9/11 (TV3 - September 2015)

Rudiger Glique

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

No, that's not what I mean at all. To repeat: the Holocaust was an absolutely huge 'conspiracy' but one that was so huge, it was known about at the time (German citizens living near the camps were well aware of what was happening and allied intelligence also knew, hence focused bombing campaigns against train routes transporting people not to the front, but to camps). It's the opposite of hindsight: this was stuff that was known about at the time.

You say it was 'known about at the time'. Of course it was known about. The point is about who knew. You mention some villagers nearby and the allies who bombed the train tracks. That says nothing about the many many Germans who claimed after the war they did not know. I doubt the main stream media in Germany was talking about the extermination camps on the news. So, maybe they are telling the truth? Maybe for many Germans the idea that the government was committing mass murder may have sounded like a crazy conspiracy theory.

On the same point, have you looked at any of the polls regarding 911? 911 being an inside job is not a fringe theory. Many New Yorkers believe it (like your 'villagers'). But it doesn't stop there. In fact, in some countries it is the most commonly held theory. Unlike the extermination of the Jews which was an operation on a much larger scale and would have involved countless more people, 911 being an inside job is well known both inside and outside of the US. Yet an operation on a much grander scale (the extermination of Jews) in all likely hood was only known by those close to the camps, the perpetrators and perhaps some of the allied military intelligence and top brass who commanded the bombings. Of course the means to communicate are different now, but the same principles apply, i.e. some people simply cannot conceive that 911 could be an inside job, therefore they are incapable of looking at the facts objectively. And the facts, in my opinion, are as clear as trains full of Jews.

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

So, so many times when I ask about the logistics of thousands upon thousands of people being in on the 9/11 conspiracy (or the Boston marathon, or whatever 'false flag' event you're having yourself) people will say: what about this one person? Nothing I can see from doing a quick Google search on her suggests that she believed there was an inside job with regards to 9/11. Unless you've got some specifics? If she didn't think it was an inside job, can you tell me the relevance of pointing to her in response to what I said about the hundreds of thousands of people who would need to be payed off/silenced?

She wanted an official investigation, which is all I would like, that is the important point. That and she refused to be silenced with money. I am also open to being convinced I am wrong, I would just like it done in an open and transparent way. If you had been following this thread or if you have been following, and not ignoring anything that might suggest you might have to actually question your assumptions about 911, you would have read already about several other examples of people who have publicly stated things that are contrary to the official narrative which have been completely ignored by those who support the official narrative. You could even have found out about those who had stated things and ended up committing suicide. My question to you is simply this, what have those witnesses who disagreed with the official version or have pushed for a public investigation had to gain? Certainly not money. I will let you go and read some of the previous examples of witnesses mentioned in the thread and ask yourself, why did these witnesses say these things, and why did they kill themselves? That is if you are being honest with us here today and have a genuine desire to know the truth.

As for 'hundreds of thousands of people', where did you get that figure from? I wont even bother responding to that. You seem to have thought through a lot of your points, which is good, because it suggest you have a genuine interest in truth, but that is just plain lazy (at least I hope you are being lazy).

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

Again, I'll ask: If it was an inside job, how many people do you believe were involved in this task? This would include numerous levels of the government, probably local state involvement too, firefighters (and anybody else who had to go in to the area and buildings), the people involved with the actual explosives, 'eyewitnesses', grieving family members from the fictitious/military planes, hundreds/thousands of airport staff throughout the country and then you'd have to take into account their family members/ex family members/friends.

Well, how many people were involved in the lie regarding WMD in Iraq? Are you suggesting everyone who invaded Iraq knew that it was a war based on a lie? The truth is it is a simple thing to send plebs who don't think for themselves into Iraq based on a lie. They are in the military and they are not paid or trained to think for themselves. And while it would be better for you to do your own investigation into this, just look at some of the reports about military simulations being run on 911. How many people were involved in those and what were they simulating? Just do some research.

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

What exactly does Weisses' video have to say about my point on Wikileaks? Is this the video that s/he posted which is a fairly basic run through of the 9/11 conspiracy theory? Again, I'll repeat the question (as is so often the way here): with all the information that we have received from Wikileaks and other intelligence leaks over the last decade or so, do you not find it strange that we have heard nothing (absolutely nothing) about 9/11 being an inside job?

The first thing I said was that wikileaks is irrelevant. Your point seems to be, if wikileaks didn't find something, then it isn't true. I don't understand such a basis for holding any opinion. I am more interested in the facts, like passports landing undamaged, molten steel being ignored, lies about the capabilities of thermate to melt steel, etc.

Weisses video is just something you should watch. Its a bit like those pictures the villagers may have showed the towns people of Jews in cattle carts heading into camps. Its something you can show someone, but if they refuse to even imagine that their government was capable of mass murder, then how could you ever convince them of anything? They would rationalize it all away. If you are one of those people, there is little hope for you. Your internal bias ('they would never get way with it') makes it impossible for you to ever look at the facts objectively.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Out of curiosity how pristine were the hijackers passports?

