9/11 Attacks

seannash · 13-09-2010 12:38am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Folks....it's not just about Thermate....the Commission did not adequately investigate a whole raft of issues.
It has always been mine and others suspision that somebody may have known what was going to happen and decided to profit from.
Now if you believe that that might be a possibility, can you see how we are arriving at the view? The Commission started with the opinion that Al Quaeda where solely responsible and that was the way it was going to stay
There would be very few CTers if they had done their job properly.... benefit .they are not all loons, and a lot of them have questions that demand answers and I believe that one day a proper inquiry will be held because of them.
Do you agree that a new inquiry would be a good thing?

can you just answer my question first.it took me a long time to type it.
id hate to think i wasted my time.
i dont think a new inquiry would be of any benefit to be honest.its retty much what happened on the day albeit with a few mistakes.

it is not the disorganised mess that people make out to be.

please answer my question

Divorce Referendum · 13-09-2010 12:45am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Folks....it's not just about Thermate....the Commission did not adequately investigate a whole raft of issues.
It has always been mine and others suspision that somebody may have known what was going to happen and decided to profit from.
Now if you believe that that might be a possibility, can you see how we are arriving at the view? The Commission started with the opinion that Al Quaeda where solely responsible and that was the way it was going to stay.
There would be very few CTers if they had done their job properly.....they are not all loons, and a lot of them have questions that demand answers and I believe that one day a proper inquiry will be held because of them.
Do you agree that a new inquiry would be a good thing?

Btw...I have no interest in looking at yet another video about Thermate....I simply don't know or am I qualified to say, neither is anyone on here for that matter.

Ya absoloutely but I dont know will anything change. I do actually find alot of conspiracy theories to be very beliveable but from my background as a site engineer if find some of the ones relating to 9/11 and the building falling a bit crazy but thats just my opinion. In my opinion the report offers alot of facts but the conspiracy theories offer a minimal amount. As you said the report isnt perfect and thats what some of these theories are clinging on to.

seannash · 13-09-2010 12:52am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Btw...I have no interest in looking at yet another video about Thermate....I simply don't know or am I qualified to say, neither is anyone on here for that matter.

sorry man i didnt see this part of your post,it didnt show up when i quoted you.

im not an expert either but i was just asking you to look at a video where an expert details how much nano thermite it would take.

we dont need to understand how it works we simply need to accept that this scientist says it would take a huge amount.he is also making the claim that the building were taken down by nanothermite so im not showing you an unbiased video

after that you can answer my hypothetical question,anyone can.
the video is only 10 minutes long.

Happyman42 · 13-09-2010 12:52am

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Ya absoloutely but I dont know will anything change. I do actually find alot of conspiracy theories to be very beliveable but from my background as a site engineer if find some of the ones relating to 9/11 and the building falling a bit crazy but thats just my opinion. In my opinion the report offers alot of facts but the conspiracy theories offer a minimal amount. As you said the report isnt perfect and thats what some of these theories are clinging on to.

Fair play, wasn't expecting that answer! I think a new Commission with no vested interests is the way to go, if only to allow those innocents that died that day to rest in peace.

seanash......I have no answer to that. There are those who claim that the lifts were being overhauled shortly before hand by a company with 'interesting' owners as had the security firm for the WTC.....all I am saying is it has to be investigated by those who have the proper resources and a zeal to find the truth, however horrible and nasty that truth may be.

seannash · 13-09-2010 1:02am

Happyman42 wrote: »

seanash......I have no answer to that. There are those who claim that the lifts were being overhauled shortly before hand by a company with 'interesting' owners as had the security firm for the WTC.....all I am saying is it has to be investigated by those who have the proper resources and a zes al to find the truth, however horrible and nasty that truth may be.

thats fair enough.i think you just dont want to say mine is the most plausible scenario.

and honestly ive talked to security men in the towers.these people are not exactly from elite backgrounds.i doubt very much they are keeping silent about the ordeal,either would the workers who were on there floors that morning

as for the overhauling lifts,they are constantly doing maintainance on the place.the lifts arent exactly on the side of the building.they would need to go through a loading dock first.

also "there are those who claim" generally means speculation without evidence.

anyway if you get a spare 2 hours give this video a watch.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#

im not saying to watch this in a smug way im merely saying they make some good points and offer alternative exlainations to many of the conspiracies.it also shows what the 9/11 report says about some of the issues

Divorce Referendum · 13-09-2010 1:06am

By the way happyman i forgot toask. Who are you thinking would have benifited financially form an inside job?

seannash · 13-09-2010 1:08am

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

By the way happyman i forgot toask. Who are you thinking would have benifited financially form an inside job?

aw dont ask this ha ha ha

bush,the american economy,people who manufacure weapons for the army,
oil companies,wall street bankers

its an endless list

Soveriegn · 13-09-2010 1:10am

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

By the way happyman i forgot toask. Who are you thinking would have benifited financially form an inside job?

