| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject: Questions, questions |
 |
|
A question for believers in controlled demolition from Easy Rider:
| Easy Rider wrote: | So you believe both the twin towers and building 7 were rigged with explosives of some sort and somebody pressed the plunger on 9/11.
Preparation would have taken weeks, and with thousands of people in those buildings the chances of being caught out would be high.
Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way? |
Very good question, and here are some more:
If no planes were flown into the towers, CGI images had to be inserted into an unknown number of digital cameras to convince people that planes were there. Since no one could tell in advance who would be operating cameras or where they would be, the chances of missing some would be very high. Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way?
Similarly, the chances would be high that hundreds of people would be looking at the towers after the first explosion and would report that an aeroplane shaped hole had exploded in the South tower but no plane had flown into it. Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way?
If directed energy weapons had been secretly developed from the known state they were in at the time, tiny amounts of energy, just sufficient to explode a missile, only at the prototype stage, and fired from something the size of a large lorry, to a weapon that could destroy a building while small enough to be mounted on a satellite, which in itself is quite implausible, they would certainly be very new and unreliable. Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way?
If the main purpose was to provide an excuse for attacking Iraq, why would they pretend the hijackers were Saudis?
If from Silverstein's point of view this was an insurance scam, why did he try to under-insure the buildings, and why had he left the insurance in such a mess that he has been locked in litigation with his insurers ever since?
Why demolish WTC7 at all, a virtually unknown building that added nothing to the spectacle of the attack?
And why do it with no plane hitting it, arousing suspicion? Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way?
Why use such an immensely complicated plan, with fake hijacked airliners, fake calls from passengers, stand down orders to NORAD, fake crash scenes at the Pentagon and Shanksville, demolition charges planted all over three buildings or beam weapons from space, faked media reports, a subverted 9/11 Commission, faked ASCE/FEMA and NIST reports? All they had to do was use effective lorry bombs, which would kill many more people. Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way?
GW Bush is probably the worst US President in history, with a strong dictatorial instincts, is this why people want to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, despite the complete lack of evidence and against all reason and logic?
Last edited by Bushwacker on Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
asking questions like:
how many were involved.
how did they plant this or that.
simply do not tackle the information, if anything they avoid the information all together and they are questions nobody other than the plotters themselves would know if 9/11 was an inside job.
as for saying there is 'NO' evidence, that is your opinon bushwacker which many may agree or disagree with, IMO saying there is NO evidence at all is extreme in a denial sense, but i suppose if you keep telling yourself that you can continue to believe there is nothing in it, as im certain you say it to convince yourself rather than us or others who see the things that don't add up with ease, once they have been shown the information the media likes to censor or ignore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, there is crucial information the media like to censor is there, but our brave keyboard warriors expose it? 
I am afraid that non-evidence is not evidence, no matter how much of it you assemble. After all this time, you simply have not a single piece of real evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Oh, there is crucial information the media like to censor is there, but our brave keyboard warriors expose it?
I am afraid that non-evidence is not evidence, no matter how much of it you assemble. After all this time, you simply have not a single piece of real evidence. |
fact: yes there is information not mentioned on t.v. and has not been included in the hit pieces they pass of as documentarys that have been done so far.
im afraid your opinon that there is no evidence is just your opinon, ive explained already there are many people who would agree and disagree,
as is proved by looking at the internet as an example.
however if your so convinced there is 'NO' evidence then im not sure what people are scared of and why they oppose a new properly funded fair investigastion that accounts for ALL evidence and ALL witnesses and ALL that is seen after the point of collapse, no investigastion as yet has accounted for ALL of these things.
no FULL investigastion has been carried out so far and the ones that have, have been selective in what they include in each report and have left out or omited other parts of the evidence or event.
as for 'keyboard warriors' is that your attempt at ridicule because we post on the internet? if so what are you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: Questions, questions |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | A question for believers in controlled demolition from Easy Rider:
| Easy Rider wrote: | So you believe both the twin towers and building 7 were rigged with explosives of some sort and somebody pressed the plunger on 9/11.
Preparation would have taken weeks, and with thousands of people in those buildings the chances of being caught out would be high.
Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way? |
Very good question, and here are some more:
If no planes were flown into the towers, CGI images had to be inserted into an unknown number of digital cameras to convince people that planes were there. Since no one could tell in advance who would be operating cameras or where they would be, the chances of missing some would be very high. Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way?
Quite. It is very easy to debunk the NPTers by using their own mindless arguments for no planes against them.
Similarly, the chances would be high that hundreds of people would be looking at the towers after the first explosion and would report that an aeroplane shaped hole had exploded in the South tower but no plane had flown into it. Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way?
The NPTers would no doubt argue that your argument begs the question that witnesses who saw no planes would have been given the chance to say this on national TV straight afterwards. In other words, instead of making a convincing argument against media cover-up, it assumes it could never had took place. Not therefore a compelling argument, although I agree that the perps would never have risked such deception with CGI replacing real planes. The NPTers claim that they did is totally ludicrous.
If directed energy weapons had been secretly developed from the known state they were in at the time, tiny amounts of energy, just sufficient to explode a missile, only at the prototype stage, and fired from something the size of a large lorry, to a weapon that could destroy a building while small enough to be mounted on a satellite, which in itself is quite implausible, they would certainly be very new and unreliable. Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way?
You beg the question that 1. the weapon was satellite-based, 2. the weapon was new and unreliable. Again, weak arguments, given that research into high-tech weaponry could be years in advance of what even the US military knows about if it was intended purely for highly secret, black ops. Perhaps the DEW was so well-tested at secret, black project sites that it was reliable enough to be deployed. Perhaps the DEW was located inside WTC7, which therefore had to be destroyed in order to hide its existence.
