False Flag Terrorism

Talk E

Di0genes wrote: »

Wow. So instead of arguing the facts of "pull it" we're shifting the goalposts.

Di0genes

Talk E wrote: »

Translation: Talk E lost that round and is running off in a new direction


You'll notice I responded to all your points as well.

Chop Chop.

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

I can only take Fox News' word on it.

It doesn't make sense. It's utterly illogical. It requires Larry Silverstein to commit mass murder and then publicly confess to it on national television.

“This building—the last to fall on 9-11—is key to all controlled-demolition theories. Its sudden fall onto its own footprint, and developer Larry Silverstein's reference on TV to telling the FDNY to "pull it," are seen as evidence that WTC7 was rigged to fall.” –911truth.org Keep in mind that this misrepresentation comes from is one of the leading organizations of the 9/11 “Truth Movement.” (This is a national organization, not to be confused with ny911truth.org, already mentioned.)

Larry Silverstein was the owner of the 47-story WTC building 7, which collapsed on 9/11, and he owns the new 52-story building 7, which opened in May, 2006 on the site of the old building. He was the leaseholder on most of the other WTC buildings, including the Twin Towers (the property is owned by The Port of New York and New Jersey Authority). He won the right to the 99-year lease only six weeks before September 11, 2001, after a long public bidding process.

During an interview in 2002 for the PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Mr. Silverstein said this about the fate of building 7 on 9/11:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

The conspiracy theorists (hereafter referred to as “CTs”) believe that Silverstein was ordering the FDNY to demolish, or to allow to be demolished, building 7.

In my experience, the CTs are in such a hurry to get to the “pull it” phrase that they neglect to read the statement carefully. While I will provide much evidence in this paper that’s intended to convince the most hardcore CT, all that’s really necessary is to apply a bit of logic to the Silverstein statement, so I’ll start by doing that.

The setting: Larry Silverstein is being interviewed by a documentary crew from PBS. He calmly, clearly describes what happened. CTs would have us believe that Silverstein accidentally let it slip – twice, for a national TV audience – that he ordered his building to be demolished! Does that make any sense whatsoever? Can the CTs give an example of a similar “accidental confession” of a monumental crime in the history of the world? Keep in mind that if Silverstein thought he had said something wrong, he could simply have asked the crew to shoot that part again. Silverstein is a very smart guy who is in full possession of his mental faculties. He didn’t “slip up.”

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander...”
That was 32-year-veteran FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, who was in charge of the World Trade Center incident following Chief of Department Peter Ganci’s death in the collapse of the north tower. Silverstein was at home with his wife when he received the courtesy call from Chief Nigro in the afternoon.

Update

Whomever Silverstein spoke with, it wasn't Chief Nigro. As reported by "Ref" at the JREF forum, Chief Nigro did not speak with Silverstein:

"I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it." Source

“...telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire...”
That’s correct, as we will see in great detail below.
“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'”
Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein saying,
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”
or was he saying,
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?
Be honest, CTs. Which statement makes sense, and which is completely absurd?

Next, did Larry Silverstein, a real estate developer, have the world’s largest fire department at his beck and call? Of course not. Larry Silverstein had no say in how firefighting operations in New York City were conducted. He may have liked to think that Chief Nigro was calling him for a consultation, but that idea is laughable. It was a courtesy call.

“And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Who made the decision to pull? They. The fire department. Not “Me,” not “We.” They. This is ridiculously obvious to anyone but a CT. Does the FDNY demolish buildings with explosives? No, they pull their people away from buildings that are too dangerous to be near. The “we” in “we watched the building collapse” is Silverstein and his wife. Silverstein was not at the WTC site.Now that we’ve seen what Silverstein actually said, let’s see how his statement is represented by leaders of the “Truth Movement.”

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

It doesn't make sense. It's utterly illogical.

As Spock would say, 'Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smells bad'.

Arkslippy

Not an expert, but the obvious question on the 9/11 attacks to be a conspiracy, it would have involved over a 100 people on the ground on the day on 4 or 5 sites not to have had a sudden attack of conscience, to stand by and watch 3000 people die plus however many of their own colleges, friends and Loved ones being killed.