Rudiger Glique

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Out of curiosity how pristine were the hijackers passports?

If you do a google search you will find it. From the images I have seen the one found at the twin towers looks a lot like a regular passport, completely undamaged. I imagine if that was not the case, they would be publicizing it a lot more. The fact you have never seen it says a lot I think.

What is also interesting is who found it. You should try searching on youtube for 'Wikileaks Exposes 9/11 Conspirators'. Now, I am assuming the information from that video was found from wikileaks documents, but I do not know for sure, and to be honest, I don't think it is all that important. Some interesting and odd connections in there though and I don't have a good reason to doubt them. Again, you have to watch the full thing and it is fifteen minutes long and meanders a bit. So, if watch it and you don't have much of an attention span or from the outset immediately start thinking 'this is those crazy conspiracy theorists again!" and shut down, I wouldn't bother looking in the first place.

Overheal

You can only listen to the same melodramatic background music so many times before it loses it's effect and becomes downright ironic.

Rudiger Glique

Overheal wrote: »

You can only listen to the same melodramatic background music so many times before it loses it's effect and becomes downright ironic.

The video has not background music so I think I have a good idea where you fit into my musings from the previous post. By the way, if you don't mind me asking, your quotes in your posts are all about America, are you American? You don't have to answer if it makes you uncomfortable.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

If you do a google search you will find it. From the images I have seen the one found at the twin towers looks a lot like a regular passport, completely undamaged. I imagine if that was not the case, they would be publicizing it a lot more. The fact you have never seen it says a lot I think.

The fact you were so quick to assume I haven't seen them says even more though.

Reason I asked is because I was curious as to the answer and of course you go straight to the passport at the towers. But completely ignore the ones from flight 93, but in fairness it can probably be explained away by the fact the person involved in the conspiracy looking after flight 93 was just better at his job of planting evidence :rolleyes:

Rudiger Glique

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

The fact you were so quick to assume I haven't seen them says even more though.

Reason I asked is because I was curious as to the answer and of course you go straight to the passport at the towers. But completely ignore the ones from flight 93, but in fairness it can probably be explained away by the fact the person involved in the conspiracy looking after flight 93 was just better at his job of planting evidence :rolleyes:

Haha, actually, all that says is that I made the mistake of taking you for your word when I answered your question (i.e. that you didn't know the condition of the passports). I have (as you well know) only ever been talking about the passport that was found at the twin towers site. Why? because of the extreme improbability of its survival.

And I am sorry, but just because two improbable events occurred also on the same day (the discovery of the two other passports) does not mean that it makes an even less likely event more likely to have occurred. If you think it does, well :rolleyes:

But your theory of a bad plant is an interesting one, you should look into that. If you had watched the video (I know you are one of the ones who wont), you would know that the guy in charge of the police department that found the passport 'Bernard Kerik' was indicted on November 8, 2007 by a federal grand jury on charges of conspiracy, tax fraud, and making false statements. If he was stupid enough to get caught once as a criminal, maybe he was stupid enough to be the one to fake an obvious plant of a passport (its so hard to find good people these days).

Whatever the truth is, maybe someone should be investigating this criminals claims about a miracle passport? I am sure you will agree at least with that. Then you can start to consider the necessity that now, considering these facts and the many more, we need a public, open, honest examination of 911. For the rest of us, that is already a patently obvious necessity if we want to get to the truth.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

But your theory of a bad plant is an interesting one, you should look into that. If you had watched the video (I know you are one of the ones who wont),.

See that's the problem with assuming not only have I watched pretty much every CT video from 9/11, to Bohemian Grove to the Bay of Pigs, and I was a big CT person
But I don't take a videos word with their offered "evidence" I research theories myself and come to my own conclusions.

So there's very little you can offer that I haven't heard of before

Overheal

Does Jesus Camp count as a CT video?

Rabo Karabekian

weisses wrote: »

According to you ! You can fill in whatever number you want ..That doesn't make it viable

Yeah, we're going around in circles here (as always: not with you in particular, but any CTer I've had this 'discussion' with). It's not whether it's 100s/1000s/10000s, but I am guessing that you would at least concede that in order to plan something like 9/11 being an inside job (and this is another important point: an inside job along the lines that CTers tend to describe it as, ie, planted explosions/planes not actually planes but missiles or military craft/controlled demolition of random buildings which will usually lead on to another cover up [I think building no 7 was supposed to be demolished because Enron, right?] would require the collusion of: numerous people working in the airport (and I'm saying 'numerous' here to be generous, it would have probably required all security, most workers of the airlines involved, the traffic controllers and whatever managers and associated workers required to make an airport operate), most branches of the federal government (at least the upper echelons) as well as some local authorities, state officials, police, fire, hospital, rescue, and ambulance crew (management and those directly involved), upper members of the military as well as those involved in monitoring state and local security, and those involved in tracking the 'planes', those grieving the dead from the planes, as well as all their relatives (fictitious planes means fictitious people means fictitious deaths, right?) as well as the extra dead from the towers that the CTers say didn't happen, eyewitnesses who saw the planes hit the towers, newsreporters and anybody involved in broadcasting the doctored images, whatever task force was involved in planting the explosions used to detonate the buildings, high ranking members of Enron or whatever conspiracy was also involved in building 7, as well as all the scientists and 'experts' who are lying because they are either complicit or because they don't want to find themselves 'suicided' in their sleep. The list does go on, but I'm aware that this will be a veeeery long post.

