So any names so far?

snafuk35

Ok so the favourite candidate for 9/11 mastermind among conspiracy theorists is Dick Cheney.
But could you name the names of any of the people who actually worked on the plot?
Any names of somebody who rigged the WTC with termite?
Maybe the names of the people who worked on sending a missile in the Pentagon or the names of the people who planted the plane debris?
One name will do. Has anyone come forward and admitted they took part?
If it was an inside job then there must be somebody who knows something?

Zombienosh

Larry Silverstein did well out of 9/11.

snafuk35

Zombienosh wrote: »

Larry Silverstein did well out of 9/11.

But did he do it all by himself?

Name names please.

King Mob

Zombienosh wrote: »

Larry Silverstein did well out of 9/11.

How much did he make out of it?

snafuk35

King Mob wrote: »

How much did he make out of it?

I want you to give me the names of the low level people who worked on the plot.

Who are they? Names please.
Who set the individual charges to blow or who piloted the planes remotely into the WTC and disposed of the passengers and who created the fake telephone calls? Who? Give me the names.

King Mob

snafuk35 wrote: »

I want you to give me the names of the low level people who worked on the plot.

Who are they? Names please.
Who set the individual charges to blow or who piloted the planes remotely into the WTC and disposed of the passengers and who created the fake telephone calls? Who? Give me the names.

I wouldn't know, as I don't believe in any of those things.

snafuk35

King Mob wrote: »

I wouldn't know, as I don't believe in any of those things.

I don't either but supposing the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are right and the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition then who are the people who planted the charges that took the building down? Who are they and why haven't the conspiracy theorists been able to track them down? Who are they and where do they live?

Zombienosh

A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]

The result of court ruling: Silverstein makes a huge profit off of the 9/11 attacks.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html

King Mob

Zombienosh wrote: »

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html

Have you anything more recent than 2004 and that takes into consideration the rent he has to pay for an empty lot and for the costs of the development of the site that he is obliged to rebuild?

snafuk35

Zombienosh wrote: »

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html

I asked specific questions and you are derailing this thread.
You haven't given me any names of any of the low level people who planted the explosives that brought down the towers? Who are these people and where do they live? Do they exist?
Why have they kept their mouths shut? Surely there are hundreds if not thousands of people involved so why hasn't there been a leak? What do these people have to gain?

Daithi 1

Laffoley.

It has NEVER been mentioned in all the 9/11 books, documentaries, and films -- that the Bin Laden family helped build the WTC complex.

I personally have many of these in my own reference library, and I have to say that this was news to me, and I am numbered among those who can be labeled as an EXPERT in all matters related to 9/11 -- simply because of the extensive research that I have done on this subject and its' related adjuncts.

But, it really wasn't the FACT that BIN LADEN CONSTRUCTION worked on the project that was the real bombshell of what Laffoley had to say in this interview. The bombshell as it were, concerned the explosive charges that were built into the buildings AS PART OF THEIR DESIGN! Laffoley commented on how shocked he was when he was asked to think about HOW he would build in explosive charges, to take down the building complex, BEFORE it was even built!

Therefore, all those people who are trying to damage the cunning research of the 9/11 Truth Community (a community that does not rightly count Alex Jones among its' members, by the way!) by saying that they could have never slipped in those charges some time before 9/11, need to understand that those demolition charges that brought down WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were there all along! Furthermore, it was Marvin Bush who played a big role in the security of the WTC complex, and between the Bush's, the Bin Laden's, Larry Silverstein, and the peculiar behavior of both Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani -- we have all the major players in this up to their necks!

meglome

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Laffoley.

Have a quick search on the Internet about how explosives degrade over time and become highly dangerous without the need to use a blaster to set them off (how long would would they have been there 20-30 years?). Why would the plane crashes and fireballs not set them off immediately?

And of course we could wonder how the thousands of people who built the WTC complex didn't see any of this, not a single one.

I'd believe the tooth fairy before this.

Daithi 1

Here is Laffoley stating it in a radio interview.

