Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

So any names so far?

  • 26-09-2011 9:51pm
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭


    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?


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,911 ✭✭✭Zombienosh


    Larry Silverstein did well out of 9/11.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    Zombienosh wrote: »
    Larry Silverstein did well out of 9/11.

    But did he do it all by himself?

    Name names please.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Zombienosh wrote: »
    Larry Silverstein did well out of 9/11.

    How much did he make out of it?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭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.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,911 ✭✭✭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


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Zombienosh wrote: »

    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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    Zombienosh wrote: »

    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭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!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 538 ✭✭✭cuppa


    If davoxx reply on this is it post over:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,732 ✭✭✭weisses


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭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
    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    snafuk35 wrote: »
    Who is they? Names please.

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    cuppa wrote: »
    If davoxx reply on this is it post over:)
    i sure hope so :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    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.

    1. They spent $10 million fixing the building over eight weeks - and that was in the 70's, a huge sum. They didn't want the scandal and they still admitted it after a few weeks.
    2. The majority of the building workers didn't know why they were there exactly, at least initially. But lots of other people knew and it all came out quickly. How many people have come out with anything about 911 after ten years?
    3. It shows one attempted conspiracy carried out while fixing a building and lasting mere weeks. It's the classic example of why things like this cannot be kept secret.
    snafuk35 wrote: »
    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?

    Em I don't think 911 was a conspiracy so who would I name. On the Citycorp building... "The autonomy of other stakeholders was denied by the paternalistic behavior to which LeMessurier, Stubbins, Citicorp officers, Red Cross, city officials and a host of others were party."
    enno99 wrote: »
    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

    I'm not comparing. There's nothing to compare.

    Citycorp: Trying to quietly fix problems with the building to keep people safe, lots of people knew and it all came out within weeks
    911: Supposedly wiring a building to kill thousands of their own people (innocent people), not one person saw anything, not one person has said anything after ten years.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    meglome wrote: »
    1. They spent $10 million fixing the building over eight weeks - and that was in the 70's, a huge sum. They didn't want the scandal and they still admitted it after a few weeks.
    2. The majority of the building workers didn't know why they were there exactly, at least initially. But lots of other people knew and it all came out quickly. How many people have come out with anything about 911 after ten years?
    3. It shows one attempted conspiracy carried out while fixing a building and lasting mere weeks. It's the classic example of why things like this cannot be kept secret.
    10 Million was the going rate for 100's/1000s lives in the 70's ?
    Many 9/11 whistle blowers has surfaced over the years but they're all "liars" and "kooks", as you so poignantly pointed out on many occasions.
    There are plenty of examples of secrets being kept by people for many years that eventually became declassified. You know of this, so dont give me that bull about "cannot be kept secret".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    10 Million was the going rate for 100's/1000s lives in the 70's ?

    How many people were injured?
    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Many 9/11 whistle blowers has surfaced over the years but they're all "liars" and "kooks", as you so poignantly pointed out on many occasions.

    I only called anyone a liar when it could be clearly shown they were. What whistler blowers are we talking about?
    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    There are plenty of examples of secrets being kept by people for many years that eventually became declassified. You know of this, so dont give me that bull about "cannot be kept secret".

    I never said it was impossible to keep something secret. But every one person that knows multiplies exponentially the likelihood of it coming out. There is no doubt in my mind that given the scope of the alleged conspiracy surrounding 911 that thousands would need to be in on it. Read this list to get some idea of how many we'd be talking about http://www.911myths.com/html/who_knew_.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    meglome wrote: »
    1. They spent $10 million fixing the building over eight weeks - and that was in the 70's, a huge sum. They didn't want the scandal and they still admitted it after a few weeks.
    2. The majority of the building workers didn't know why they were there exactly, at least initially. But lots of other people knew and it all came out quickly. How many people have come out with anything about 911 after ten years?
    3. It shows one attempted conspiracy carried out while fixing a building and lasting mere weeks. It's the classic example of why things like this cannot be kept secret.



    Em I don't think 911 was a conspiracy so who would I name. On the Citycorp building... "The autonomy of other stakeholders was denied by the paternalistic behavior to which LeMessurier, Stubbins, Citicorp officers, Red Cross, city officials and a host of others were party."



    I'm not comparing. There's nothing to compare.

    Citycorp: Trying to quietly fix problems with the building to keep people safe, lots of people knew and it all came out within weeks
    911: Supposedly wiring a building to kill thousands of their own people (innocent people), not one person saw anything, not one person has said anything after ten years.

