• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

WTC Demolition Conspiracy

Was the WTC disaster an inside job?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • No

    Votes: 10 66.7%
  • Total voters
    15
Well, I'm 10 minutes into the video, and he's already made the same mistakes that other theorists have made about the fires, etc.. This doesn't bode well for the rest of it...
 
All of the ones we've gone over in the thread(s) already. You must be able to see that if you've watched the video and read the threads. Let's not start rehashing again and again, please. If you want to compare and contrast, go back and read the threads.

Having watched the video, all I can say that it doesn't come up with anything usable, especially WRT to 9/11 being staged and the WTC being rigged with explosives, etc.. I can't say that it's convincing.
 
Jerry_B said:
All of the ones we've gone over in the thread(s) already. You must be able to see that if you've watched the video and read the threads. Let's not start rehashing again and again, please. If you want to compare and contrast, go back and read the threads.

...
Click to expand...
Why are you always so quick to make unsubstantiated statements, yet so rarely prepared to back them up with a straight answer?

...

Oh, and Heckler, any time sonny. Let's see if you share your grabagranny hero's osteoporosis. My foot your balls. If that's the only sort of debate you think you're equipped for, so be it. ;)
 
Or - alternatively: should we believe the conspiracy? Does the conspiracy actually prove anything that it claims? Why should we believe a conspiracy, any more than we should believe the official story? As I've said before, what's wrong with questioning the questions?
Click to expand...


Well,lets see.We're trying to prove it.We are begging for samples of the steel to run our own tests.We asked for the release of the survallence tapes from the Pentagon.We are calling for a new INDEPENDENT investigation.Yes,we are trying to prove it.Unfortunitely the suspects have all the evidence & wont release it.That right there ought to be enough to cause any resonable person to question the government's version.What would you like us to do?scale model a controlled demoltion? (Not a bad idea actually)A resonable open minded person questions both sides.
 
waitew said:
)A resonable open minded person questions both sides.
Click to expand...

A reasonable, open-minded person wouldn't want to prejudice any outcome of an investigation by having pre-formed solutions.

waitew said:
Yes,we are trying to prove it.Unfortunitely the suspects have all the evidence & wont release it.That right there ought to be enough to cause any resonable person to question the government's version.
Click to expand...

Again, your assumption is that when the evidence is scrutinised it will reveal the results YOU want. What if it doesn't? and my suspicion is that it won't.

waitew said:
We're trying to prove it.We are begging for samples of the steel to run our own tests.We asked for the release of the survallence tapes from the Pentagon.We are calling for a new INDEPENDENT investigation.
Click to expand...

You ask the impossible. What does independent mean?

Free from governmental influence? Well thats removed all the Pentagon evidence and Norad, Whitehouse, US Airforce, NEADS, FAA etc etc. We also better include the fire and police dpts in that as well as they are controlled by local government, specifically that Giuliani fellow - we all know what he's like. And the security staff at the WTC were ALL under the influence of the Bush Clan. So that leaves....oh yes, expert testimony, which as far as you're concerned means nothing as you know better.

Truly Independent :roll:
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Why are you always so quick to make unsubstantiated statements, yet so rarely prepared to back them up with a straight answer?
Click to expand...

Because the answers have already been gone over, at least once. They're only 'unsubstantiated' because you perhaps can't be bothered to go back and read older sections of the thread(s) ;)
 
Jerry_B said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Why are you always so quick to make unsubstantiated statements, yet so rarely prepared to back them up with a straight answer?
Click to expand...

Because the answers have already been gone over, at least once. They're only 'unsubstantiated' because you perhaps can't be bothered to go back and read older sections of the thread(s) ;)
Click to expand...
You make fanciful claims knowing just how convoluted the discourse running through the Thread is, more like.

Still, saves actually having to defend you position with some real argument. :D
 
David Ray Griffin - 911 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions - A monsters view

If you cut Griffin in half running through the middle of him would be the word hipocracy.

He comes across as a warm, intelligent, likeable kind of fellow but his criticisms of the 911 commission report are exactly the same criticisms i would make of his suppositions and theories. He continually punctuated his speech with unsubstatiated counter arguements, wild allegations and schoolboy error.

