Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
Thank you Misha, that is a fantastic personal account. Have you by chance spent time in the areas around Israel?
Hi NinjaPuppy. No, I have not spent time in Israel or the Middle East whatsoever. When I made the statement on the Israeli and Palestine issue it was meant to be general. There are other "factions" who would employ such methods in conducting collateral damage, also.
Bells!!! Whistles!!! Confetti!!!!! You win the grand prize Sydney! You're absolutely right, I haven't added one iota of insight on why the buildings fell. Wanna know why? Because I'm not a high rise structural architect or engineer. My opinion on structural reinforcements shouldn't be considered. I could refer you all day long to websites that show why they fell, but most people only prefer to look at websites that support their current belief. Anyone who wants to know the truth though should look at everything and make up their own mind. I think NinjaPuppy is about the only one I know who actually does that around here.
So you're wanting me to believe, Sydney, that "it's that easy" when no building higher than 26 stories has ever been leveled, yet you want us to believe that top government officials (or anyone else for that matter) was able to bring down 2 buildings 4 times that high and a 3rd building almost twice as high, and it's never been done before or since? And no one, not one person, has come forward saying they saw any rigging of explosives? And it was timed for the same day as the planes? My common sense is getting the best of me so I really would appreciate some kind of explanation as to just how that could be...
Thanks for sharing the story Misha.
Hi ProWag, Actually, it is not fair to single out only NinjaPuppy about being fair-minded on this subject. I have been investigating the collapses of WTC I, II and Building 7 since they came down. In fact, I have read books on the subject to give myself a well-rounded view of the collapses. I agree with you that I am not an engineer or an architect when it comes to buildings. However, Richard Gage has gotten around 1.600 architects and engineers who do not agree with the government's official explanation. Should we not take this seriously? Moreover, NIST does not support the progressive collapse theory which they touted very early on after the disaster. NIST only supports their interpretation up and until the collapse itself. NIST is an agency of the Department of Commerce. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect in our current political climate that NIST would be under great pressure by the Bush Administration to give its assessment in favor of the "official version." This is the very same administration that fabricated and lied about Iraqi WMDs! It also the very same administration who vetted (Zelikow) certain questions and evidence to the 9/11 commission. Furthermore, nothing was mentioned in the 9/11 commission report on Building 7. To be clear, the 9/11 commission never even addressed it. If the commission did not answer what brought down building 7 then logically this would bring into question what brought down WTC I & II. As you folks know Building 7 sustained no airplane impacts and the damage was minimal. Even the fires on several of the floors were negligible. And yes, I asked the cops and firemen about this.
Agreed, the only "hard crime scene evidence" of controlled demolition which supports that explosives brought down the buildings is nano-thermitic in nature. It is compelling evidence to say the least. The preponderance of evidence is also compelling which this forum has covered. It is also important to realize that the crime scene was tampered with and the destruction of these materials being exporting to China.
Also, one more thing. To say that the 9/11 truthers will only entertain THEIR thesis against the official version is misleading. This is not the case for at least 1600 architects and engineers. Why? Because they have to know their adversaries thesis in order to counter it.
I stay pretty far away from this debate but whenever I read these posts I can't help but thinking - how do we explain how COMPETENT the government would have had to be to engineer such an event and having it go off so perfectly? Now, this doesn't mean they didn't do it, but I'm curious as to how a bunch of people, who are normally relatively incompetent on a regular basis, somehow pull off such a thing.
Should you not take seriously the 1.5 million engineers and the 233,000 architects who do NOT believe there was a controlled demolition? Additionally, have you ever broken down the list of names of those architects and engineers into an actual list of people who know something about skyscrapers? Even Gage himself admits he's only worked on 2 or 3 story buildings and is not an expert in 100 story buildings hit by planes. Very important to remember that Gage's list allows anyone, active or retired and in ANY architect or engineer specialty (among others), to post their name...
I like and respect you Misha, but from where I sit, you are a conspiracy theorist (not that that's a bad thing necessarily) whereas I've known Ninja for a few years now and know she is usually open to both sides of a story to begin with (with 1 or 2 understandable exceptions). I enjoy a good conspiracy as much as the next person. It's just that some people are more comfortable believing in more than what is there. Even being a believer in the Day of Deceit book helps me realize you enjoy a good conspiracy. That book by the way, has some very questionable and important historical inaccuracies. I'm not an expert in it so I can't debate it, but there is definitely another side to the story...