They would also have to be briefed completely beforehand and kept their mouths shut. For a period of time beforehand and 10 years afterwards.

The whole thing would have to be done without a dry run, without anybody finding a piece of evidence before hand.

The planning would take years and there would have to be people involved who would have spoken up or out. All the conspirators would have to be approached to take part in advance and none of them said anything or objected.

There is a conspiracy alright. A conspiracy of idiocy.

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

As Spock would say, 'Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smells bad'.

Yeah....Pithy but utterly irrelevant.

Why would he incriminate himself like that?

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

Yeah....Pithy but utterly irrelevant.

A joke.

Why would he incriminate himself like that?

I've no idea.

If WTC7 was a controlled explosion, you'd have to ask why.

And the only reason I can think of is that another plane was supposed to hit it, it was rigged to explode, the plane didn't hit, and they had to demolish it anyway for fear of people finding the building was rigged.

So maybe Larry was covering his ass, in this scenario.

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

A joke.

I've no idea.

It's a huge flaw in your argument

If WTC7 was a controlled explosion, you'd have to ask why.

As you pointed out 3 other buildings were irreparably damaged and needed to be destroyed. WTC 7 was just one building that collapsed on the day.

The damage to the surrounding buildings was extensive. WTC 7 is the only one that fell.

And the only reason I can think of is that another plane was supposed to hit it, it was rigged to explode, the plane didn't hit, and they had to demolish it anyway for fear of people finding the building was rigged.

Why was it rigged? For what possible reason?

You yourself admitted the whole complex was severely damaged, a perfectly logically alternative explanation is that WTC 7 received more damage than 4,5,6 and it fell on the day.

So maybe Larry was covering his ass, in this scenario.

How was he covering his? If he admitted to his insurance company that he demolished his building, he can't claim on insurance that it was destroyed by terrorists.


You do understand the total flaw in your argument?

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

As you pointed out 3 other buildings were irreparably damaged and needed to be destroyed. WTC 7 was just one building that collapsed on the day.

Ok.

The damage to the surrounding buildings was extensive. WTC 7 is the only one that fell.

Ok.

Why was it rigged? For what possible reason?

I've just posited a theory about that.

You yourself admitted the whole complex was severely damaged, a perfectly logically alternative explanation is that WTC 7 received more damage than 4,5,6 and it fell on the day.

That is one possible explanation.

How was he covering his? If he admitted to his insurance company that he demolished his building, he can't claim on insurance that it was destroyed by terrorists.

He didn't admit to demolishing the building. The Fox reporter says he called his insurance company to discuss demolishing the building.

Which is a pretty odd thing in itself, given the time and effort that would be required.

You do understand the total flaw in your argument?

No.

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

Ok.



Ok.

Wow that's charitable

I've just posited a theory about that.

And I've pointed out the flaws in it.

That is one possible explanation.

It's a perfectly logical. Also how could the 3rd plane find a 47 story building in New York?

He didn't admit to demolishing the building. The Fox reporter says he called his insurance company to discuss demolishing the building.

Which is a pretty odd thing in itself, given the time and effort that would be required.

Maybe he didn't know the time and effort. He's a property developer he doesn't know anything about demolition?

Did you know how long it would take to prep a building for demolition before you started looking in 9/11?

No.

Okay. Afterwards Silverstein claims the building was destroyed due to a terrorist attack. However the claim from conspiracy theorists is that Silverstein admitted to demolishing the building in a interview.

If the building was pre rigged with explosives, that's a admission of foreknowledge, therefore Silverstein is complicity in mass murder. And admits to it on national television.

Do you understand how mental that is?

Talk E

Couple of other things....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs

SFRC Testimony -- Zbigniew Brzezinski
February 1, 2007
Mr. Chairman:
Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.
It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:

1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America’s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.
If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.

Talk E

Yawn... and here's another one...


In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ Arabic: نيره الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has since largely come to be regarded as wartime propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

So it can mean literally pulling the building down, or applying lateral force to demolish the building, to give two examples.

It means pulling a building down, by actually pulling it down with cables.
This technique was actually used on some of the other heavily damaged buildings in the WTC.