weisses wrote: »

Then point out here the EXACT logistics involved and explain why

See above (and, y'know, all through my posts).

weisses wrote: »

It is a straight telling of the inconsistencies in the official story with a viable theory added

When are you gonna show us here what is factual wrong in that video ?

And it has nothing to do with any of the points that I raised (which you've done a nice number on failing to address in any proper way).

Listen, I hate the tactic of just posting a YouTube video and saying: Oh yeah, this has nothing to do with what you were arguing, but care to answer these points? You can't? Ha!

So, I won't. I'll post an article that at least addresses some of the issues raised in your video.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

weisses wrote: »

No CT possible because Wikileaks did not mention them ..... Sure

Again, not what I said. What I was asking was whether those that believe in the conspiracy think it's logical or possible that something that was probably the biggest conspiracy in recent history wasn't discussed amongst the leaders of the western world or even among the top brass in the American government. This is an event that would've taken a huge amount of planning. All done in parks in Washington and written on sticky note pads, I suppose.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

You say it was 'known about at the time'. Of course it was known about. The point is about who knew. You mention some villagers nearby and the allies who bombed the train tracks. That says nothing about the many many Germans who claimed after the war they did not know. I doubt the main stream media in Germany was talking about the extermination camps on the news. So, maybe they are telling the truth? Maybe for many Germans the idea that the government was committing mass murder may have sounded like a crazy conspiracy theory.

Again, the situations between the two (which I think you allowed for, which is fair enough and obviously no two situations are completely the same) are very different, but the main differences are in the type of government (one despotic, autocratic and the other at least with notions of democracy and a free press) and the situation (press freedoms in wartime back in the 40s were extremely limited in comparison to nowadays) but at least up until 1941, there were routine announcements made about concentration camps and the killing of undesireables (they even announced auctions selling off their goods). With the escalation of the war, these were repressed, but I wouldn't say to hide a conspiracy, more to enable these actions to continue (it's not usually a good idea to announce your intentions when these intentions will then find their way to your enemies). Even when the intentions were not publicised (and so, arguably became a conspiracy) there was written documentation on a government and civil servant level which was absolutely necessary in making something on such a huge scale work. Obviously, we have not seen the collapse of the American government, so we can't see these documents. We have seen a massive leak of government intelligence and communication, and yet nothing is said of a conspiracy with regards to 9/11. Do you see my point regarding Wikileaks now? Does it mean that no Wikileaks re 9/11 means no conspiracy? Of course not. But it is very, very hard to argue why something, anything wasn't found.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

On the same point, have you looked at any of the polls regarding 911? 911 being an inside job is not a fringe theory. Many New Yorkers believe it (like your 'villagers'). But it doesn't stop there. In fact, in some countries it is the most commonly held theory. Unlike the extermination of the Jews which was an operation on a much larger scale and would have involved countless more people, 911 being an inside job is well known both inside and outside of the US. Yet an operation on a much grander scale (the extermination of Jews) in all likely hood was only known by those close to the camps, the perpetrators and perhaps some of the allied military intelligence and top brass who commanded the bombings. Of course the means to communicate are different now, but the same principles apply, i.e. some people simply cannot conceive that 911 could be an inside job, therefore they are incapable of looking at the facts objectively. And the facts, in my opinion, are as clear as trains full of Jews.

Okay, you're confusing things here (and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're doing it in good faith). Comparing the Germans who lived near concentration camps and New Yorkers who were in New York around 9/11 is muddying the water. The Germans who lived around the camps knew there were concentration camps because, well, they were told that they were concentration camps and they knew who these camps held. As I said previously, it was common knowledge prior to 1941 what happened in these camps. The 'belief' of the Germans was based on explicit knowledge that was communicated by their government. The 'belief' of anybody in New York is just that: belief. I won't talk about the 'belief' of people outside of NYC, because you're just clutching at straws (and let's ignore the fact that the biggest percentage of people polled (around 2008) said that Al-Qaeda was responsible. That's a world average, by the way.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

She wanted an official investigation, which is all I would like, that is the important point. That and she refused to be silenced with money. I am also open to being convinced I am wrong, I would just like it done in an open and transparent way. If you had been following this thread or if you have been following, and not ignoring anything that might suggest you might have to actually question your assumptions about 911, you would have read already about several other examples of people who have publicly stated things that are contrary to the official narrative which have been completely ignored by those who support the official narrative. You could even have found out about those who had stated things and ended up committing suicide. My question to you is simply this, what have those witnesses who disagreed with the official version or have pushed for a public investigation had to gain? Certainly not money. I will let you go and read some of the previous examples of witnesses mentioned in the thread and ask yourself, why did these witnesses say these things, and why did they kill themselves? That is if you are being honest with us here today and have a genuine desire to know the truth.

