763 replies to this topic

[Mike 215]

A new investigation has to be opened on 911 attacks. A congressional committee with the powers to subpoena all all classified records from the CIA, FBI and other government agenies has to be formed.  The 911 Commission admitted they got no cooperation from these agencies so the committee will have have these powers. The committee can use the 1977 Congressional Committee on the assassation of JFK as a model to do its work. That committee did find a conspiracty to kill the president, but had no power to have those involved arrested. the new committee should have those powers.

[Q24]

Mike 215, on 15 November 2011 - 04:29 PM, said:

A new investigation has to be opened on 911 attacks.

The best chance of that at the moment is getting Ron Paul into office: -




He has flatly distanced himself from ‘conspiracy theories’ and the 9/11 truth movement (whether that’s a necessary smokescreen to boost his chances I don’t know) but has said, “I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever… ”

And as seen in the clip above, he appears open to a new 9/11 investigation.

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 12 November 2011 - 09:54 PM, said:

The notion that controlled demolitions brought down the buildings is nonsense. After all, did the explosions from each aircraft result of the instant collapes of the WTC 1 and 2 buildings? No,

That doesn't help your case, it actually supports the case for CD. Structural integrity remained on 80+ floors below the damaged areas, and that's why the damage had no effect.        

skyeagle409, on 12 November 2011 - 09:54 PM, said:

and once again, review the photo to understand that if explosives are not properly placed nor proper preparation is done before explosives are placed, then you are not going to get the WTC buidlings to collapse.

You can't grasp the blatant contradiction this makes with your argument? Not hard to see, surely?

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 18 November 2011 - 04:59 AM, said:

That doesn't help your case, it actually supports the case for CD.

The buildings collapsed due to structural damage and eventually failure due to the fires. That fact has now been determined.

Quote

...Structural integrity remained on 80+ floors below the damaged areas, and that's why the damage had no effect.

The damage occurred at the point of impacts which is where the collapse originated. Now, there are 9/11 comspiracist who are now backing away from the demolition theory.

[Holmesian]

Q24, on 17 November 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

The best chance of that at the moment is getting Ron Paul into office: -




He has flatly distanced himself from ‘conspiracy theories’ and the 9/11 truth movement (whether that’s a necessary smokescreen to boost his chances I don’t know) but has said, “I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever… ”

And as seen in the clip above, he appears open to a new 9/11 investigation.

Hello again Q24,

I have been following this for a while and I can say I really don't have a dog in this fight. I am not a supporter of the neoconservatives. I can accept in principle the concept of them manipulating events to their own ends, in fact I have little doubt that they have. I am not an American. I find as intriguing as the next person a good conspiracy theory. I appreciate that in these things the descent in to the minutiae is often important in finding the truth. But I struggle with the big picture. From looking at a number of CT protaganists the over all plan seems to be roughly:

1) the neocons are concerned with the impending loss of American power and reduction on military spending

2)they as businessmen are also looking to benefit from an increase in profit in the arms industry

3)they come to power and decide they need to redress points 1) and 2)

4)looking at precedent they decide they need to create a false flag conspiracy to ready the american conciousness for an appetite for war

5)they accept surely as a concept that any plan they come up with if discovered would potentially spell the end not only of their reputation and their family's reputation, but also their already vast wealth, their liberty if not their lives, and the continued existence of one of the major political parties in the history of the world.

With this in mind, they come up with this as a plan:

6) arrange for a group of predominantly saudi arabian civillians to hijack a number of planes,even though their plans ultimately do not involve an attack on saudi arabia

7)arrange for those planes to be possibly changed mid flight ( resulting in the first added unnecessary complication and potential for someone to leak)

8)alternatively not change the flights and fly those planes with a large number of innocent passengers in to the world trade centre and other targets killing a further large number of their own civillians

9)decide that this in itself may not be enough to raise the american conciousness for war so have explosives planted in these buildings as well, even though this adds an extra layer of risk and complexity to an already risky plan

10)blow up building 7 as well sometime after your main icons have gone down, just for good measure, even though again this adds an extra element of risk to an already ludicrously risky plan, considering what is at stake if discovered

11) do this in a controlled explosives way except without the explosives being seen to go off in other parts of the buldings as would be expected

12) fake some calls from the passengers from the planes

13)use this whole incident as a pretext to invade Iraq,

14)realise however that in this elaborate plan you have devised you have neglected to make any direct link to iraqi involvement, forcing you to come up with other tenuous links to support an invasion of that country

If you were one of the conspirators and that plan was floated across the table,would the response be " Well given what is at stake I cannot think of a less convoluted,less risk adverse,more reasonable operation"  

This is where I struggle to get on board.