By the way, which book on the subject of 9/11 did you read that suggested that planes, hijacked by terrorists, were solely responsible for bringing down WTC 1, 2, & 7?
Normally I would totally agree with you on this statement but Syd did throw the "Manhattan Project" into the mix and that's a pretty darned good example of some pretty extraordinary intelligence and secrecy.
Hi Arouet, I think you pose an excellent question. However, perhaps, some of what you say are presuppositions such as "government." I am of the firm belief our constitutional government was not behind 9/11 whatsoever. These are the incompetent ones so to speak. Obviously not all, but the majority who got caught up in the fervor and propaganda. These are the very same representatives and senators who passed the PATRIOT ACT while never having read it. An aside, our founding fathers warned us about this phenomena, especially when passions run deep and time is needed to understand any one event.
So in effect, we may dismiss what most understand as the "government" being behind 9/11.
The other presupposition is that this "operation" went off perfectly. It did not. Building 7 is proof of this; Tactically speaking. Strategically speaking, there are a plethora of anomalies which have come to light which do not logically make sense concerning the official version, ie., cell phone calls (A.K Dewdney's research), WTC crime scene tampering, nano-thermitic evidence, Barbara Olson's alleged calls (FBI proved this to be not so), NORAD's response or lack thereof, pentagon plane impact or lack thereof, flight characteristics of all aircraft in question, black box evidence or lack thereof, 9/11 omissions, etc, etc... You guys could list a lot more but I think you get my point.
So who did it? The best answer I can give you is one of years of research. It calls for you understand how classified programs (still learning this) work. It calls for you to understand what an SAP (Special access program) is. It calls for you to understand how TS/SCI works. It calls for you to understand choke points in any given operation. It calls for you to understand sweeping. It calls for understanding CYA (cover your ass). It calls for you to understand what a "false flag" and a "limited hangout" is. It calls for you to understand military/industrial corporate power. It calls for you to understand the historical context of other controversial events which have the same modus operadi. And what I think is the most important of all. It calls for understanding that our major/corporate media is controlled.
In short we have these corporate elements in bed with the military/industrial/congressional (some) complex: Media, Markets, Muscle, Medical, Money, Morals (religion), and Minds (Academia). Now take C-cube I (command, control, communication and intelligence) for just a short time and we have 9/11. Now who or what can run such an operation? Guaranteed not our government as we understand it.
LOL. ProfWag only says nice things about me because he knows I'm originally from NJ and I know where he lives.
I'm curious as to what the police and firemen had to say about building 7. I always prefer a personal opinion to some standard issued response when trying to form my opinion.
I have not bothered to do much research on Building 7 but when I read something like this, I wonder about the structural changes:
I also wonder about the possibility of what the govt. agencies might have stored or had on hand in those offices:
Or maybe, even though I'm happily married, I just might have a little computer crush...
Or maybe, just maybe , it was 20 terrorists who hated what American stands for, were ordered to take pilot lessons, hijack some planes, fly them into the buildings, and let the laws of physics take over from there. Just a thought...
As for the 233,000 who do not believe in the controlled demolition "evidence" compared to a large percentage of Americans who do not believe in the official government explanation on 9/11 begs this nation's dissociation. I think David Ray Griffin put this into perspective. And, I have also seen this with the fire department and police force ACTIVE personnel. That being that they are part of a bureaucracy and their pay check depends on it. That means their families depend on that pay check. Tell me ProWay, let's say for argument's sake that you were an active engineer or an architect, or a cop, maybe a fireman, and you knew for sure the buildings were blown with explosives would you speak out? If not, then you are in good company with Kenny O'Donnell and Bill Powers. Get it? Also ask anyone whether active or not if they fear or at the least suspicious of their government. I have.
Also, If I am a "conspiracy theorist" then what does that make you? Do I call you a "conspiracy irrationalist?" Let's not beat around the barn. In today's society calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" is tantamount to calling them delusional. I have even queried people on this tag and that is the answer I usually get. Also, you implicitly project I am not open by illustrating that Ninja is open because you know her. How do you know I am not open? Is it fair to imply I an not when you don't know me? Now as for a "good conspiracy" that's a matter of perspective. I would think a "good truth" is far better no matter where it falls.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 4 guests