To be fair, there was an official investigation, she just didn't get the answers that she wanted. But I'm being facetious, so I'll go back to my original point. She wasn't involved in 9/11 so she isn't arguing from the point of view of somebody who was actually there. My point (which you didn't address, and simply pointed to her) was where were the people involved who are now saying 'actually, I was involved, it's a conspiracy, and this is how it went down'. There's nobody and I find that highly suspicious. This would require silencing all those people who had to be involved (yep, absolutely had to be involved) and would actually involve silencing a lot of people related to them (because, y'know, humans). And yes, I know, you and Weiss will just zero in on the numbers that I'm saying must have been involved, but a nice point (or two) to address would be this:
1) What groups of people do you think were involved in the 9/11 conspiracy
2) How did the government manage to silence every single last one of these people?

Remember, this isn't a coup in a Latin American country, or a government claiming spurious intelligence to orchestrate a war (more of which later!), all of which came out anyway because, again, humans, but a conspiracy that necessitated the involvement of significant layers of government and private realms.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

As for 'hundreds of thousands of people', where did you get that figure from? I wont even bother responding to that. You seem to have thought through a lot of your points, which is good, because it suggest you have a genuine interest in truth, but that is just plain lazy (at least I hope you are being lazy).

Please don't respond to the hundreds of thousands which, as I've said, isn't my point. It's about the scale of the people involved and keeping them all silent.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

Well, how many people were involved in the lie regarding WMD in Iraq? Are you suggesting everyone who invaded Iraq knew that it was a war based on a lie? The truth is it is a simple thing to send plebs who don't think for themselves into Iraq based on a lie. They are in the military and they are not paid or trained to think for themselves. And while it would be better for you to do your own investigation into this, just look at some of the reports about military simulations being run on 911. How many people were involved in those and what were they simulating? Just do some research.

You understand the difference between a soldier obeying an order to fight in an invader (based on the WMD lie) and the people involved in planting explosives in buildings that they either knew at the time or when they saw the 'attacks' which resulted in the deaths of thousands of their own people, right? In one case (hint: the soldier) there is a situation they are reacting to, in the second instance (hint: conspiracy) they either realised at the time or came to realise later that they were involved in a case of mass genocide orchestrated by their government. And not one has come forward, nor has there been any hint of it at government level, nor has there been any leak to relatives or anything of the kind.

I'm not saying there's no such thing as a conspiracy. It's been happening for a long, long time, but there are a few common points to make a conspiracy work: 1) it should be on a relatively small scale, with as few people involved as possible 2) it should be with regards to something that the people you are supposed to be accountable to don't really care about (coup in Guatemala, for example) 3) know that the conspiracy will eventually be uncovered.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

The first thing I said was that wikileaks is irrelevant. Your point seems to be, if wikileaks didn't find something, then it isn't true. I don't understand such a basis for holding any opinion. I am more interested in the facts, like passports landing undamaged, molten steel being ignored, lies about the capabilities of thermate to melt steel, etc.

Again, not what I was saying. I was saying that the existence of Wikileaks is an interesting development and makes the plausibility of 9/11 harder to defend. Not impossible.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

Weisses video is just something you should watch. Its a bit like those pictures the villagers may have showed the towns people of Jews in cattle carts heading into camps. Its something you can show someone, but if they refuse to even imagine that their government was capable of mass murder, then how could you ever convince them of anything?

It's not like that at all! The villagers near the camps would have read in sanctioned state announcements about the existence of concentration camps and what happened in them.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

They would rationalize it all away. If you are one of those people, there is little hope for you. Your internal bias ('they would never get way with it') makes it impossible for you to ever look at the facts objectively.

I'm sure the irony of this is lost on you. Have you ever read the reactions and debunkers to the conspiracy theorists and thought to yourself 'actually, you know, I don't actually know a huge amount about molten steel and its properties and, y'know, I've never actually studied thermate and its ... actually, do I even know how to spell 'thermate'?' and then maybe decided to base your opinions on what the vast, vast level of actual experts are saying on the subject? Or at least allow for the fact that all these experts might have a point and read some of their works? Y'know, rather than a shoddily produced conspiracy theory video based exclusively on opinion with maybe two experts thrown in?

I'd love to say that it's just a case of two unmoveable objects with regards to those who believe and those who don't, but that's not really the case. I've allowed for the fact that there are conspiracies, but any of my (fairly rational) objections to how 9/11 was pulled off are consistently ignored by focusing on random numbers I mentioned ('You said hundreds of thousands! Now I can ignore your point about the amount of different groups needed to make 9/11 work as an inside job!') or about why a massive intelligence leak made no mention of the intelligence which I think we can all safely assume was required in planning such a huge job.