8 mins in.

http://www.mikehagan.com/2012/mp3/clips/laffoleywtc.mp3

I suppose he could be lying, I doubt it though.

cuppa

If davoxx reply on this is it post over:)

weisses

Sorry don't have any names .... Your assuming it could be thousands .... Care to share ?

whatstherush

snafuk35 wrote: »

Ok so the favourite candidate for 9/11 mastermind among conspiracy theorists is Dick Cheney.
But could you name the names of any of the people who actually worked on the plot?
Any names of somebody who rigged the WTC with termite?
Maybe the names of the people who worked on sending a missile in the Pentagon or the names of the people who planted the plane debris?
One name will do. Has anyone come forward and admitted they took part?
If it was an inside job then there must be somebody who knows something?

Tut tut snafuk, do you not know how this forum works. Despite being a subforum of Conspiracy Theories, no Conspiracy Theorists post here, there are just Non Conspiracy Theorists and TRUTH seekers. These Truth seekers don't theorize on alternative scenarios on why the events of 911 unfolded like they did, they just ask questions about the official explanation. So as far as they're concerned your question is invalid because who has said thousands of people were involved in a Conspiracy, infact who has every said plainly that a Conspiracy took place on 911.

meglome

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Here is Laffoley stating it in a radio interview.

8 mins in.

http://www.mikehagan.com/2012/mp3/clips/laffoleywtc.mp3

I suppose he could be lying, I doubt it though.

Not working for me on my Linux box. Anyway why do you doubt he's lying or crazy?

Let's see...

1. buildings which have been known to be pre-planted with explosives in history - none.
2. Explosives degrade and over 30 years a fart might have set one off but nothing like that happened.
3. 30 years of adjustments and renovations at different points on the buildings and not one of these explosives is spotted or the miles of cable needed to set them off.
4. Where's the proof that Bin Lade Snr had anything to do with the building?
5. No one saw them being planted of the thousands involved in the construction.
6. They didn't go off when the plane hit and the big fire burned.

I've heard some off the wall stories about 911 but this is way up there.

weisses wrote: »

Sorry don't have any names .... Your assuming it could be thousands .... Care to share ?

Here's one list of people of who need to be in on it should the massive conspiracy be believed.

http://www.911myths.com/html/who_knew_.html

whatstherush wrote: »

Tut tut snafuk, do you not know how this forum works. Despite being a subforum of Conspiracy Theories, no Conspiracy Theorists post here, there are just Non Conspiracy Theorists and TRUTH seekers. These Truth seekers don't theorize on alternative scenarios on why the events of 911 unfolded like they did, they just ask questions about the official explanation. So as far as they're concerned your question is invalid because who has said thousands of people were involved in a Conspiracy, infact who has every said plainly that a Conspiracy took place on 911.

Huh?

Daithi 1

meglome wrote: »

Not working for me on my Linux box. Anyway why do you doubt he's lying or crazy?

Let's see...

1. buildings which have been known to be pre-planted with explosives in history - none.
2. Explosives degrade and over 30 years a fart might have set one off but nothing like that happened.
3. 30 years of adjustments and renovations at different points on the buildings and not one of these explosives is spotted or the miles of cable needed to set them off.
4. Where's the proof that Bin Lade Snr had anything to do with the building?
5. No one saw them being planted of the thousands involved in the construction.
6. They didn't go off when the plane hit and the big fire burned.

I've heard some off the wall stories about 911 but this is way up there.



Here's one list of people of who need to be in on it should the massive conspiracy be believed.

http://www.911myths.com/html/who_knew_.html



Huh?

Nevermind.
I dont suppose pre-rigging buildings for demolition is something they would brag about on the internet for obvious reasons.

They could have rigged the buildings in secret though.

Just look what they did with the citi-corp building, in secret, no less.

A useful counterpoint to the 9/11 Truth denier's oft-repeated claim that the World Trade Center's owners could not have installed explosives without being detected:

The video from Discovery's "Science Channel" summarizes the story of the Citicorp Center, which underwent major structural retrofits barely a year after its completion, when the architect, William LeMessurier, realized that a design flaw could lead to the building's collapse in a strong wind.