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

Wow that's charitable

You're welcome.

And I've pointed out the flaws in it.

No you hadn't.

It's a perfectly logical.

Perfect except for the building falling in freefall.

Also how could the 3rd plane find a 47 story building in New York?

Tom Tom?

Maybe he didn't know the time and effort. He's a property developer he doesn't know anything about demolition?

True.

Did you know how long it would take to prep a building for demolition before you started looking in 9/11?

Yes.

Okay. Afterwards Silverstein claims the building was destroyed due to a terrorist attack. However the claim from conspiracy theorists is that Silverstein admitted to demolishing the building in a interview.

Taking out insurance against terrorism in the months leading up to the attack + discussing controlled demolition with his insurer on the day of the attack + saying they were going to "pull it" right before the building collapses in the manner of a controlled demolition = conspiracy theory.

These things create suspicion in peoples minds.

If the building was pre rigged with explosives, that's a admission of foreknowledge, therefore Silverstein is complicity in mass murder. And admits to it on national television.

Do you understand how mental that is?

If he was complicit, and if he did slip up on national television, that would be mental. Yes.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

Taking out insurance against terrorism in the months leading up to the attack

He had only purchased the entire WTC site in June - July of 2001. The WTC had been the target of terrorism before.
It's only suspicious if you leave out the facts and twist it to suit an agenda.

Hookah wrote: »

+ discussing controlled demolition with his insurer on the day of the attack

He was informing himself on what his legal standing was in relation to insurance if he left the building to burn then later demolish it.
Not exactly the classiest thing to do, but only suspicious is you want it to be.
Also it doesn't make a lick of sense for him to call the insurance company and ask them this, if he was involved in a conspiracy to blow them up.
And even if this somehow did make sense and he absolutely had to talk to his insurance company about it, why did he do it on the day itself?

Hookah wrote: »

+ saying they were going to "pull it" right before the building collapses in the manner of a controlled demolition = conspiracy theory.

Again this comes from an out of context quote, that we've shown doesn't make sense in the context of a conspiracy.

And if this arises suspicion, why say it on national TV?

Hookah wrote: »

These things create suspicion in peoples minds.

Only if they want it to be suspicious and ignore the fact that none of them make any sense as part of a conspiracy.

Hookah wrote: »

If he was complicit, and if he did slip up on national television, that would be mental. Yes.

Now assuming you can somehow slip up and blurt out an entire anecdote complete with emotional content, which just happens to implicate you in the worst crime ever, why then was the TV allowed to air?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

He was informing himself on what his legal standing was in relation to insurance if he left the building to burn then later demolish it.

Source?

Now assuming you can somehow slip up and blurt out an entire anecdote complete with emotional content, which just happens to implicate you in the worst crime ever, why then was the TV allowed to air?

It was live, I believe.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

Source?

Source for your insistence it was part of the conspiracy?
Mine is just a much more likely, less silly explanation for why he would call his insurance company.
Now can you explain why, if there was a conspiracy, would he tell his insurance company?

Hookah wrote: »

It was live, I believe.

It wasn't. The quote was mined from here:
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/about/about_buy.html

Now can please explain why he would confess in front of a camera?
Or will you admit you cannot adequately explain it?

And what about the other points, shall I assume you'll be ignoring them since you can't address them?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Source for your insistence it was part of the conspiracy?

There is none. Just you made your conjecture read like fact.

Mine is just a much more likely, less silly explanation for why he would call his insurance company.

If you say so.

Now can you explain why, if there was a conspiracy, would he tell his insurance company?

I never stated he told his insurance compant there was a conspiracy.

It wasn't. The quote was mined from here:
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/about/about_buy.html

Cheers.

Now can please explain why he would confess in front of a camera?
Or will you admit you cannot adequately explain it?

A spokesman for Mr. Silverstein stated that the comments were in relation to firefighters in the building, yet according to FEMA 'no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY' at WTC7, and firefighters had been ordered away from the building some hours before the collapse. So the statement remains an odd one.

And what about the other points, shall I assume you'll be ignoring them since you can't address them?