I think the conspiracy theorists major mistake was over complicating things which just made the whole thing ridiculous ('There were no planes! They were military planes! The planes were added digitally! All those eyewitnesses didn't see what they actually saw!') rather than (for example) the government could see broadly what was coming down the line and thought 'okay, fellas, there's a fairly good chance that some of those guys over in Boston are planning something huge. Might be a good excuse for some kind of war or other in the Middle East'. Much more plausible, requires only the involvement of the upper echelons of the government, and, most importantly, no fictitious planes or planted explosives.

DamagedTrax

I'd love to say that it's just a case of two unmoveable objects with regards to those who believe and those who don't, but that's not really the case. I've allowed for the fact that there are conspiracies, but any of my (fairly rational) objections to how 9/11 was pulled off are consistently ignored by focusing on random numbers I mentioned ('You said hundreds of thousands! Now I can ignore your point about the amount of different groups needed to make 9/11 work as an inside job!') or about why a massive intelligence leak made no mention of the intelligence which I think we can all safely assume was required in planning such a huge job

ok, lets focus on a theory with smaller numbers involved.

firstly, recruiting the patsy

first, the 'hijackers' are recruited by a privately funded, private intelligence group (there are many private defense contractors out there. Cheney himself (and his son) have run one in particular), posing as AlQ.

This tactic has been used before by the letter agencies around the world (boston bombing for one), so much so that its legality has been brought into question in the UK.

passports, equipment etc. everything supplied to the hijackers by the aforementioned private intelligence group.

so far i could imagine maybe 5 people max involved. (not counting the upper echelons orchestrating the plan.. just people on the ground, directly involved with making it work.


so lets move on to the airports...

if the hijackers have passports that check out (and they obviously did as they boarded the planes and one made it out the window in NYC), all they'd need at the airport is a minder to keep an eye that all is going to plan. why would they need airport security/police in on it if there's nothing that will alert security.. they had no bombs.

so we're still at maybe 5 involved at this level.



Next we'll move onto building 7
2 Floors of building 7 were reinforced to with stand blasts in the months before 9/11. what if this was a command centre? if it was my ploy i'd definitely want it destroyed.

but we're focusing on numbers for the moment. so lets say (being generous) that 15/20 were involved in command at the site. we must consider reports that building 7 was "unusually" empty on that day also.

so at this point we have the hijackers sorted and on their way and we have a command post at their arrival point (a command post that was only vacated after the WTC fall, not before. no need, they were blast sheltered as per recent work).

so a generous estimate is running at 25 people.


moving onto WTC..

I have no explanation of how WTC fell. it baffles me, it makes zero sense.

but for a team to fit both with explosives would be pretty tough. but if we're dealing with private contractore, im guessing the money is there to pull it off somehow, i just dont know how.

but to play a numbers game.. given that the wtc security firm had marvin bush upstairs, im guessing this is the route they'd use. probably employing the very private contractors that recruited the 'hijackers'.

it makes sense to keep the numbers low. you said so yourself earlier.

so now our numbers are still roughly 25 on the ground.


Moving onto the pentagon..

This is where the biggest lie comes into play for me. it only involves 1 person on the ground. and one with their finger on a trigger elsewhere.

The rest of the lie is perpetrated by the media in allowing someone the public platform to claim a plane hit.

A plane that flew around the building in a crazy manouver, missing where the brass where, to hit a spot that (like wtc7) had recently been upgraded for blast proofing.. as an aside, also the area that was dealing with the 2 trillion (that was then, now its estimated much higher) hole in the defense budget that rumsfeld announced the previous day... but that doesnt matter to numbers, just wanted to pop it in there.

when the media carry a lie like that, you dont actually need a team of people to make it real.


flight 93

i dont know what happened here but again, the media was used to spin this beautifully.

maybe the plane crashed due to a cock up onboard, maybe it was shot down, maybe none of the above.

i havent a clue.





soooo... in conclusion.

you can see that the numbers involved dont have to be big. the money behind certainly does.. but the biggest single factor in keeping the lie going is spin. make the people think this happened by hiding any other possibility or evidence from them. (tons of camera angles but only 3 frames at the pentagon? etc)

and as for the people on the ground? well seal team 6 didnt fare too well after 'getting' bin laden. a private intelligence outfit, kept out of the public eye? easily disposed of in a number of ways.


anyway, this isnt my theory of what happened on the day (i have other theories, some out there, some quite restrained.)

its just something im putting to you as a possibility of a small run, high impact event.

Rabo Karabekian

DamagedTrax wrote: »

ok, lets focus on a theory with smaller numbers involved.

soooo... in conclusion.
.