His observations about the 911 Report start with the identity of the hijackers and whether Atta was a muslim. He offers no explanation for the apparent confusions with identity and conveniently omits to mention Attas Fathers recent outburst about a 50 year religious war and that there will be more fighters like his son.

He stumbles over the apparent 'miracle' of the collapse of the WTC1 and 2 into the 'controlled demolition theory' which IMHO is one of the most laughable theories in this whole debate. His 'expert' observations lead him to the mantra "It falls at free-fall speed", "It falls at free-fall speed" as though this is somehow evidence for a controlled demolition. It's not. Given the evidence in the 911 commission report the explanation for the collapse is logical and reasonable. The heat coupled with the aircraft damage severely weakens the WTC structure eventually causing the collapse. No need for missiles, thermite and several hundred other rediculous theories.

Next - fuck me :roll: (sorry) - the hole is the wrong size in the Pentagon! No it's not. From that he next alludes to the possibility that it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon. Really? A missile that carried several tens of passengers and crew and hijackers and 'dummy' plane wreckage. :roll:

He then looses me. Lots to do with ISI, $100k, Pakistan, Mahmood Ahmed - i'm looking into this now and will report on his allegations when i understand what he's trying to suggest.

Then there's the insider trading Put Options business which he brushed over like it was 'fact'. Again, it's not. The trader was a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda, who purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.

In summary what at first inspection appears to be an intelligent, coherent acedemic questioning the 911 commision report IMHO is an unread, mistaken, mouthpeice trying to give his cause somekind of validity. His knowing chuckles and nods to the symathetic and friendly audience made me howl. It's nothing new - stick to theology mate.

Ignorrance dressed up as insight is doubly tragic when mixed with the hipocracy of his approach.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
You make fanciful claims knowing just how convoluted the discourse running through the Thread is, more like.

Still, saves actually having to defend you position with some real argument. :D
Click to expand...

There is a search function for this board, and you can even search within threads. I've already said what I want to say, as have others. If you take some time to actually use that to look up various things, you can check the veracity about your claim that my claims (or any others you don't like) are 'fanciful'. This whole subject is becoming a rehash of a rehash of a rehash because people aren't bothering to read what's already been discussed. IMHO, if you'd actually taken some time to read the various threads, you wouldn't have posted the link to that video ;)

Aside from that, if you really can't be bothered, monster's post above pretty much covers things.
 
Jerry_B said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
You make fanciful claims knowing just how convoluted the discourse running through the Thread is, more like.

Still, saves actually having to defend you position with some real argument. :D
Click to expand...

There is a search function for this board, and you can even search within threads. I've already said what I want to say, as have others. If you take some time to actually use that to look up various things, you can check the veracity about your claim that my claims (or any others you don't like) are 'fanciful'. This whole subject is becoming a rehash of a rehash of a rehash because people aren't bothering to read what's already been discussed. IMHO, if you'd actually taken some time to read the various threads, you wouldn't have posted the link to that video ;)

Aside from that, if you really can't be bothered, monster's post above pretty much covers things.
Click to expand...
At least Monster_Magnet does try to provide some sort of counter argument, even if it does rely on the heavily weighted 9/11 Ommission Report, not just, "use the Search Engine!" :lol:
 
Fine, whatever - but you can use the search function, if you really want to know what's already been discussed.

And so how is the Commission report 'heavily weighted'?
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
...even if it does rely on the heavily weighted 9/11 Ommission (I see what you did there :D) Report, not just, "use the Search Engine!" :lol:
Click to expand...

To echo Jerrys post and to add a bit.

How is the report heavily weighted?

It's opinion and conclusions may be skewed but that does not mean that the evidence used for these conclusions is. Having access, as everybody does, to this evidence you are free to draw your own conclusions - which are, if i may add, nowhere to be seen.