Obviously Larry Silverstein and all the construction companies who will help rebuild Iraq, oil companies, bankers all the usual suspects who benafit from keeping people living in fear of terror.

seannash · 13-09-2010 1:16am

Soveriegn wrote: »

Obviously Larry Silverstein

hey sovereign take a look at the video i posted,it exlains how larry silverstein lost money by the collapse.

just a side note but if you dont subscribe to the it was an inside job theory it does not mean we dont see that some people will benefit from this disaster.

we just think that it wasnt purosely done so people could benefit

alastair · 13-09-2010 1:17am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Fair play, wasn't expecting that answer! I think a new Commission with no vested interests is the way to go, if only to allow those innocents that died that day to rest in peace.

Vested interests?

The Commission's mandate is to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future.

Specifically, Section 604 of Public Law 107-306 requires the Commission to investigate "facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001," including those relating to intelligence agencies; law enforcement agencies; diplomacy; immigration, nonimmigrant visas, and border control; the flow of assets to terrorist organizations; commercial aviation; the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation; and other areas determined relevant by the Commission for its inquiry.

There were no vested interests in the Commission. It was a bi-partisan group with a broad mandate, and it didn't shy from apportioning blame within various government bodies. That you want the to waste their time with bogus theories doesn't mean that those bogus theories merit any time from the commission - they didn't investigate the evidence of pixiedust - is that a 'fail' too - given that there's as much evidence of that as 'nano thermite' - a compound that's never been used to demolish a building, is only available in trace quantities, and would require ten tonnes to demolish a tower - all done without anyone in the building noticing. At least pixiedust is magic - thus providing one advantage over 'nano thermite' on the plausible explanation front.

The only reason thermite was ever conjured up by the CT gang? The awkward absence of any controlled demolition explosions - so any port in a storm. Meanwhile just ignore those planes and the obvious damage they've done. It's pathetic to be honest.

Divorce Referendum · 13-09-2010 1:18am

Soveriegn wrote: »

Obviously Larry Silverstein and all the construction companies who will help rebuild Iraq, oil companies, bankers all the usual suspects who benafit from keeping people living in fear of terror.

Well you do know Larry Silverstein actually lost money..... Hmmm seems like the same ol same ol from America. Didnt know they needed 9/11 as an excuse to go to war.

Kingpin187 · 13-09-2010 1:20am

thread is a mess, questions answered by yet more questions in no order.. aka tl:dr

One thing I noticed tho, and would appreciate someone clarifying.. someone posted that an official (declassified) report stated that on one of the allegedly hijacked flights, the cockpit door remained locked from takeoff, is this true? and link please

Soveriegn · 13-09-2010 1:21am

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Well you do know Larry Silverstein actually lost money..... Hmmm seems like the same ol same ol from America. Didnt know they needed 9/11 as an excuse to go to war.

They need the people to support it, afterall, they pay for it.

Happyman42 · 13-09-2010 1:22am

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

By the way happyman i forgot toask. Who are you thinking would have benifited financially form an inside job?

As others say, it's an endless list.
I don't see anybody on the inside conspiring about the jets, there are easier and less risky ways to spark a war.....like assasination. But I think it's possible that a blind eye was turned to the information (which means only a small amount of people would need to be involved) and they had to quickly have somebody to blame. Remember they invaded Afghanistan in October with UN sanction. They had to have absolute proof that Al Quaeda were responsible to take American public opinion along with them. The Commission backed them up on that.

alastair · 13-09-2010 1:22am

Soveriegn wrote: »

Obviously Larry Silverstein and all the construction companies who will help rebuild Iraq, oil companies, bankers all the usual suspects who benafit from keeping people living in fear of terror.

I'm curious how you imagine bankers manage to benefit from fear of terror.

Larry Silverstein has had 9 years of headaches from the attack.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so rather a gamble for the construction companies to assume that a bunch of Saudis knocking planes into buildings would benefit them - beyond rebuilding said buildings of course. It's not like there's been a huge construction boom in Afghanistan - the only obvious state that could expect payback from US forces.

alastair · 13-09-2010 1:25am

Kingpin187 wrote: »

thread is a mess, questions answered by yet more questions in no order.. aka tl:dr

One thing I noticed tho, and would appreciate someone clarifying.. someone posted that an official (declassified) report stated that on one of the allegedly hijacked flights, the cockpit door remained locked from takeoff, is this true? and link please

Not true - ample links to the phonecalls from witnesses on the various planes if you go looking.

Divorce Referendum · 13-09-2010 1:26am

Soveriegn wrote: »

They need the people to support it, afterall, they pay for it.

So larry did lose money then???? America generally go to war whether their citizens like it or not and we are talking about some americans that will shoot you if you look at them sideways.

alastair · 13-09-2010 1:27am

Happyman42 wrote: »

They had to have absolute proof that Al Quaeda were responsible to take American public opinion along with them. The Commission backed them up on that.

Quite correctly.

