9/11 Attacks

alastair · 13-09-2010 12:43AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

It's a total distraction. It doesn't undermine the work of the commission in any meaningful sense.

Soveriegn · 13-09-2010 12:44AM

alastair wrote: »

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

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

I don't care about Silverstein, he's only a little annoying twit. Nothing will change the fact that it was an inside job, controlled demolition. I don't have all the facts and I might be wrong on some things, I don't mind admitting it. I know a controlled demolition when I see it.

alastair · 13-09-2010 12:46AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

I don't care about Silverstein, he's only a little annoying twit. Nothing will change the fact that it was an inside job, controlled demolition. I don't have all the facts and I might be wrong on some things, I don't mind admitting it. I know a controlled demolition when I see it.

You don't have anything to support the contention - and you obviously don't know a controlled demolition when you see one - they start at the bottom and move upwards.

seannash · 13-09-2010 12:47AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

I know a controlled demolition when I see it.

do you now

sovereign i really think its in your best interest to look at that video
seismic records taken on the day dont suport the explosion theory.
there was no sqib flashs,no reports of the massive amounts of thermite that would be needed

we did mention how massive the amount would be earlier.

meglome · 13-09-2010 12:49AM

Kingpin187 wrote: »

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

As far as I recall that is the case, the sensor on the door wasn't activated. However all that means is the sensor is faulty or disconnected. It wouldn't be a priority fix so nothing odd about it.

Can't remember all the details though. And let's be honest here if we believe this massive conspiracy is true then they could surely just fake the door opening.

Happyman42 · 13-09-2010 12:50AM

alastair wrote: »

It's a total distraction. It doesn't undermine the work of the commission in any meaningful sense.

So if they found that Shaffer was right, that wouldn't have posed a few pertinent questions?

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

Divorce Referendum · 13-09-2010 12:50AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

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

Well if you want to be a good CTer..... Oh he got the biggest single insurance payout in history he must be in the money is always the line.

Soveriegn · 13-09-2010 12:50AM

alastair wrote: »

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - how would anyone assume that that attack could result in an occupation of Iraq of all places? .

I am not stupid enough to think there was a connection. There are many other links made by the government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k

Soveriegn · 13-09-2010 12:52AM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Well if you want to be a good CTer..... Oh he got the biggest single insurance payout in history he must be in the money is always the line.

A good Ct'r ? I couldn't give a sh!te about titles.. :rolleyes:

elius · 13-09-2010 12:53AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA&feature=related

Another

Soveriegn · 13-09-2010 12:56AM

elius wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA&feature=related

Another

stupid video

so, molten steel is not melted steel ?

Divorce Referendum · 13-09-2010 12:56AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

A good Ct'r ? I couldn't give a sh!te about titles.. :rolleyes:

I would say your real title is controlled demolition expert because you know a controlled demolition when you see one.:rolleyes:

alastair · 13-09-2010 12:58AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

I am not stupid enough to think there was a connection. There are many other links made by the government.

Post 9/11 - but that's to justify after an undoubtedly arbitrary decision was made within the administration to invade - who could have expected that in advance of 9/11 - let alone as the identity of the hijackers was uncovered?

Soveriegn · 13-09-2010 12:58AM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I would say your real title is controlled demolition expert because you know a controlled demolition when you see one.:rolleyes:

Please don't try to drag me into stupid childish arguments.

Soveriegn · 13-09-2010 01:00AM

alastair wrote: »

Post 9/11 - but that's to justify after an undoubtedly arbitrary decision was made within the administration to invade - who could have expected that in advance of 9/11 - let alone as the identity of the hijackers was uncovered?

We both agreed there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

I have shown you that the US gov tried to make a connection to justify an invasion.

What's the problem here ?

alastair · 13-09-2010 01:00AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

stupid video

so, molten steel is not melted steel ?

Try to focus.

There was neither 'melted' nor molten' steel at the wtc.

Soveriegn · 13-09-2010 01:02AM

alastair wrote: »

Try to focus.

There was neither 'melted' nor molten' steel at the wtc.

Lol, yeah my mistake, i forgot.

It was just a melted aeroplane :pac:

alastair · 13-09-2010 01:03AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

We both agreed there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

I have shown you that the US gov tried to make a connection to justify an invasion.

What's the problem here ?

The problem is that no-one could expect any Iraqi consequences for a terrorist attack that involved no Iraqis, but rather Saudi activists based in Afghanistan, with no alliance to a secular dictatorship in Iraq. No connection - no perceived construction goldrush.

seannash · 13-09-2010 01:04AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

Lol, yeah my mistake, i forgot.

It was just a melted aeroplane :pac:

sovereign for the love of god look at the video i posted

Divorce Referendum · 13-09-2010 01:04AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

Please don't try to drag me into stupid childish arguments.