So, leaving aside the conclusions of the report, what is wrong with the evidence it references to? and

Given all of the evidence, where does the 911 Omission (see, i did it too :D ) Report fall down, specifically?
 
monster_magnet said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
...even if it does rely on the heavily weighted 9/11 Ommission (I see what you did there :D) Report, not just, "use the Search Engine!" :lol:
Click to expand...

To echo Jerrys post and to add a bit.

How is the report heavily weighted?

...
Click to expand...
Tsk! Tsk! You'll be capitalizing in green coloured fonts, next. ;)

I'm just going to start you off easy with the make up of the Commission itself:
Link;
Wikipedia: Claims of Bias Within the Commission

Some members of victims' families have claimed that the commission has numerous conflicts of interest. 9/11 CitizensWatch, in particular, called for the resignation of Philip D. Zelikow, the executive staff director. Zelikow is a Bush-appointee who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He spent three years on the President George H. W. Bush's National Security Council. Zelikow worked closely with Bush NSC advisor Condoleezza Rice and even co-wrote a book with her. Some worry that Zelikow may be using his power to deflect blame from himself and to protect Rice. Both the Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch demanded his resignation, without success.

In addition, many members had ties which could be viewed as conflicts of interest.

* Thomas Kean has served on the Board of Directors of the National Endowment for Democracy, a long-time conduit of CIA covert operations abroad. Kean also has a history of investments that link him to Saudi Arabian investors who have financially supported both George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden in the past. One example is his former business connections to Khalid bin Mahfouz, an alleged terrorist financier. He was also at one point or still is on the board of Pepsi Bottling, Amerada Hess, UnitedHealth Group, CIT Group and Aramark.
* Fred F. Fielding has done legal work for two of Bush's leading "Pioneer" fund-raisers. Fielding also works for a law firm lobbying for Spirit Airlines and United Airlines.
* Slade Gorton has close ties to Boeing, which built all the planes destroyed on 9/11, and his law firm represents several major airlines, including Delta Air Lines.
* James Thompson is the head of a law firm that lobbies for American Airlines, and he has previously represented United Airlines.
* Richard Ben-Veniste has represented Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe, and continues to represent Boeing and United Airlines.
* Max Cleland, former U.S. Senator, has received $300,000 from the airline industry. He has since resigned from the commission.
* Lee Hamilton sits on many advisory boards, including those to the CIA, the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council, and the US Army.
* Tim Roemer represents Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
* Jamie Gorelick's firm has agreed to represent Prince Mohammed al Faisal in the suit by the 9/11 families. The families contend that al Faisal has legal responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony before the commission, Gorelick wrote a procedural memo that would have prevented communication between various government agencies (the wall memo[2]). She also is on the board of United Technologies.

The commission's defenders claim that these do not represent significant conflicts of interest, and that the commission maintained its neutrality.

...
Click to expand...
Philip D. Zelikow, the Executive Staff Director, is particularily interesting.
Link;
Wikipedia: Philip D. Zelikow

Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. In the United States, beliefs about the formation of the nation and the Constitution remain powerful today, as do beliefs about slavery and the Civil War. World War II, Vietnam, and the civil rights struggle are more recent examples.” He has noted that “a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make a connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all” ("Thinking about Political History," Miller Center Report [Winter 1999], pp. 5-7).

In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”

...
Click to expand...
My emphasis
 
These, surely, are just some of the 'coincidences' that plague the fact that everything that happened on 9/11 is just as they say.
 
Can we go back a step or two Pietro?

Green capitals, tsk...it just wouldn't match my eyes ;)

The Commission came to the following conclusion,

(from the same Wiki page as your quote)
The Commission's final report was a very lengthy book, based on extensive interviews and testimony. Its primary conclusion was that the failures of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) permitted the terrorist attacks to occur and that had these agencies acted more wisely and more aggressively, the attacks could potentially have been prevented.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming (correct me if i'm wrong) that you believe through all it's waffle, spin and ommission the 911CR (911 Commission Report) conclusions are wrong. And, having studied the evidence you can point to specific examples that can illustrate this point and its subsequent negative effect on 911CR conclusions?