[psychoticmike]

booNyzarC, on 01 November 2011 - 03:49 AM, said:

No problem.

Quote

That's nice.  I still think that I wasn't proven wrong.  I guess that leaves us...  where we were.

I guess so.

Quote

It is indeed.

yes, it seems the fbi interpreted it differently then you did. They apparently don't see it as a confession.

Quote

Well that's comforting.  The first part anyway.

and thats uncomforting. The second part anyway.

Quote

Enjoy your continued search for answers then.

actually, I've just about wrapped up my 911 research, we just have different conclusions.

Quote

No, I didn't say that at all.

ok, so then your saying I'm a liar then? I don't see what else that statement could mean. So what did i lie about?

Quote

No, not at all.  I only addressed 1 point because I didn't feel like dealing with any others.  Why not?  Because it is a waste of time.

this is what you said.

Quote

You are comparing random thoughts that have come to your mind with a deliberately written and carefully worded speech by Bin Laden specifically about the September 11th attacks. And you think this has proven me wrong? If you can't inherently see the difference between these two things and how they are completely dissimilar, I doubt that anything I can say will ever convince you of my point of view.

Look at what i put in bold. Its pretty black and white, that statement shows you believe that i think that 1 point is what proved you wrong. I wonder what the true motive behind you not dealing with the others is.

Quote

If that is what you choose to believe, have at it.

okie dokie.

Quote

No, I have no interest in engaging in 9/11 conspiracy theory discussions any longer.  I find them tedious and completely unrewarding.

thats fine, I hope i didn't drive you away, that wasn't my intention. Perhaps the weak arguements you presented are the cause.


It isn't very difficult.  I'm confident that you can learn how if you put your mind to it.

Oh thanks for the advice, i guess i should have put my mind to it the first dozen times. Silly me.

[Q24]

Holmesian, on 18 November 2011 - 03:56 PM, said:

1) the neocons are concerned with the impending loss of American power and reduction on military spending

2)they as businessmen are also looking to benefit from an increase in profit in the arms industry

3)they come to power and decide they need to redress points 1) and 2)

4)looking at precedent they decide they need to create a false flag conspiracy to ready the american conciousness for an appetite for war

I don’t personally find 2) important - just a ‘fortunate’ by-product.

What’s the difference between a ‘multi-millionaire’ and a ‘multi-millionaire plus a few million’?

Also, if the above were in chronological order, I’d put 4) before 3)

Holmesian, on 18 November 2011 - 03:56 PM, said:

6) arrange for a group of predominantly saudi arabian civillians to hijack a number of planes,even though their plans ultimately do not involve an attack on saudi arabia

A separate note on this point.  Were there any Afghan or Iraqi assets available and willing to work directly for U.S. interests?  Doesn’t it make more sense in context of a false flag that agents are found to be from a country that is a U.S. ally and stood to gain from the ‘War on Terror’?  Doesn’t the fact explain why the hijackers received assistance from a Saudi government agent?

If anything, this point favours existence of a false flag operation.

Holmesian, on 18 November 2011 - 03:56 PM, said:

If you were one of the conspirators and that plan was floated across the table,would the response be " Well given what is at stake I cannot think of a less convoluted,less risk adverse,more reasonable operation"  

For example… ??

The attack had to be attributed to terrorists (a state sponsored attack wouldn’t have made sense or allowed a widespread response), on a large and permanent enough scale to support a long ‘War on Terror’ (sufficient to replace the Cold War threat) and big enough that people would be hesitant to doubt.

I don’t see that the plan settled on was convoluted, overly risk adverse or unreasonable.

It was failsafe so much as can be.  The background story was in place, most of the evidence would be destroyed during the attack, it left relatively few leads, those who became the hijackers would not be talking, on the surface there was little to question.