The truth only became known to the public nearly twenty years later, in a 1995 article that appeared in New Yorker magazine entitled "The Fifty-Nine-Story Crisis"...

"The weakest joint, he discovered, was at the building's thirtieth floor; if that one gave way, catastrophic failure of the whole structure would follow. Next, he took New York City weather records provided by Alan Davenport and calculated the probability of a storm severe enough to tear that joint apart. His figures told him that such an event had a statistical probability of occurring as often as once every sixteen years--what meteorologists call a sixteen-year storm.

"That was very low, awesomely low," LeMessurier said, his voice hushed as if the horror of discovery were still fresh.
...

On Tuesday morning, August 8th, the public-affairs department of Citibank, Citicorp's chief subsidiary, put out the long delayed press release. In language as bland as a loan officer's wardrobe, the three-paragraph document said unnamed "engineers who designed the building" had recommended that "certain of the connections in Citicorp Center's wind bracing system be strengthened through additional welding.'' The engineers, the press release added, "have assured us that there is no danger."

WELDERS started work almost immediately, their torches a dazzlement in the night sky."

Ask yourself, how many people know this story - even today - ten years after a magazine article was published about it?

It is obvious that the installation of cutter charges in the WTC Towers could easily have been accomplished with no public awareness of what was being planned - especially in view of eyewitness accounts of mysterious power outages and construction noise in the towers in the days and weeks before 9/11.

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

meglome

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Nevermind.
I dont suppose pre-rigging buildings for demolition is something they would brag about on the internet for obvious reasons.

No they wouldn't brag about it. But you've chosen to ignore the points I made. What possible sense would there be to wire a building for demolition and then blow it thirty years later. Sorry it's a blatantly stupid idea which there's not one bit of evidence for. I'm starting to wondering should I let you know I'm a Nigerian prince and I just need a small amount of money to release millions.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Nevermind.
They could have rigged the buildings in secret though.

Just look what they did with the citi-corp building, in secret, no less.

[video]video cut[video]

I have tried to explain this already here. You're using an example where quite a few people knew to prove secrecy. That's the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Potentially hundreds of people knew about this and within weeks it all came out. It been ten years with 911 and no one person has spoken up. Do you really not see the massive difference?

Daithi 1

meglome wrote: »

No they wouldn't brag about it. But you've chosen to ignore the points I made. What possible sense would there be to wire a building for demolition and then blow it thirty years later. Sorry it's a blatantly stupid idea which there's not one bit of evidence for. I'm starting to wondering should I let you know I'm a Nigerian prince and I just need a small amount of money to release millions.



I have tried to explain this already here. You're using an example where quite a few people knew to prove secrecy. That's the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Potentially hundreds of people knew about this and within weeks it all came out. It been ten years with 911 and no one person has spoken up. Do you really not see the massive difference?

No, i'm using the example that it was done in secret, behind the backs of the people who worked there. Many people kept the the secret.

The point is.. wait for it... This type of thing is not unheard of.

snafuk35

I'm still waiting on the names.
Who did the government hire to blow the WTC or to set up the Flight 93 crash and the Pentagon missile strike?
Give me the names.
We are all agreed now it was an inside job so give me the names of the low level people who were involved. Who are they?

humanji

Rudely demanding answers to rhetorical questions will generally just get you ignored.

meglome

Daithi 1 wrote: »

No, i'm using the example that it was done in secret, behind the backs of the people who worked there. Many people kept the the secret.

The point is.. wait for it... This type of thing is not unheard of.

But it wasn't done in secret, it was done to keep the majority from knowing exactly what was happening. So the majority was thousands of people but hundreds still knew exactly what was going on and it came out to everyone - in weeks. Can you not see how that shows there was no secrecy?

All you're showing is not everyone knew, grand I agree with you. On 911, if it was a CT, not everyone would know. But it's ten years later and not one thing has come out, not one. This is not what happened at all with the Citycorp building.