    Still talking hypothetically here

    You are comparing welders ( who might well have a chinwag about it after a few pints down the pub)with mercenaries/black ops contractors ( no Chance)


    You are assuming they would inform the Redcross ( where the leak came from) and all the other agencies and the host of others ie lawyers /insurance/managers etc

    So you need secrecy

    Well if your name came up on a list like this whether you are guilty or being set up by having evidence planted on your computer

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/36843411/Project-Flicker

    Im sure What ever role you played would go to your grave with you


    If someone cant be blackmailed how hard would it be to get them to a particular building at a particular time for a meeting/ job interview etc


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    enno99 wrote: »
    Still talking hypothetically here

    You are comparing welders ( who might well have a chinwag about it after a few pints down the pub)with mercenaries/black ops contractors ( no Chance)

    But I'm not just talking about welders at all. I'm talking about dozens of welders, an undetermined number of support workers, security staff, janitors, all the management, the architects, the engineers, the Red Cross, the Port Authority, the insurance company and a load of other people. So if you're asking me can two people keep a secret then yes they probably can. If you're asking me can hundreds keep the secret of the mass murder of their own people then I'd say no.
    enno99 wrote: »
    You are assuming they would inform the Redcross ( where the leak came from) and all the other agencies and the host of others ie lawyers /insurance/managers etc

    I'm assuming nothing. I am just using logic to say that having hundreds in on a 'secret' will mean it won't be secret for very long.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Well if your name came up on a list like this whether you are guilty or being set up by having evidence planted on your computer

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/36843411/Project-Flicker

    No idea how this is relevant.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Im sure What ever role you played would go to your grave with you

    If someone cant be blackmailed how hard would it be to get them to a particular building at a particular time for a meeting/ job interview etc

    Hundreds of people and not one, not a single one has said anything. Not a single one has told someone else who then let it out. You need to think about how hard it is for big secrets to be kept for anything other than a short period of time. You're using examples of a secret coming out in weeks to try to argue that keeping an even bigger secret on 911 is possible. You're actually showing it's less likely.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    enno99 wrote: »
    Still talking hypothetically here

    You are comparing welders ( who might well have a chinwag about it after a few pints down the pub)with mercenaries/black ops contractors ( no Chance)

    Exactly where does one hire these mercenaries. Where do you draw their ranks from.

    Not one of them has a change of heart? A Deathbed confession? A religious experience? Nor will a single one feel remorse and guilt, and break down and confess? Not one of them will ever tell the truth about what they did or saw?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Not one of them has a change of heart? A Deathbed confession? A religious experience? Nor will a single one feel remorse and guilt, and break down and confess? Not one of them will ever tell the truth about what they did or saw?
    would you believe them if they did?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran
    Full details of the operation were released fifty years later, in 2003.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    Any names yet?
    I'm gonna keep asking this.
    Please give me at least some leads.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    snafuk35 wrote: »
    Any names yet?
    I'm gonna keep asking this.
    Please give me at least some leads.

    what will you do with these leads? aRe you going to follow up on them? are you going to read up on them?

    but here is a name for you, G.W. Bush :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    davoxx wrote: »
    what will you do with these leads? aRe you going to follow up on them? are you going to read up on them?

    but here is a name for you, G.W. Bush :pac:

    But who followed his orders and how did they make good on his orders? I want to know who they are. Now once again tell me who they are or else give a detailed outline of how the attacks were planned i.e. how many demolition experts were used, how much explosives, how they escaped the notice of the Port Authority, NYPD, FBI etc etc.
    You know, the actual nuts and bolts?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,732 ✭✭✭weisses


    snafuk35 wrote: »
    But who followed his orders and how did they make good on his orders? I want to know who they are. Now once again tell me who they are or else give a detailed outline of how the attacks were planned i.e. how many demolition experts were used, how much explosives, how they escaped the notice of the Port Authority, NYPD, FBI etc etc.
    You know, the actual nuts and bolts?

    Do you have an idea who they are ?

    Why ask questions you know cannot be anwsered here ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Snafuk35, enough is enough. This thread could have gone in many directions, but you decided to lead it into a wall. Stop demanding answers to questions people here can't possibly answer. It's not proving anything and it's not going anywhere.

    I apologise to everyone else for letting it go on this long. Thread locked.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement