Credible People Who Say 911 Was An Inside Job: CIA Agents, Foreign Presidents, Etc

1…457910…12

Comments

  • even flow?
    even flow? Posts: 8,066
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    But the people who could pull that type of thing off are already powerful, and already rich. Plus if terrorists were already doing or at least planning things like that anyways (USS Cole, The London Bombings (or were those government operations too)) why would the government go out of the way to make people scared when the terrorists already had that covered?


    I'l say this. You and I and most people have a savings account and can always be richer. ;)

    As for the USS Cole, I'll give the "terrorists" that one. Maybe even the botched Trade Centre bombing. As for making people scared, that is exactly what the government wants. It ain't a stretch for them to want to do that. Just look how well it has worked in America since 911. First big boom to go off in the states and voila look at the power the gov't can wield.

    I'm sorry I don't think I've heard of a rich person with power not wanting more. They are like kids with candy.
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    In fact the only rebuttals to most questions raised by the 911 Truthers go something like this, "You raise a lot of good points, and it looks fishy, but just think how silly and improbable it is."
    And the only rebuttal I ever hear to my questions is basically the same...they're pretty much just dismissed. Like you said "I don't know, but what about ___, ___, and ___?"

    This is why conspiracy theories flourish easily, and go on and on and on.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Saturnal wrote:
    And the only rebuttal I ever hear to my questions is basically the same...they're pretty much just dismissed. Like you said "I don't know, but what about ___, ___, and ___?"

    This is why conspiracy theories flourish easily, and go on and on and on.


    But.....even the official theory is based on a conspiracy against the US plotted by a group of sandal clad terrorist operating out of caves. But when it's the gov't pushing the conspiracy theory pushed further by the corporate media it's supposed to be more credible but why? Most people think the gov't lies to us all the time and that the media just tows the state line anyways. But on this we're supposed to forget all that and trust them? All the evidence is circumstanial on both sides and require assuming and speculation.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • MakingWaves
    MakingWaves Posts: 1,294
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Watch tower #7....comes down like a textbook demolition. I am even having to say this why exactly?

    Look up tensile strength, Better yet try to break a pencil by standing it upright in a vice and break it with something by hitting it perfectly on it's end. v.s. simply snapping it like a twig sideways the normal way. Or better yet use a metal rod and a massive sledge hammer and try to even just bend the rod.

    Just use your eyes to see how fast the buildings come down while picturing the above reality. And yes, it makes complete sense what I'm saying.

    So anyway where's the part where anyone explains how the tensile structural integrity of the metal was somehow magically defeated all the way down the building in essentially free fall speed (gravity) without any protest.

    I hate sounding like a prick, but I am a Mechanical Engineer. I don't need to look up tensile strength. I have a very good understanding of column failure and that is why what you say is bullshit to me.
    But you know what, I don't mind the differing opinions because there is a bird chirping on The Porch and i have a good feeling the South is about to get some much needed love from our guys.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
    St. Louis '22
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    All the evidence is circumstanial on both sides and require assuming and speculation.
    Exactly, that's what I've been getting at. I never said one theory is more credible than the other. I'm saying the arguments about which one is right go on and on and on because there's no way to answer all the questions raised after such an event. That's why you eventually have to pick the questions you think are most important and answer them so that the answers make sense and don't conflict with one another.

    When I do that, I just happen to believe the official story that the government backs in this case. There are plenty of other cases where I think their official story is complete b.s. This is just one of the times I agree. I do think they're hiding information, but I don't think they manufactured 9/11.
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    even flow? wrote:
    I'l say this. You and I and most people have a savings account and can always be richer. ;)

    As for the USS Cole, I'll give the "terrorists" that one. Maybe even the botched Trade Centre bombing. As for making people scared, that is exactly what the government wants. It ain't a stretch for them to want to do that. Just look how well it has worked in America since 911. First big boom to go off in the states and voila look at the power the gov't can wield.