With regard to the make up of the 911C, what did you expect? The American Political scene is a vile bidding war at best and downright corrupt at worst. The USs version of Democracy has turned into an ultra-diluted self-absorbed puppet of its original ideals. But, as i've said before the evidence is there for ALL to see.
 
It would be a different matter if the Commission concluded that absolutely nothing within the US system failed. To say that the defensive systems in place that are supposed to protect the US failed is, I'd argue, not exactly the lightest of conclusions, after all.
 
monster_magnet said:
Can we go back a step or two Pietro?

...

I'm assuming (correct me if i'm wrong) that you believe through all it's waffle, spin and ommission the 911CR (911 Commission Report) conclusions are wrong. And, having studied the evidence you can point to specific examples that can illustrate this point and its subsequent negative effect on 911CR conclusions?

With regard to the make up of the 911C, what did you expect? The American Political scene is a vile bidding war at best and downright corrupt at worst. The USs version of Democracy has turned into an ultra-diluted self-absorbed puppet of its original ideals. But, as i've said before the evidence is there for ALL to see.
Click to expand...
I don't see why you should assume anything. You asked me to justify my assertation that the Report was "weighted". I think I did, as your, "what did you expect?" paragraph seems to suggest.

That doesn't give you the right to change the goalposts.

Was the 9/11 Commission Report independent? No. Why? And why were Saudi Arabian interests so well represented?
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
You asked me to justify my assertation that the Report was "weighted". I think I did, as your, "what did you expect?" paragraph seems to suggest.
That doesn't give you the right to change the goalposts.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but in the same post i also asked...
what is wrong with the evidence it refers to? and
Given all of the evidence, where does the 911 Omission (see, i did it too ) Report fall down, specifically?
Click to expand...
...which you've shed no light on.
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Was the 9/11 Commission Report independent?...
Click to expand...
Independent of what?
Pietro_Mercurios said:
...No. Why?
Click to expand...
As i said before in answering another question:
Independent is impossible. Free from governmental influence? Well thats removed all the Pentagon evidence and Norad, Whitehouse, US Airforce, NEADS, FAA etc etc. We also better include the fire and police dpts in that as well as they are controlled by local government, specifically that Giuliani fellow - we all know what he's like. And the security staff at the WTC were ALL under the influence of the Bush Clan. So that leaves....oh yes, expert testimony, which as far as you're concerned means nothing as everybody and their dog knows better.
Click to expand...
Pietro_Mercurios said:
And why were Saudi Arabian interests so well represented?
Click to expand...
Lets assume that Saudi interests were over represented, in your opinion how would this influence the 911C conclusions?
 
:rofl: :rofl:

No it hasn't . I've just searched. The Saudi influence on the 911CR has not been questioned at all.

I understand the issues you've taken with Jerry about his stance on the repetition of debate but IMHO it would be beneficial to the thread and polite, considering as i've spent time in answering your questions fully, if you could answer mine, especially as this particular point has NOT been raised before. Thanks.
 
Oh I remember.:D These are the search results for: Saudi + 911 + commission

EDIT [It seems the below is only a link to the search page as you can't post a results URL - be my guest and put in the above search you get about 10 results none of which relate to the matter in hand]

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/searc ... de=results

The Saudi influence on the 911C has not be discussed before.
 
That search facility is difficult to use.

I searched using the following;

Saudi wtc

return 50 posts

search message text

search for all terms

return results as posts


The search facility returned many results and quoted bits of the messages, but did not allow me to double click on them and actually get taken to the post.

I suggest to the people running the forum that they sort this out. What is the point of having such a facility if you cannot view what you searched for without having to manually search page by page because the search facility does not allow you to view in full the messages it finds?

Back to topic though - the Saudi connection was mentioned.

So was the film "Farenhiet 9/11" which was used to talk about the connection, since that film mentioned it and described it in detail.
 
coldelephant said:
That search facility is difficult to use.
Click to expand...
I've addressed your problem on the Website Issues thread you posted on the subject. It's all about how you use it.
 
coldelephant said:
Back to topic though - the Saudi connection was mentioned..
Click to expand...

Yes, true. And apologies for being pedantic but the Saudi influence on the 911 Commission has not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top