That's a theory with very, very small numbers. You've got maybe 30 people involved in total in a conspiracy inside job that has wired three buildings with explosives, hired 19/20 patsies, required 'a suspiciously empty building' (I'm guessing the former workers of building 7 have never met up and wondered why so many were told not to come in that day, or maybe they were involved but, well, that would increase your figures substantially), a two man job that has fired a missile into the Pentagon (far bigger teams involved in drone strikes in Afghanistan, I'd wager), and hoping that all the rescue teams involved (or hospital managers) don't eventually figure out that the death toll was doctored (let alone realise that they weren't dealing with a plane attack but systematic controlled explosions: some of them actually being in the buildings at the time). We are, of course, neglecting to mention the American Airlines flight that was supposed to have flown in to the Pentagon (here we have to bring in a large number of airport staff, as per my previous post, including a certain number of workers for American, air controllers in DC, Maryland, Virginia, and whatever state is is that's west of Virginia, possibly many many more). In addition we've got the 64 people on board (not sure if these are fictitious people, but we have to make sure that these fictitious people are given credible back stories and, well, it's getting tricky when we have to hire actors to grieve for them. Okay, we'll assume the flight was a real one, and was shot down. Best not to argue the whys and wherefores of this, or we're just getting into the realm of fantasy at this stage).

And that's when we keep it fairly simple. When you introduce phantom planes/military planes/doctored footage, the amount of people involved rises substantially.

DamagedTrax

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

That's a theory with very, very small numbers. You've got maybe 30 people involved in total in a conspiracy inside job that has wired three buildings with explosives, hired 19/20 patsies, required 'a suspiciously empty building' (I'm guessing the former workers of building 7 have never met up and wondered why so many were told not to come in that day, or maybe they were involved but, well, that would increase your figures substantially), a two man job that has fired a missile into the Pentagon (far bigger teams involved in drone strikes in Afghanistan, I'd wager), and hoping that all the rescue teams involved (or hospital managers) don't eventually figure out that the death toll was doctored (let alone realise that they weren't dealing with a plane attack but systematic controlled explosions: some of them actually being in the buildings at the time). We are, of course, neglecting to mention the American Airlines flight that was supposed to have flown in to the Pentagon (here we have to bring in a large number of airport staff, as per my previous post, including a certain number of workers for American, air controllers in DC, Maryland, Virginia, and whatever state is is that's west of Virginia, possibly many many more). In addition we've got the 64 people on board (not sure if these are fictitious people, but we have to make sure that these fictitious people are given credible back stories and, well, it's getting tricky when we have to hire actors to grieve for them. Okay, we'll assume the flight was a real one, and was shot down. Best not to argue the whys and wherefores of this, or we're just getting into the realm of fantasy at this stage).

And that's when we keep it fairly simple. When you introduce phantom planes/military planes/doctored footage, the amount of people involved rises substantially.

i was giving you an example of how it could work with small numbers. it would take me a lot longer than the time i have available to delve into the minutia.

all of what you've mentioned can be realistically explained through various different theories including the official one, to suggest that the official explanation is the only possible one is naive.

and if we can conclude that the outcome could theoretically have multiple causes that were never investigated properly (and they were not.. building 7 for a start), we must conclude the official narrative was either put together by imbeciles or was a cover up (of something or other).


the details are what seem to be swamping you down. the details dont really matter a jot to me. the reason and intention are far more important in the grander scheme.. the 'who?' & 'why?' needs to come before the 'how?', since the 'how' currently just sends us in circles.

Rabo Karabekian

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i was giving you an example of how it could work with small numbers. it would take me a lot longer than the time i have available to delve into the minutia.

And I would argue that it couldn't work based on those numbers. You've neglected certain factual points that can't be argued away on a 30 man team. Once you go into the high tens or hundreds, the chances of keeping a conspiracy a conspiracy (without one of the people actually involved speaking up) gets incredibly difficult. Add in civilian participants and difficulty increases into unbelievable levels. Not impossible, but highly implausible.

I do agree with you on the multiple causes, however. As I mentioned before, a conspiracy involving a small select group of advisors to the president, operating on intelligence suggesting an imminent attack and doing nothing to prevent it, is a workable option. The numbers are realistically small, but then we have to reject all the CT about thermite and missiles into the Pentagon. Once you include this, it's an unworkable theory.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

all of what you've mentioned can be realistically explained through various different theories including the official one, to suggest that the official explanation is the only possible one is naive.

and if we can conclude that the outcome could theoretically have multiple causes that were never investigated properly (and they were not.. building 7 for a start), we must conclude the official narrative was either put together by imbeciles or was a cover up (of something or other).

the details are what seem to be swamping you down. the details dont really matter a jot to me. the reason and intention are far more important in the grander scheme.. the 'who?' & 'why?' needs to come before the 'how?', since the 'how' currently just sends us in circles.

If I've suggested in my posts that I believe 100% in the official theory, then I admit that that's not what I meant. I don't necessarily believe the official theory, as I've said before, I can see plausible options involving not acting on intelligence, or covering up uncomfortable 'evidence' in the aftermath. If I am talking about the details, it's because I was posting in response to previous posters who make specific reference to these details.