While I recognise and applaud your efforts at applying conjecture from the perspective of the non-conspiracy theory, not wishing to engage in a fruitless tit-for-tat, I have chosen to ignore them, yes.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

There is none. Just you made your conjecture read like fact.
If you say so.

Well my explanation does not require you assume a vast conspiracy, and doesn't have nonsensical contradictions that yours does.

Hookah wrote: »

I never stated he told his insurance compant there was a conspiracy.

But you're insisting that he called his insurance to ask about a controlled demolition, implying that you believe he was referring to the secret controlled demolition.
So it's straining credibility for you to simultaneously claim that him calling his insurance is evidence of his involvement as well as claim that the insurance company couldn't figure it out.

Hookah wrote: »

A spokesman for Mr. Silverstein stated that the comments were in relation to firefighters in the building, yet according to FEMA 'no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY' at WTC7, and firefighters had been ordered away from the building some hours before the collapse. So the statement remains an odd one.

I've highlighted the important part there.
There was plenty of firefighters in WTC7 evacuating the building, inspecting the building and trying to contain the fire as evidence by the myriad of accounts of firefighters on the scene posted by Diogenes, which you've of course ignored.
And given the theme of the thread, it's incredibly likely that the 'no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY' statement has been taken out of context and twisted to suit the CT narrative.
Please provide the context for the statement.

I find it hilarious that you find the statement "odd" in this case, yet don't seem to be bothered with all the nonsensical stuff we've pointed out about the CT explanation.

Hookah wrote: »

While I recognise and applaud your efforts at conjecture from the perspective of the non-conspiracy theory, not wishing to engage in a
fruitless tit-for-tat, I have chosen to ignore them, yes.

How wonderfully handy that you don't actually have to address the points.
I mean otherwise you might have to critically examine your beliefs and see if they hold up.
And we can't have that, can we?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Well my explanation does not require you assume a vast conspiracy, and doesn't have nonsensical contradictions that yours does.

If you say so.

But you're insisting that he called his insurance to ask about a controlled demolition, implying that you believe he was referring to the secret controlled demolition.
So it's straining credibility for you to simultaneously claim that him calling his insurance is evidence of his involvement as well as claim that the insurance company couldn't figure it out.

I thought it a coincidence that he should ring up somebody talking about a controlled explosion, and then a short time later the building collapses with what looks suspiciously like a controlled explosion.

I've highlighted the important part there.
There was plenty of firefighters in WTC7 evacuating the building, inspecting the building and trying to contain the fire as evidence by the myriad of accounts of firefighters on the scene posted by Diogenes, which you've of course ignored.

In this thread? I haven't read all of it. I shall look now.

Google the other thing yourself if you want it.

How wonderfully handy that you don't actually have to address the points.
I mean otherwise you might have to critically examine your beliefs and see if they hold up.
And we can't have that, can we?

You see, I'm of the belief that a building that goes in to freefall does so because there is nothing whatsoever to support it, ie the supporting columns would all have to fail simultaneuosly in order for that to occur.

None of your conjecture about events outside of that will do anything to answer that question, so I don't see any need to enter into another protracted and ultimatley fruitless debate, with you, yet again, concerning your conjecture, which neither you or I can prove.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

If you say so.

Another well thought out witty retort. Truly you are a master of debate:rolleyes:

Hookah wrote: »

I thought it a coincidence that he should ring up somebody talking about a controlled explosion, and then a short time later the building collapses with what looks suspiciously like a controlled explosion.

Now if I owned a building that was heavily damaged or on fire I would like to know where I stood insurance wise in regards to my options, particularly if I am forced to demolish the building.

Now if Silverstein knew that the towers he owned were coming down, I would imagine he would have check this stuff before hand.
It makes absolutely no sense that he would do so on the day.

In fact it would be like if you wished to commit insurance on your house, then called your broker to ask about your fire damage policy as you are lighting the gasoline.
It's that level of stupid.

Hookah wrote: »

In this thread? I haven't read all of it. I shall look now.

Yes, and again most of the points are left ignored.

Hookah wrote: »

Google the other thing yourself if you want it.

So you don't know the source of the quote and it is likely out of context if it exists at all. I wish you guys would just be honest about this stuff instead of talking in code.

