2) 911 has no bearing on me or my family so I really don't care if the US have another or not. It would be interesting but nothing that would register highly on my care factor scale.
Fair enough. Thanks.
On point 1 - the best way to shut up a lot of the serious doubters is to hold the proper inquiry they're all arguing for. Yes you'd probably still have conspiracy theorists but after a proper inquiry they'd be a very small minority. As it is there are a lot of people with valid concerns about the 9/11 commission. Seems to me they'll be around for a while.
On point 1 - the best way to shut up a lot of the serious doubters is to hold the proper inquiry they're all arguing for. Yes you'd probably still have conspiracy theorists but after a proper inquiry they'd be a very small minority. As it is there are a lot of people with valid concerns about the 9/11 commission. Seems to me they'll be around for a while.
There's very few guarantees in life. A proper inquiry has a very high chance of getting answers to most of the questions reasonable people are asking though. For a start, many of the objections are centred on the way the 9/11 commission was conducted. Having a proper independent inquiry alleviates those concerns at least.
Disco08 said:
That's your opinion. My opinion is no inquiry will satisfy the troofers. They love for a conspiracy so unless another inquiry proves the conspiracy, the inquiry itself will be in on the conspiracy, as will all the experts not alluding to a conspiracy.
By the way, I don't distinguish between serious doubters and conspiracy theorists. They are all pretty much the same in my book its just the conspiracy theorists have thought through their thinking and come to the only conclusion there is. Serious doubters who don't believe in a conspiracy aren't as advanced yet.
I've only found circumstantial evidence from news reports from the time - the PA news release about the 98% occupancy in early 2001, and the fact that the various malls, restaurants and so on in the complex were the most profitable in the US. As discussed the buildings were probably not profitable between the first terrorist attack (in 1993) and 1997.
But again, we are back to the ol' Mexican standoff - I see the $3 billion sale price as evidence that the bidders thought they could make money on the complex in a legitimate way, you see it as the lead up to the biggest arson job and mass murder in history.
As you say, all the theories around this are "conjecture" unless someone can prove that WTC7 was a planned and controlled demolition. Again this is a massive stretch anyway - WTC7 was severely damaged by a large chunk of one of the Twins, and there is no way that that could have been planned for.
I don't think any of the die-hard anti-Truthers (LOL) on this thread dispute that the US government was primarily concerned with covering its ass in terms of gross ineptitude. Exactly as Noam Chomsky stated. As I've consistently maintained, the wacky theories your mates propagate suit the government just fine, as it's then oh so easy to bat away any calls for a reinvestigation.
Disco08 said:
I don't reckon you and Harry get it ,mate. 'They' don't wa want to shut up the troofers. Why would they? A lot of the troofers make maniacs like Rummy and Albreicht look sane by compare.
I'm with antman with his post about 30 pages back when he said 9/11 troofers are the new black helicopter guys. Seems to me the government loves crazy conspircacy theorists like anti-gravity ball guy, because that way they can get up to all sorts of actual shenaghins right out in the open.
Imagine how happy 'they' were when Alex Jones went on his maniacal rant a few weeks back.
evo said:
Isn't he the bank for one of the oft' quoted 911truth sources we've been incessantly directed to for the last 100-some-odd pages?
.tigertim said:
...a man of impeccable logic and cool reasoning. Not given to flights of fauxtrage and incandescent dribble. No not our Alex, more your quiet, reflective type.
antman said:
Plenty of experts disagree. They also don't dismiss eyewitness testimony of large explosons within WTC7 or the style of collapse.
The next highest bidder for the towers would only accept a 39 year lease and didn't want responsibility for the $200M renovations. Not surprising given the PA had wanted to demolish the subsidised buildings (the PA also received real estate tax exemptions for the WTC) even through times of high tenancy. So it seems the only other serious bidder (apparently a gambling deal-maker) saw a chance to grab a bargain because the towers had issues. Even being a gambler and wanting the towers to be his flagship - Roth walked away when the PA didn't want to negotiate.
The price for the property seemed high when it was announced, since it exceeded the price on a square-foot basis that has just been paid for Rockefeller Center, a complex that is both more prestigious and in a better location. Roth was willing to pay $750 million more for the Trade Center than the price offered by rival bidding team Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties. "That's a huge disparity," says Steve Sakwa, a real estate analyst for Merrill Lynch.
So there's the market well and truly set. Then along comes Larry and pays "only" $30M less than Roth's offer. $3.22B. No ifs. No buts. Thanks Larry. The first private investor to buy the lease to the WTC after 33 years - coincidentally just a few weeks before a terrorist attack his friend George should have realised was imminent. Seems even if Bush didn't give Larry the heads up, he proably should have.
The second-place bid by the Silverstein team trailed by $600 million. The Silverstein group later raised its bid to $3.22 billion, just shy of Vornado. In the interim, it became more aggressive in its projections. It too may find the price too rich before a final set of contracts are signed.
Vornado claims to own all or part of 23 other office buildings in the New York area, totaling 15.6 million square feet. But the World Trade Center was said to be its way of planting its flag in New York real estate, an arena that has created huge fortunes for some and lost them for others.
Some trophies are better left for losers.
http://www.forbes.com/2001/03/21/0321worldbust.html
Coicidental too that Larry was fortunate enough to not have his usual start to the day on 9/11 and his daughter (from memory) changed a scheduled meeting away from the towers. Not to mention some of world's leading high rise engineers and controlled demolition experts say WTC7, Larry's other building also insured against terrorist attack, looks just like a controlled demolition.
So yeah where you see legitimacy I'm not sold.
BTW none of what you presented is evidence for the profitability of the towers, circumstantial or not. Articles such as those would clearly report a financial counter point to emphasise the towers' new found attraction to private investors. The fact there is none is decent circumstantial evidence that they weren't profitable (especially without subsidies and tax exemptions the new owner wouldn't have the luxury of).
antman said:
It should also be very easy to see through the crazy and focus on the legitimate.
Baloo said:
Says it all. No difference at all between Alex Jones and Eric Lawyer and conspiracy nutters are more intelligent than these people. Time to call it quits Baloo, seriously.
evo said:
Yeah I get that and totally agree. I just can't believe any bright person can fail to see the difference. Why can't the rest of us, as intelligent people, forget the nutters and focus on the facts and what's right?
evo said:
This is where I beg to differ, governments probably enjoy 'birthers' & 'tea baggers' but I doubt they enjoy being associated with mass murderers. I think the thing that seperates the 9/11 truth movement from other conspiracies is that it transcends the political divide. I would imagine the gun tote'n rednecks would be happy enough to tow the conspiracy line if it meant they could further entrench their paranoid delusions of an America at war with itself. As Republican governer Jesse Ventura screams conspiracy, the wrestlemania militia would be doing somersaults in the hills and burning effigies of Obama bin Laden. I maybe wrong but I doubt government distrust in the US has ever plumbed to such depths. Even Tricky Dicky is looking like a petty crim these days.
Disco08 said:
all nutters disco who have nothing better to do. along with all those architects, engineers, firemen, pilots, scholars, lawyers, family and friends and others. all conspiracy theorists who are paranoid crackpots and have an agenda against the government.