Im not being childish. Are you a controlled demolition expert? If you are not then you are not at liberty to be absolotely certain it was one as you have no experience. I am a site engineer and the video posted by elius demonstrates perfectly how the structure was weakened. Its hardly stupid. It isnt the same as most buildings structures so needs to be understood when analyising how it fell.

alastair · 13-09-2010 01:04AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

Lol, yeah my mistake, i forgot.

It was just a melted aeroplane :pac:

Yep - lots of melted aluminium - no-one disputes that - because there's ample evidence to support it. See how that works?

Soveriegn · 13-09-2010 01:06AM

alastair wrote: »

The problem is that no-one could expect any Iraqi consequences for a terrorist attack that involved no Iraqis, but rather Saudi activists based in Afghanistan, with no alliance to a secular dictatorship in Iraq. No connection - no perceived construction goldrush.

US firms vie to rebuild Iraq

US firms are lining up to repair bridges and roads

Five companies have been invited to bid for contracts to put Iraq's infrastructure back together after a decade of sanctions and the expected US-led war. Among the five is a subsidiary of Halliburton, the oil and construction giant run by US Vice President Dick Cheney for five years till 2000.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) told the AFP news agency that the five were part of a "limited selection process" intended to speed up contracting given the "urgent nature or the unique nature of the work".
Reports in the Wall Street Journal suggested the contracts could be worth as much as $900m.
Experience
The deal on offer grows out of a 13-page document, "Vision for Post-Conflict Iraq", circulated to the five companies and to a small group of White House insiders, the Wall Street Journal reported.
All five firms shortlisted have long experience with infrastructure projects in the Middle East.
Aside from Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root, they include Bechtel, Fluor, Louis Berger and Parsons. All five are US-owned and headquartered.
Kellogg Brown and Root has already landed a Defense Department contract to extinguish any oilwells set alight by retreating Iraqi forces.
As well as the infrastructure deal, the Wall Street Journal said that contracts to run ports, airports, healthcare, schools and power and water were on offer.

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

elius · 13-09-2010 01:11AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

stupid video

so, molten steel is not melted steel ?

Regardless! Your the one with the big issue about the subject. Ok it was a controlled demolition!:rolleyes: Controlled buy a 767 hitting a tower at 750 km/h..
It doesn't take a genius to figure that much out. I cant rap my head around how people think it was a controlled demolition! Infact its beyond me:(

alastair · 13-09-2010 01:12AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

US firms vie to rebuild Iraq

Once again (sheesh) - who is disputing that there was a construction boom in Iraq? - that's not the point. The point is who could possibly expect any such consequence of Afghan-based Saudis flying planes into New York? You might as well argue that there will be a copper price boom if we only flood Munich.

seannash · 13-09-2010 01:15AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

All five firms shortlisted have long experience with infrastructure projects in the Middle East.

makes sense i guess to hire people with experience.

as ive said before i dont think anyone will deny that people will benefit from the war but it is not right to assume that because someone is benefiting now that the attack was planned for financial benefit

i know people who went down to new orleans after katrina and made money from rebuilding houses.any disaster will have benefits for someone.

Happyman42 · 13-09-2010 01:18AM

alastair wrote: »

Once again (sheesh) - who is disputing that there was a construction boom in Iraq? - that's not the point. The point is who could possibly expect any such consequence of Afghan-based Saudis flying planes into New York? You might as well argue that there will be a copper price boom if we only flood Munich.

Some bedtime reading for you Alastair
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2008/09/from-911-to-invasion-of-iraq-analysis.html

nighty night.

Soveriegn · 13-09-2010 01:19AM

seannash wrote: »

makes sense i guess to hire people with experience.

as ive said before i dont think anyone will deny that people will benefit from the war but it is not right to assume that because someone is benefiting now that the attack was planned for financial benefit
.

And would you then suggest that a war has never been started for financial benefit ?

Of just not the Afghan and Iraq war ?

Soveriegn · 13-09-2010 01:25AM

Take a look at all these lies...

Would they lie to get into a war because there was no financial benefit ?

What other motive is there ?

Do they just want to see a fight ?

Watch this clip and you have the answers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

seannash · 13-09-2010 01:28AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

And would you then suggest that a war has never been started for financial benefit ?

Of just not the Afghan and Iraq war ?

i think invading a country would be financially beneficial for any country.im sure england is still profiting from its global conquests.
of course your alluding to the oil,which is a totally different subject.

im not so adverse to alternative theories that i will say its a legitimate war but we have been talking about the evidence for the explosives theory so far.

start a thread about it and ill fill you in on my views(which arent that insightful if im honest)
but going back to the exlosives theory and your so called expertise in the field of controlled demolitions id genuinely be interested in hearing your views on the evidence presented in the following video concerning the towers collapse being a controlled demolition
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#

pablo_escobar · 13-09-2010 01:29AM

Yes, it's totally preposterous to believe men would plan a war to benefit themselves financially. :rolleyes:

9/11 Attacks

Comments