Hookah wrote: »

You see, I'm of the belief that a building that goes in to freefall does so because there is nothing whatsoever to support it, ie the supporting columns would all have to fail simultaneuosly in order for that to occur.

None of your conjecture about events outside of that will do anything to answer that question, so I don't see any need to enter into another protracted and ultimatley fruitless debate, with you, yet again, concerning your conjecture, which neither you or I can prove.

No my points don't address anything about the supposed physical demolition of WTC7. Nor do I intend them to be.
I am addressing the claim that Silverstien's quotes are evidence of there being a controlled demolition.
I've made several points showing how these quotes are taken out of thier context and make no sense in the CT context people are trying to twist them into.

But you've taken the typical CT tactic of ignoring those points and trying to move the goalposts or throw out red herrings.

If you really didn't want to have a fruitless debate and were actually interested in a proper debate you would tackle the points head on and stick to the topic they address until it is resolved.
But then that would require you to actually start critically evaluating what you believe...

ed2hands

"False flag terrorism" occurs when elements within a government stage a secret operation whereby government forces pretend to be a targeted enemy while attacking their own forces or people. The attack is then falsely blamed on the enemy in order to justify going to war against that enemy.

Am sure every detail of the premise has been gone over with a fine-tooth comb on this forum, but am a new arrival and apologies if some of this has been put forward lately.
So far this thread has focussed on the trade towers and building 7, flight 93, and on U.S. previous FF's. But for me and many others, if we had to argue it in a court, on a balance-of-evidence basis, then i would be starting elsewhere to prove the case. Yes everyone arguing the case would immediately point to things like clear signs of controlled demolition and the unusual crashes at the Pentagon and Pensylvania.

The reason so many question the facts of the above occurences is obviously self-evident, but was exaserbated by the glaring ommissions and conclusions the 9/11 Commission Report. Also the issues below would for me point to a strong case for the OP's suggestion in a court of law on balance-of-evidence. (not that will ever probably happen)


Lets start with the Al Qaeda. Now i won't go into ALL of the alleged links it has to the CIA going back over the years as i presume it's been gone over and some of you are very knowledgeable about it already i presume.

Just a few factoids.
The 9/11 commission heard testimony, from former Clinton and Bush counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, that the Bush administration stalled on taking action against Al Qaeda during its first eight months in office, despite increasingly strident warnings from Clarke, CIA Director George Tenet, and other intelligence officials that a major Al Qaeda strike against the United States was in the offing. Bush himself received the now-notorious August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief from the CIA, which was entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the United States.” But the president told the commission he could not recall taking any action as a result. (He continued his vacation at his Texas ranch for another four weeks).
While documenting numerous CIA and FBI actions that effectively prevented the exposure of the 9/11 conspiracy, the commission’s report never addresses an obvious and crucial issue: were any of the Al Qaeda operatives, especially the ringleaders and organizers of the suicide hijackings, at some point assets or agents of the US intelligence services?
It is highly plausible—and on the basis of the available evidence, more likely than not—that US intelligence agencies had identified the main leaders of the 9/11 hijackings long before they boarded the doomed flights. Mohammed Atta, for instance, the supposed ringleader, was under US surveillance in Europe nearly two years before September 11, according to reports in the German media. Yet this suspected terrorist was allowed to enter and leave the US, enroll in a US flight school, and board transcontinental passenger flights repeatedly.
The alleged leader of the attacks Mohammed Atta. Suicide-bomber or CIA patsie? Or both? Or neither? So many questions. Too few answers. But apparently he liked pork chops...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1433886
Able Danger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_danger
Was Able Dangers purpose to observe Atta and Co.? ....or control?
Well, we'll probably never have proof now because apparently all the 2.5 terabytes of data have been destroyed and there has been no info whatsoever from this crucial source, from testimony or anything else.