Dohnjoe

DamagedTrax wrote: »

to suggest that the official explanation is the only possible one is naive.

Plausible would be a better word here. There are no other plausible theories with even remotely the same amount of supporting evidence.

DamagedTrax

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Plausible would be a better word here. There are no other plausible theories with even remotely the same amount of supporting evidence.

thats an opinion dependent on you agreeing with the official theory and subsequent NSIT reports.

In my view, having studied physics, there are theories that are more plausible from a different point of view. the official evidence fits the official narrative, it does not fit the events in my eyes.

the kenetic energy calculations alone contradict the aluminium & composite plane wings slicing through steel. its just not a scientific possibility... if the body had just gone through while the wings got decimated i'd say ok, that could happen under certain circumstances. but the wings would need to have been made of much stronger stuff as they sliced steel without decimating themselves (remember they were hacking up the inside of the building after entry).

...yet there go the wings cutting through steel frames in the Purdue simulation. the very same steel frames that can be seen to magically reassemble a frame or two later. in that instance they presented fraudulent evidence and when pulled up on it, couldnt explain it and had to rewrite the simulation to fit the narrative. extremely poor scientific method by any standards.


but thats just one area i look at differently.

DamagedTrax

I do agree with you on the multiple causes, however. As I mentioned before, a conspiracy involving a small select group of advisors to the president, operating on intelligence suggesting an imminent attack and doing nothing to prevent it, is a workable option.

well our theories arent a million miles apart. i believe it was allowed to happen.. just given a few extra helping hands along the way.

If I've suggested in my posts that I believe 100% in the official theory, then I admit that that's not what I meant. I don't necessarily believe the official theory, as I've said before, I can see plausible options involving not acting on intelligence, or covering up uncomfortable 'evidence' in the aftermath. If I am talking about the details, it's because I was posting in response to previous posters who make specific reference to these details.

fair enough. lately i tend to shy away from definitives because it was nothing less than a clusterf**k and i dont really think any real truth about it will ever come out.

but if there is even the slightest hint of cover up, then i tend to want to look a little deeper. maybe the cover up has branches that stretch out. its not like we have no previous form from the US.

Rabo Karabekian

DamagedTrax wrote: »

fair enough. lately i tend to shy away from definitives because it was nothing less than a clusterf**k and i dont really think any real truth about it will ever come out.

but if there is even the slightest hint of cover up, then i tend to want to look a little deeper. maybe the cover up has branches that stretch out. its not like we have no previous form from the US.

Yeah, I agree that it's possible (not something I necessarily subscribe to, though). An interesting conspiracy would be that the conspiracy theories that rely on bad science and implausible narratives actually take away from lesser conspiracy theories (more plausible but less arresting) by making '9/11 conspiracy' a byword for nutjob.

Dohnjoe

DamagedTrax wrote: »

In my view, having studied physics, there are theories that are more plausible from a different point of view.

Can you provide one of these theories which you find more plausible than the accepted version of events and we can put it under the spotlight

DamagedTrax

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Can you provide one of these theories which you find more plausible than the accepted version of events and we can put it under the spotlight

i already did. right underneath your original post (infact if you had quoted me properly you'd have it right infront of your eyes).

if you cant see that im afraid it'll be a very short discussion.

Dohnjoe

I meant setting out a theory as to what really happened on that day

Which I mentioned earlier that there is a serious absence of

It's an open question to anyone really (not picking on yourself)

Ctrl Alt Delete

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i already did. right underneath your original post (infact if you had quoted me properly you'd have it right infront of your eyes).

if you cant see that im afraid it'll be a very short discussion.

Surely as a perspn who has studied physics you would not even remotely consider that a theory based on proper academic grounds that can be properly discussed or argued.

You are a physics academic I assume by your post?

DamagedTrax

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Surely as a perspn who has studied physics you would not even remotely consider that a theory based on proper academic grounds that can be properly discussed or argued.

You are a physics academic I assume by your post?

nope, not a physics academic. physics was an area of my hdip though.

i will discuss any theory with anyone, no matter how out there it is. i said up above that some of my own theories are 'out there' and i've also said in the big 'after hours' thread, i can fully accept in certain circumstances that we step outside of known physics.

and given the definition of science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

, it would be foolish for someone to deal in definitives, unless those definitives have been proven.

what point was it you wanted to discuss?

DamagedTrax

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I meant setting out a theory as to what really happened on that day

Which I mentioned earlier that there is a serious absence of

It's an open question to anyone really (not picking on yourself)

no worries. i dont want to set out a full theory myself because i cant decide anymore.

ill gladly speak about the areas that i can but ive literally exhausted myself with research and i havent found one unifying theory that fits the day. like the official narrative, most CTs on the subject have gaping holes in them.

i guess thats the reason this thing goes round & round. neither side can provide sufficient proof to the other side. and unless something comes out to clarify the situation, it will always stay that way.

fliball123

DamagedTrax wrote: »

no worries. i dont want to set out a full theory myself because i cant decide anymore.

ill gladly speak about the areas that i can but ive literally exhausted myself with research and i havent found one unifying theory that fits the day. like the official narrative, most CTs on the subject have gaping holes in them.

i guess thats the reason this thing goes round & round. neither side can provide sufficient proof to the other side. and unless something comes out to clarify the situation, it will always stay that way.