    I'm sorry I don't think I've heard of a rich person with power not wanting more. They are like kids with candy.

    It is true that most people want to be richer, but it is also a big risk/reward type thing as well. Bill Gates probably wants more money, but he is not going to rob a liquor store to get it.

    So like you say if the government wants to make people scared but someone else is already planning attacks that would yield that result, why even be involved?

    Once again this whole idea of a conspiracy theory goes back to the idea of risk/reward to me. I mean the amount of risk that would be taken by people is huge (especially with some of the theories I have read which would have 100's of people involved) and the reward you get if it pays off isn't really that great to justify the risk. I mean that Spitzer guy's career is ruined because someone found out he had sex with a prostitute, can you imagine the punishment for people if any of these theories was true.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    I mean that Spitzer guy's career is ruined because someone found out he had sex with a prostitute, can you imagine the punishment for people if any of these theories was true.

    Careful there.
    You're actualy using a conspiracy to disprove a conspiracy.
    In all likelyhood, Spitzer was not brought down simply for being one of hundreds of high level politicians involved with prostitution rings. He was brought down (imo) because his tough stance on corporate corruption on Wall St. put him on the wrong side of the wrong people.

    In otherwords, Spitzer was brought down by the anti-conspiracy conspiracy folks. He knew there were bad people in business, and he was going after them. The bad people rang up their buddies at the FBI, and said, "bust this clown".

    Thats my take on it, anyhow.

    So careful what you go using as proof.
    :D
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Once again this whole idea of a conspiracy theory goes back to the idea of risk/reward to me. I mean the amount of risk that would be taken by people is huge (especially with some of the theories I have read which would have 100's of people involved) and the reward you get if it pays off isn't really that great to justify the risk. I mean that Spitzer guy's career is ruined because someone found out he had sex with a prostitute, can you imagine the punishment for people if any of these theories was true.
    Yeah, that's something I think is really important too. Way too much to risk, especially using the method of crashing planes into buildings. Using that method vs. vans with bombs parked in the basement parking lots or something raises the risk by a million percent.
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    The Reichstag fire was a pivotal event in the establishment of Nazi Germany. At 21:15 on the night of February 23, 1933, a Berlin fire station received an alarm call that the Reichstag building, the assembly location of the German Parliament, was ablaze. The fire started in the Session Chamber[1], and by the time the police and firemen arrived, the main Chamber of Deputies was in flames. Inside the building, the police quickly found a shirtless Marinus van der Lubbe. Van der Lubbe was a Dutch insurrectionist council communist and unemployed bricklayer who had recently arrived in Germany, ostensibly to carry out his political activities. The fire was used as evidence that the Communists were beginning a plot against the German government. Van der Lubbe and four Communist leaders were arrested. Then-chancellor Adolf Hitler urged President Hindenburg to pass an emergency decree in order to counter the "ruthless confrontation of the KPD".

    Meanwhile, investigation of the Reichstag Fire continued, with the Nazis eager to uncover Comintern complicity. In early March 1933, three men were arrested who were to play pivotal roles during the Leipzig Trial, known also as "Reichstag Fire Trial," namely three Bulgarians: Georgi Dimitrov, Vasil Tanev and Blagoi Popov. The Bulgarians were known to the Prussian police as senior Comintern operatives, but the police had no idea how senior they were: Dimitrov was head of all Comintern operations in Western Europe.

    Recent research has confirmed the widely-held belief at the time, that the Nazis organised the arson attempt in order to seize power.
    Thank you Wikipedia.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    MakingWaves wrote:
    I hate sounding like a prick, but I am a Mechanical Engineer. I don't need to look up tensile strength. I have a very good understanding of column failure and that is why what you say is bullshit to me.
    But you know what, I don't mind the differing opinions because there is a bird chirping on The Porch and i have a good feeling the South is about to get some much needed love from our guys.