Now briefly to Norads actions on 11th Sept 2001.
There was no air defense for nearly 2 hours that morning as everyone now knows. That because as everyone knows there were 15 separate drills occuring that day; the highest concentration of military drills in U.S. history.
The Norad tapes for that day were of course "scrutinised" by the Commission, but it refused to act on or investigate testimony from crucial people including Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2006091418303369

Lefticus Loonaticus

Arkslippy wrote: »

Not an expert, but the obvious question on the 9/11 attacks to be a conspiracy, it would have involved over a 100 people on the ground on the day on 4 or 5 sites not to have had a sudden attack of conscience, to stand by and watch 3000 people die plus however many of their own colleges, friends and Loved ones being killed.

They would also have to be briefed completely beforehand and kept their mouths shut. For a period of time beforehand and 10 years afterwards.

The whole thing would have to be done without a dry run, without anybody finding a piece of evidence before hand.

The planning would take years and there would have to be people involved who would have spoken up or out. All the conspirators would have to be approached to take part in advance and none of them said anything or objected.

There is a conspiracy alright. A conspiracy of idiocy.

Thats not a very good arguement im afraid. You are assuming its a certain american agency or part of the military involved, when really it could have been a whole load of other groups or combinations of such. Operations like this would be compartmentalized anyway(e.g everyone has one minor job and no one knows what the other is doing, with only a handful of people in the know).

Believe or not, there are many people out there that dont have any respect for human life, and many of them end up at high levels in places you would not want them. Its not just terrorists or your average murderers that are capable of mass murder, altho its only ever them that actually get caught.

The likes of the american military alone, since 9/11, has blatantly been involved in mass murder all over the shop. The figures range from about 100,000 to over a million or more. Bumping off a couple of their own, for the greater good, would not cause any moral dilemma, I assure you.

Also, people involved in such operations would have their families killed if they ever stepped out of line. It could also be that people are eliminated very quickly after the job is done anyway.

If it was done by an outside agency, it would just be carried out like a normal operation, same as a covert military strike against another nation, with zero hassle.

Dont forget aswell, there are christian and jewish fanatics aswell as islamic fanatics. They all have the same regard for human life, their own or otherwise, and the end always justifies the means.

Jaafa

Can someone please tell me why anti-terror drills took place both on 9/11 and the London bombings? Was it just a coincidence? I don't know either way,hoping to get others opinions on this.

Di0genes

Jaafa wrote: »

Can someone please tell me why anti-terror drills took place both on 9/11 and the London bombings? Was it just a coincidence? I don't know either way,hoping to get others opinions on this.

The anti terror drills in London were a paper exercise for a private company, by a private company. The had not control or power over real resources.

Similar, the drills on NORAD didn't affect real world operations. Would you care to listen to the tapes of NORAD staff operating that day?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

the London underground has been the subject of over a dozen terrorist attacks, Drills for private enterprises aren't that uncommon.

NORAD runs dozens of drills every

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

You're welcome.

So you admit I'm right?

No you hadn't.

Yes I have. And your thoughts on it?

Perfect except for the building falling in freefall.

It didn't fall in Freefall. Not all the way down.

Tom Tom?

On a plane? And how is destroying a minor part of the manhattan sky line going to be part of the attack?

If you've got a plane, fly in into the statute of Liberty, or the Empire state building, not just another anonymous office building.
.

Yes.

You knew it took upwards to three months to prep a building for controlled demolition

Taking out insurance against terrorism in the months leading up to the attack + discussing controlled demolition with his insurer on the day of the attack + saying they were going to "pull it" right before the building collapses in the manner of a controlled demolition = conspiracy theory.

Silverstein was obliged to take out terrorism insurance by the terms of his lease because the WTC center had been the victim of terrorist attacks

As mentioned the insures would be the last people you'd speak to before commiting insurance fraud.


And if you're still saying "pull it" means demolition after all I've posted, you're not paying attention to me.

If he was complicit, and if he did slip up on national television, that would be mental. Yes.

So you're agreed this conspiracy

Lefticus Loonaticus

Di0genes wrote: »

The anti terror drills in London were a paper exercise for a private company, by a private company. The had not control or power over real resources.

Similar, the drills on NORAD didn't affect real world operations. Would you care to listen to the tapes of NORAD staff operating that day?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

the London underground has been the subject of over a dozen terrorist attacks, Drills for private enterprises aren't that uncommon.