If the main purpose was to provide an excuse for attacking Iraq, why would they pretend the hijackers were Saudis?
Because the main purpose was NOT to provide such an excuse. The prime purpose was to get Americans to support a long war on terrorism, with grabbing control of Iraqi oil fields by setting up a puppet government just one of many benefits to enrich Bush's business cronies in the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.
If from Silverstein's point of view this was an insurance scam, why did he try to under-insure the buildings, and why had he left the insurance in such a mess that he has been locked in litigation with his insurers ever since?
His problems stemmed from his greed in asking for too large a payout. The fact remains that he has profited handsomely despite not getting as much as he initially wanted.
Why demolish WTC7 at all, a virtually unknown building that added nothing to the spectacle of the attack?
WTC7 had to be destroyed for many reasons, such as to get rid of all the investigatory material into the financial swindlings of Enron and other companies whose CEOs were buddies of the Bush family - records that would have started Grand Jury investigations that might have resulted in some of them going to jail. There is the possibility that Flight 93 was meant to crash into it, but that the plan went astray when the flight was delayed after Flights 175 and 17 had departed. That was why (in a change of plan) Flight 93 was flown far away from Washington so that it could be shot down without anyone seeing the event.
And why do it with no plane hitting it, arousing suspicion? Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way?
A weak argument. The NPTers would counter-argue that the risk of using real planes was far greater than not using them. That said, their claim is as daft as a concrete parachute, as far as I am concerned.
Why use such an immensely complicated plan, with fake hijacked airliners, fake calls from passengers, stand down orders to NORAD, fake crash scenes at the Pentagon and Shanksville, demolition charges planted all over three buildings or beam weapons from space, faked media reports, a subverted 9/11 Commission, faked ASCE/FEMA and NIST reports? All they had to do was use effective lorry bombs, which would kill many more people.
Um, no. The perps had to have a spectacular series of events. Truck bombs simply would not have created the traumatic spectacle of skyscrapers falling and over 3000 dead. Anyway, it was not the number of dead that was important. It was the sight and subsequent humiliation of seeing the American icon of capitalism attacked by Islamic fundamentalists and the icon of Americam military power - the Pentagon - being hit by an hijacked plane despite being heavily protected. Such a spectacular attack 'in plain sight' required a massive cover-up.
Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way?
GW Bush is probably the worst US President in history, with a strong dictatorial instincts, is this why people want to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, despite the complete lack of evidence and against all reason and logic?
The lack of logic is mostly with you, for you seem blind to the compelling reasons why 9/11 had to carried out in a far more spectacular way than merely a few truck bombs, which would have never persuaded the American people to support invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan!! Rather than pluck arguments out of the air against 9/11 being an inside job that are as weak as a paper tissue, you should perhaps seriously ask why you remain so blind to the ever-mounting evidence against the official account. Your attempt to pretend to claim an intellectually superior position long ceased to be respected here. Instead, it has become the desperate hand-waving of someone who is still arguing that the earth is flat. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some fairly desperate, ill-informed and illogical arguments deployed there, but no great surprise.
Directed energy weapons are now the size of a large articulated lorry and can manage to disable or explode a small missile. Even if six years ago DEW weapons had been developed in secret and were capable of destroying buildings, by now they would be in use and the anti-missile weapons would be much smaller. No one develops weapons not to use them. It could hardly have been located in WTC7 because that would be 40 stories below the supposed impact floors, so would be firing upwards at a steep angle, not horizontally as required to simulate a crashing aircraft.
You ignore the point that framing Saudis for the hijacking would be illogical on any basis. Nationals from the "axis of evil" countries would be far more effective. Secondly, the immediate reaction from the neo-cons was to attack Iraq, and they were restrained by the fact that there was no connection at all to justify it, so they had to wait impatiently for the WMD issue to provide an excuse. Had the hijackers been Iraqi, the job would have been done.
Despite what the conspiracy sites claim, Silverstein has not profited handsomely from the attacks, he has received only half of what he would need to rebuild, in accordance with his obligations under the lease, and he is still in litigation with two of his insurers. Instead of the entire WTC site, he will end up with only three buildings, not including the Freedom Tower. If it was an insurance scam, it was the most incompetant one in history.
The argument that WTC7 had to be destroyed to get rid of documents is frankly laughable. Have you not heard of shredders? You think it might have been done to prevent the CEOs of Enron and other companies going to jail? Wake up at the back there, Jeffrey Skilling is serving a 24 year sentence! Kenneth Lay was facing a similar sentence when he died.
Lorry bombs could have brought down the buildings just as effectively with far greater loss of life without this massively complex plan involving the complicity and subseguent total silence of hundreds of people, you make no sort of case.
I am afraid you are just whistling in the dark to talk of "ever mounting evidence" there is in fact no evidence at all. All those hailed as heroes of the truth movement turn out to be false prophets, the scholars in whom so many hopes were invested now spend all their efforts disproving each other, and making a far better job of it than advancing their own fantasies, David Ray Griffin does nothing more than uncritically recycle other peoples efforts, the Loose Change film turns out to be full of errors, and David Shayler turns out to be nuts. Meanwhile, the absurdity of NPT is obvious even to troofers, let alone the outside world, but carries on regardless, and either Webster Tarpley or the "signatories" to his Kennebunkport Warning are lying. The troof movement is collapsing into its own footprint!
Thanks for your reassurance that I am not respected on this site - now that would be worrying! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