Kingpin187 · 13-09-2010 1:27am

thanks Alastair, I hadnt ever heard of this before and I thought I would have had it been fact

seannash · 13-09-2010 1:27am

Soveriegn wrote: »

They need the people to support it, afterall, they pay for it.

sovereign not to pick holes in your post but you just threw out Larry Silverstein's name,saying he benefitted.

it is well known he didnt benefit.will you conceed that he didnt benefit or do you still think he did.

just to clarify your stance on his involvement

its a small point but it might just show us how much of the debunkers evidence you have looked at

im not trying to catch you out

seannash · 13-09-2010 1:31am

alastair wrote: »

Vested interests?

There were no vested interests in the Commission. It was a bi-partisan group with a broad mandate, and it didn't shy from apportioning blame within various government bodies. That you want the to waste their time with bogus theories doesn't mean that those bogus theories merit any time from the commission - they didn't investigate the evidence of pixiedust - is that a 'fail' too - given that there's as much evidence of that as 'nano thermite' - a compound that's never been used to demolish a building, is only available in trace quantities, and would require ten tonnes to demolish a tower - all done without anyone in the building noticing. At least pixiedust is magic - thus providing one advantage over 'nano thermite' on the plausible explanation front.

The only reason thermite was ever conjured up by the CT gang? The awkward absence of any controlled demolition explosions - so any port in a storm. Meanwhile just ignore those planes and the obvious damage they've done. It's pathetic to be honest.

Alastair i think you make fantastic arguments against the CT'er's but i think its the aggressive posting style that makes some of the threads you become involved in descend into bickering.

as you can tell ive been trying to go about it in a softly softly type of way.
i think its a shame that some of your posts get dismissed as bickering because you make excellent points.

Soveriegn · 13-09-2010 1:32am

alastair wrote: »

I'm curious how you imagine bankers manage to benefit from fear of terror.

Larry Silverstein has had 9 years of headaches from the attack.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so rather a gamble for the construction companies to assume that a bunch of Saudis knocking planes into buildings would benefit them - beyond rebuilding said buildings of course. It's not like there's been a huge construction boom in Afghanistan - the only obvious state that could expect payback from US forces.

It had plenty to do with it, it was the U.S government who linked to two when it suited them. They use U.S construction companies.

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

So larry did lose money then???? America generally go to war whether their citizens like it or not and we are talking about some americans that will shoot you if you look at them sideways.

I'm not sure if he did. He received the largest insurance payout in history of $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.

Happyman42 · 13-09-2010 1:36am

Have you finished googling Shaffer and the 4 witnnesses that said the same thing as him yet Alastair?
I posted that twice and you have nothing to say on it.
find anything that fits your world view?

Divorce Referendum · 13-09-2010 1:37am

Soveriegn wrote: »

I'm not sure if he did. He received the largest insurance payout in history of $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.

If you arent sure then why say it. The rebuilding costs are 6 billion so far. Not the best bit of business if he was in on it. He is also trying to recoup 770million from the insurance company.

Happyman42 · 13-09-2010 1:39am

alastair wrote: »

I'm curious how you imagine bankers manage to benefit from fear of terror.

Larry Silverstein has had 9 years of headaches from the attack.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so rather a gamble for the construction companies to assume that a bunch of Saudis knocking planes into buildings would benefit them - beyond rebuilding said buildings of course. It's not like there's been a huge construction boom in Afghanistan - the only obvious state that could expect payback from US forces.

Sean Quinns gamble went a bit pear shaped too......but he took the gamble.

Soveriegn · 13-09-2010 1:40am

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

If you arent sure then why say it. The rebuilding costs are 6 billion so far. Not the best bit of business if he was in on it. He is also trying to recoup 770million from the insurance company.

I was sure at the time, now I am not so sure. Is that ok ?

alastair · 13-09-2010 1:41am

Soveriegn wrote: »

It had plenty to do with it, it was the U.S government who linked to two when it suited them. They use U.S construction companies.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - how would anyone assume that that attack could result in an occupation of Iraq of all places? How much US construction windfall has come out of Afghanistan?

Soveriegn wrote: »

I'm not sure if he did. He received the largest insurance payout in history of $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.

He's been paying $10 million a month for a hole in the ground for 9 years - that's the bones of $2 billion. He's lost 9 years of revenue from the bulk of the site, and he's been forced out of ownership of the prime replacement building on the site. Not really a winning streak there.

alastair · 13-09-2010 1:42am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Sean Quinns gamble went a bit pear shaped too......but he took the gamble.

Yeah - it's just the same thing. :rolleyes:

elius · 13-09-2010 1:42am

My thought on this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q20NmYGE-T4&feature=related

seannash · 13-09-2010 1:43am

Soveriegn wrote: »

It had plenty to do with it, it was the U.S government who linked to two when it suited them. They use U.S construction companies.

hey guess what. the irish owned construction company i used to work for was involved in the cleanup.i know the company who was brought into reign in the outrageous construction costs for the new build.
He plays golf with my old boss.ive met him.hes a thoroughly nice fella

i know youll say its the ones rebuilding iraq but there are alot of irish construction workers over there too.

I'm not sure if he did. He received the largest insurance payout in history of $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.

as has been said the rebuild is exceeding the payout.he also is still paying rent so that he is entitled to build there.

(its in the video i posted)

9/11 Attacks

Comments