NORAD runs dozens of drills every

The 7/7 drill turned out to be almost identical to the real attacks. 3 underground, 1 above, simultaniously going off, and at the same or similar time as the real bombings.

The 911 drills were about planes hitting buildings. One of them was a live fly exercise.

Then Nato gallivanting around madrid doing anti terror exercises from the 4th until the 10th? Then the bombings happened on the 11th.

These Al-qaeda lads must be pretty damn good to run rings around NATO .

Coincidences my arse. Inside job.

Di0genes

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

The 7/7 drill turned out to be almost identical to the real attacks. 3 underground, 1 above, simultaniously going off, and at the same or similar time as the real bombings.

No. No they weren't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNil0xEcrcY

They were about bombs going off in similar stations. Nothing about a bus.

The bombs were in trains not stations.

Power is flat out beefing up his own company

The 911 drills were about planes hitting buildings. One of them was a live fly exercise.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijacking_Drill

Again that's simply flat out untrue.

Then Nato gallivanting around madrid doing anti terror exercises from the 4th until the 10th? Then the bombings happened on the 11th.

I literally cannot find a source for that.

If I type "NATO drills madrid bombing" the 3rd post links to this thread.

I'm not saying you're making it up, I think you got it wrong.

These Al-qaeda lads must be pretty damn good to run rings around NATO .

Coincidences my arse. Inside job.

Both the 7/7 and NORAD drills had no control over any kind of real world resources.

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

Hookah wrote: »

You're welcome.

So you admit I'm right?

You were right that other buildings needed to be destroyed and that WTC7 was the only building that fell. Yes.

Yes I have. And your thoughts on it?

I think you'll find that you didn't.

First I posted a theory why the building was rigged. Next you asked me why was the building rigged. Then I told you I already posited a theory. And then you claimed to have presented flaws in that theory, despite obvioulsy having missed the theory the first time.

It didn't fall in Freefall. Not all the way down.

But it did for 2.25 seconds, meaning nothing at all was there to support the building.

On a plane? And how is destroying a minor part of the manhattan sky line going to be part of the attack?

If you've got a plane, fly in into the statute of Liberty, or the Empire state building, not just another anonymous office building.

If this was part of the conspiracy, there must have been some reason.

All that missing gold, for example.

You knew it took upwards to three months to prep a building for controlled demolition

That is what I said.

Silverstein was obliged to take out terrorism insurance by the terms of his lease because the WTC center had been the victim of terrorist attacks

As mentioned the insures would be the last people you'd speak to before commiting insurance fraud.

Ok. It's still an odd conversation to have with his insurer, given the context.

And if you're still saying "pull it" means demolition after all I've posted, you're not paying attention to me.

I paid attention when you said it wasn't an industry term, and with a few minutes work I discovered two examples of where it was.

So you're agreed this conspiracy

?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Another well thought out witty retort. Truly you are a master of debate:rolleyes:

You're basically asserting the there are no grounds for a conspiracy theory, and that any conjecture in that direction is nonsense.

Any other response I make would be nonsensical.

Now if I owned a building that was heavily damaged or on fire I would like to know where I stood insurance wise in regards to my options, particularly if I am forced to demolish the building.

Now if Silverstein knew that the towers he owned were coming down, I would imagine he would have check this stuff before hand.
It makes absolutely no sense that he would do so on the day.

In fact it would be like if you wished to commit insurance on your house, then called your broker to ask about your fire damage policy as you are lighting the gasoline.
It's that level of stupid.

All very well, except the Fox reporter claims Silverstein rang the insurer to discus a controlled demolition.

Yes, and again most of the points are left ignored.

.

So you don't know the source of the quote and it is likely out of context if it exists at all. I wish you guys would just be honest about this stuff instead of talking in code.

I was honest. I said I 'believed' it was live.

If you really didn't want to have a fruitless debate and were actually interested in a proper debate you would tackle the points head on and stick to the topic they address until it is resolved.

But then that would require you to actually start critically evaluating what you believe...

I've had this already with you. You apply your conjecture, I apply my conjecture. You can't prove your conjecture, I can't prove my conjecture.

There is no resolving it.