    Then you should understand very well that vertical columns of steel, unaffected by any heat whatsoever, like to remain that way instead of going whoosh at/nar the speed of gravity all the way down to the ground without any sort of protest.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/jetfueldees.jpg
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    Nevermind wrote:
    The Reichstag fire was a pivotal event in the establishment of Nazi Germany. At 21:15 on the night of February 23, 1933, a Berlin fire station received an alarm call that the Reichstag building, the assembly location of the German Parliament, was ablaze. The fire started in the Session Chamber[1], and by the time the police and firemen arrived, the main Chamber of Deputies was in flames. Inside the building, the police quickly found a shirtless Marinus van der Lubbe. Van der Lubbe was a Dutch insurrectionist council communist and unemployed bricklayer who had recently arrived in Germany, ostensibly to carry out his political activities. The fire was used as evidence that the Communists were beginning a plot against the German government. Van der Lubbe and four Communist leaders were arrested. Then-chancellor Adolf Hitler urged President Hindenburg to pass an emergency decree in order to counter the "ruthless confrontation of the KPD".

    Meanwhile, investigation of the Reichstag Fire continued, with the Nazis eager to uncover Comintern complicity. In early March 1933, three men were arrested who were to play pivotal roles during the Leipzig Trial, known also as "Reichstag Fire Trial," namely three Bulgarians: Georgi Dimitrov, Vasil Tanev and Blagoi Popov. The Bulgarians were known to the Prussian police as senior Comintern operatives, but the police had no idea how senior they were: Dimitrov was head of all Comintern operations in Western Europe.

    Recent research has confirmed the widely-held belief at the time, that the Nazis organised the arson attempt in order to seize power.
    Thank you Wikipedia.
    Very true, but I don't think it's relevant here. Conspiring to set a fire in a building is not even close to the same thing as orchestrating the events of 9/11 and covering it up.
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    Saturnal wrote:
    Very true, but I don't think it's relevant here. Conspiring to set a fire in a building is not even close to the same thing as orchestrating the events of 9/11 and covering it up.
    Destroying your own building to gain more power is not like starting a fire in your own building to gain power?
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    Nevermind wrote:
    Destroying your own building to gain more power is not like starting a fire in your own building to gain power?
    Again, the fact that buildings were destroyed in both cases is besides the point. The amount of planning/effort/cost/risk to do what was done on 9/11 is not comparable to the case of Nazi Germany. The methods and amount of destruction are not even close to comparable. That's why I think it's irrelevant.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    Saturnal wrote:
    Again, the fact that buildings were destroyed in both cases is besides the point. The amount of planning/effort/cost/risk to do what was done on 9/11 is not comparable to the case of Nazi Germany. The methods and amount of destruction are not even close to comparable. That's why I think it's irrelevant.

    Hitler didn't have the CIA and Mossad to help him out.
    Nor did he have a duplicit group of "terrorists" to help with the subterfuge.

    I'm sorry, but i just don't see where that many people were needed to be "in" on 911. Besides the people at the top who have all shown plenty of motive in their own writings (PNAC), you would only need a very small number of loyal CIA agents in on your plan. Most all of 911 could have been accomplished by simply keeping good agents off of the "terrorists", and ensuring that the arabs got their money and training. Again, we actualy trained them ourselves in some cases! Almost everything else could have been done by regular old clueless government workers who were given orders from on high. And what i mean here is not that some clueless guy planted bombs. I mean, the people that trained the terrorists, they were just trainers doing a job, training people sent to their class. The border agents who let them through? Just doing their job. Now, when we get to airport security, hmm ... keep in mind that was an israeli company, so even if they did get stopped, the boss could just waive his hand, but my suspicion is those terrorists went in the "backdoor".