Daithi 1

meglome wrote: »

But it wasn't done in secret, it was done to keep the majority from knowing exactly what was happening. So the majority was thousands of people but hundreds still knew exactly what was going on and it came out to everyone - in weeks. Can you not see how that shows there was no secrecy?

All you're showing is not everyone knew, grand I agree with you. On 911, if it was a CT, not everyone would know. But it's ten years later and not one thing has come out, not one. This is not what happened at all with the Citycorp building.

They kept is secret from the folks work worked in the offices from day to day, I would imagine to avoid panic. So the office folk would show up for work etc.
The reason it eventually came out was because the danger was by then over.
So, many people kept a secret from many people.
In other words, it was a conspiracy.

snafuk35

Daithi 1 wrote: »

They kept is secret from the folks work worked in the offices from day to day, I would imagine to avoid panic. So the office folk would show up for work etc.
The reason it eventually came out was because the danger was by then over.
So, many people kept a secret from many people.
In other words, it was a conspiracy.

Who is they? Names please.

Daithi 1

snafuk35 wrote: »

Who is they? Names please.

Who are they, not "Who is they". :rolleyes:

meglome

Daithi 1 wrote: »

They kept is secret from the folks work worked in the offices from day to day, I would imagine to avoid panic. So the office folk would show up for work etc.
The reason it eventually came out was because the danger was by then over.
So many people kept a secret from many people.
In other words, it was a conspiracy.

I'm not arguing it wasn't a conspiracy or at least an attempted conspiracy. They tried to hide a big problem with the Citycorp building while they fixed it. The important word there is tried. I'm saying that it wasn't secret, not at all. Your own text proves it wasn't a secret. You're using it as something comparable with 911 when it clearly isn't.

Daithi 1

meglome wrote: »

I'm not arguing it wasn't a conspiracy or at least an attempted conspiracy. They tried to hide a big problem with the Citycorp building while they fixed it. The important word there is tried. I'm saying that it wasn't secret, not at all. Your own text proves it wasn't a secret. You're using it as something comparable with 911 when it clearly isn't.

It compares to 911 in several ways, I go through a couple.
1. Profit comes before people. Everyday the folks working there and in surrounding structures were in danger of death but it was more important (profitable) to keep them working.
2. It shows that construction workers could get in and out of the building without it's workers knowing.
3. It shows that conspiracies of this nature are not as uncommon as one might think.

snafuk35

Daithi 1 wrote: »

It compares to 911 in several ways, I go through a couple.
1. Profit comes before people. Everyday the folks working there and in surrounding structures were in danger of death but it was more important (profitable) to keep them working.
2. It shows that construction workers could get in and out of the building without it's workers knowing.
3. It shows that conspiracies of this nature are not as uncommon as one might think.

What has this got to do with the thread?

snafuk35

meglome wrote: »

I'm not arguing it wasn't a conspiracy or at least an attempted conspiracy. They tried to hide a big problem with the Citycorp building while they fixed it. The important word there is tried. I'm saying that it wasn't secret, not at all. Your own text proves it wasn't a secret. You're using it as something comparable with 911 when it clearly isn't.

Who is they?

Why are you posting on this thread if you are not going to tell me who the people involved in 9/11 were?

Could you please keep the thread on track please.

I started this thread with the intention that someone would offer a name of at least one person who was involved at a low level in the 9/11 conspiracy.

Obviously now that we have established that Cheney et al were the masterminds I want to know who they were who took their orders and who carried them out?

enno99

meglome wrote: »

I'm not arguing it wasn't a conspiracy or at least an attempted conspiracy. They tried to hide a big problem with the Citycorp building while they fixed it. The important word there is tried. I'm saying that it wasn't secret, not at all. Your own text proves it wasn't a secret. You're using it as something comparable with 911 when it clearly isn't.

I dont know how you can compare the two the Citicorp while maybe being unethical

The other scenario if it happened would be outright criminal