If people want to believe the official story they need to come up with a reason why the BBC had a report on WTC7 going down 20 minutes before it did. Unless they are Nostradamus in disguise. That one glaring piece of information should be enough to discredit the whole official story as it means that people knew WTC7 was going down before it did and that explosives had to be used, which means planning. So can anyone come up with an explanation for this? BBC went on air with live pictures stating WTC7 was down and it was still in the background. It was a kin to the Iraqi lad saying the Americans are not invading and the tanks can be seen in the background.

DamagedTrax

fliball123 wrote: »

If people want to believe the official story they need to come up with a reason why the BBC had a report on WTC7 going down 20 minutes before it did. Unless they are Nostradamus in disguise. That one glaring piece of information should be enough to discredit the whole official story as it means that people knew WTC7 was going down before it did and that explosives had to be used, which means planning. So can anyone come up with an explanation for this? BBC went on air with live pictures stating WTC7 was down and it was still in the background. It was a kin to the Iraqi lad saying the Americans are not invading and the tanks can be seen in the background.

i get that this is a strange thing to happen but, just to play devils avocado for a bit ...


Firstly the BBC uses news collection agencies such as reuters, al-j etc. so whatever we can surmise, the bbc probably were no wiser to what building 7 was than most americans are to this day.

We must then question why the collection agencies ran with the story? If the official narrative is to be believed, they were aware that wtc7 could come down eventually (silverstein confirms this).

If i believed the official narrative i would claim that the news spread of possible collapse, news agencies picked up the chatter and then ran the story in a rush to get a scoop while the entire world was watching.

i dont know if this is what happened but it is the most obvious explanation and we must always consider the most likely explanation before we look at others. As we have no access to the comms data between news agencies on the day, the obvious explanation has to be considered most likely... having said that, a 'most likely' scenario is not a definitive and there is wiggle room for other plausible theories.



that still doesnt explain the *freefall collapse of the building but sure office fires explain that one away

*NSIT now adhere to a 3 stage freefall collapse theory

Dohnjoe

fliball123 wrote: »

If people want to believe the official story they need to come up with a reason why the BBC had a report on WTC7 going down 20 minutes before it did. Unless they are Nostradamus in disguise. That one glaring piece of information should be enough to discredit the whole official story as it means that people knew WTC7 was going down before it did and that explosives had to be used, which means planning. So can anyone come up with an explanation for this? BBC went on air with live pictures stating WTC7 was down and it was still in the background. It was a kin to the Iraqi lad saying the Americans are not invading and the tanks can be seen in the background.

Misreporting. On the day itself I remember many news stations speculating that WTC 7 was about to collapse because it had been burning out of control for hours. Also live news on a fluid event isn't exactly the most accurate.

DamagedTrax

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Misreporting. On the day itself I remember many news stations speculating that WTC 7 was about to collapse because it had been burning out of control for hours. Also live news on a fluid event isn't exactly the most accurate.

i tend to agree with you, i think the BBC angle, while standing out as odd, is just something that happened.


it also takes the focus off building 7.


@Dohnjoe

could you give me your opinion on the following video. not getting into the science of it, just a simple opinion at first watch. not a trick question either. im well aware if you say what i'd like you to say, it proves something is a miss.

so this isnt one-up-manship or anything like that. there'll be no 'told you so' if you see my point and there'll no scoffing if you see something different than i do. i like debate, i dont insult.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo

Dohnjoe

DamagedTrax wrote: »

@Dohnjoe

could you give me your opinion on the following video.

It's comparing the way a demo'd building fell and the similarity with how WTC 7 came down. That's where the similarity ends. Unfortunately until a building of approximate size, construction, age, etc collapses due to similar debris damage and unchecked fires then the doubters will continue to doubt

DamagedTrax

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's comparing the way a demo'd building fell and the similarity with how WTC 7 came down. That's where the similarity ends. Unfortunately until a building of approximate size, construction, age, etc collapses due to similar debris damage and unchecked fires then the doubters will continue to doubt

how do you know thats where the similarity ends? - the two fell at the same speed. the two fell in the same way. the aftermath was the same etc if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its probably a duck.

and since no other building ever fell in the same way previously (and none since) with the exception of controlled demolition, we are supposed to accept a move away from a scientific deduction on tangible events to a theory that has never been replicated before, or since (including under test conditions)? what kind of science is that?

The official report refused to examine WTC7 because its remit was up to the point of collapse of the 2nd tower. does that not strike you as a little strange for an investigation of such importance?