    If you think this all falls apart when we start talking about bombs, just remember that anyone who was a part of planting bombs (assuming there were any) would be the first to recieve their lethal injection, were they to come forward. And they would also have to know that there was a snowballs chance in hell of "the system" ever actualy moving forward with any convictions against the president, or any of his men. The guy would come forward, and get sentenced to death all by his lonesome.

    Case in point, Terry Nichols repeatedly swore that high level FBI agents put Timothy McVeigh to the task of bombing the Murrah building. Did anyone listen to him or investigate that contention? Fuck no. Why should they? They had their patsies.

    :cool:
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    For the people who say Ohhh soooo impossible a zillion billion kajillion people would like know....so it's like soooo impossible you know

    uhh for starters....Iran-Contra anyone?
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    Hitler didn't have the CIA and Mossad to help him out.
    Nor did he have a duplicit group of "terrorists" to help with the subterfuge.

    I'm sorry, but i just don't see where that many people were needed to be "in" on 911. Besides the people at the top who have all shown plenty of motive in their own writings (PNAC), you would only need a very small number of loyal CIA agents in on your plan. Most all of 911 could have been accomplished by simply keeping good agents off of the "terrorists", and ensuring that the arabs got their money and training. Again, we actualy trained them ourselves in some cases! Almost everything else could have been done by regular old clueless government workers who were given orders from on high. And what i mean here is not that some clueless guy planted bombs. I mean, the people that trained the terrorists, they were just trainers doing a job, training people sent to their class. The border agents who let them through? Just doing their job. Now, when we get to airport security, hmm ... keep in mind that was an israeli company, so even if they did get stopped, the boss could just waive his hand, but my suspicion is those terrorists went in the "backdoor".

    If you think this all falls apart when we start talking about bombs, just remember that anyone who was a part of planting bombs (assuming there were any) would be the first to recieve their lethal injection, were they to come forward. And they would also have to know that there was a snowballs chance in hell of "the system" ever actualy moving forward with any convictions against the president, or any of his men. The guy would come forward, and get sentenced to death all by his lonesome.

    Case in point, Terry Nichols repeatedly swore that high level FBI agents put Timothy McVeigh to the task of bombing the Murrah building. Did anyone listen to him or investigate that contention? Fuck no. Why should they? They had their patsies.

    :cool:
    lol

    and it goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on
  • MakingWaves
    MakingWaves Posts: 1,294
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Then you should understand very well that vertical columns of steel, unaffected by any heat whatsoever, like to remain that way instead of going whoosh at/nar the speed of gravity all the way down to the ground without any sort of protest.

    There doesn't necessarily have to be fire for the columns to fail BUT there was fire adding to this problem.
    The design of the building along with where the damage was received led to it collapsing how it did. Nothing more and nothing less.
    http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

    Look at the pictures of the roof on page 3..this is a progressional failure of the structure. No explosives.

    And one more thing. People always say the buildings fell within their own footprints. This just isn't true. If that was true would damage to other buildings have been caused? No it wouldnt.

    "When 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building is not salvageable. As of August 2007, Fiterman Hall is undergoing deconstruction.[46] The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east façade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion."
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
    St. Louis '22
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    MakingWaves wrote:
    There doesn't necessarily have to be fire for the columns to fail BUT there was fire adding to this problem.
    The design of the building along with where the damage was received led to it collapsing how it did. Nothing more and nothing less.
    http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

    Look at the pictures of the roof on page 3..this is a progressional failure of the structure. No explosives.

    And one more thing. People always say the buildings fell within their own footprints. This just isn't true. If that was true would damage to other buildings have been caused? No it wouldnt.

    "When 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building is not salvageable. As of August 2007, Fiterman Hall is undergoing deconstruction.[46] The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east façade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion."

    Remove one column and the whole building comes down like a deck of cards?

    Now I've heard of everything.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Remove one column and the whole building comes down like a deck of cards?

    Now I've heard of everything.
    Its like Jenga. Once you remove that first block the whoe thing tumbles everytime.

Categories