Where the plan did perhaps encounter problems and/or leave evidence (many of the issues put forward by the truth movement as indication of a false flag) these are excused over and over as natural, coincidental or irrelevant events.  Those in power knew they could put forward any semi-legitimate explanation and with media backing it would be accepted by most of the public.

Just look at the cover story set here in case it were required: -

“For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out.  That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.  He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.”
~President Bush, Oct. 31, 2006

Why did Bush come out with the statement at that time?

Because the truth movement had just hit the mainstream…

Not only had Loose Change gone viral throughout the preceding year which increased public awareness, but qualified figures were stepping into the debate - architect Richard Gage had founded AE911T earlier in 2006 and BYU physicist Steven Jones had also just released his paper on the WTC collapses.

In response, those behind the attack set the story that one of the alleged 9/11 masterminds had “planned attacks” whereby “explosives” were placed at “high” points in buildings.  Now, had any evidence of demolition been introduced that NIST could not provide some semblance of explanation for… it’s ok, terrorists planted the bombs that brought down the WTC buildings.

You know most people would have swallowed it whole.

One day the nature of 9/11 will be accepted as self-evident but now, even 10 years on, there are far too many people unwilling or unable to see what’s right before their eyes - it is the usual way of things - perhaps this is the biggest reason of all it was known the plan would not have an adverse effect on those responsible.

[booNyzarC]

psychoticmike, on 18 November 2011 - 06:13 PM, said:

booN said:

It isn't very difficult.  I'm confident that you can learn how if you put your mind to it.

Oh thanks for the advice, i guess i should have put my mind to it the first dozen times. Silly me.

Sure thing.  If you manage to figure it out to the point that I can actually differentiate your statements from mine and see some actual context without having to go back and hunt several pages, I just might respond to the rest of it.  As I said, it really isn't that difficult.  Practice makes perfect.

Cheers.

[Wandering]

Quote

The buildings collapsed due to structural damage and eventually failure due to the fires. That fact has now been determined in my own mind.

Fixed your sentence for you buddy.

Quote

Now, there are 9/11 comspiracist who are now backing away from the demolition theory.

There are? They must also be in your mind, I sure don't see anyone posting in here that says that. A vain attempt to sway newcomers to the argument I think 'Oh people are backing away from the demolition theory? Musn't be true then!!'.

Nice try

[skyeagle409]

Wandering, on 19 November 2011 - 12:16 AM, said:

Fixed your sentence for you buddy.

Not just in my own mind, but in the mind of Mr. Reality.

Quote

There are?

"Loose Change," has been moving its loose change around a bit when presented with the evidence. In fact, I've presented that fact in one of my links.

[Belial]

Accept the facts and believe no one.

[psychoticmike]

booNyzarC, on 19 November 2011 - 12:08 AM, said:

Sure thing.  If you manage to figure it out to the point that I can actually differentiate your statements from mine and see some actual context without having to go back and hunt several pages, I just might respond to the rest of it.  As I said, it really isn't that difficult.  Practice makes perfect.

Cheers.

you know which statements are mine and which are yours, it really isn't hard to tell. Unless your blind. Its just another excuse to dodge my response. Evidently you would like people to believe that a simple mistake equals stupidity.
Now, lets be real. Do I seriously need to go back and redo my whole post? I will if you'll actually respond to all my points this time instead of throwing up a straw man. You did mention your not interested in the 911 threads anymore, so maybe its just a waste of my time.

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 18 November 2011 - 05:47 AM, said:

The buildings collapsed due to structural damage and eventually failure due to the fires. That fact has now been determined.

Just the opposite. The collapses have now been determined to be CD's/

skyeagle409, on 12 November 2011 - 09:54 PM, said:

if explosives are not properly placed nor proper preparation is done before explosives are placed, then you are not going to get the WTC buidlings to collapse.

You keep avoiding the inherent contradiction here, so I'll keep bringing it up until you answer for it.

By saying that explosives need specific, proper placement to collapse the towers, you're really saying a collapse requires properly placed explosives to cause failure of all the key structural supports.  

This method is always used by experts in CD. In essence, the qualified professionals in highrise demolition make for the 'demolition' of your argument (that the towers were non-CD collapses).    


Either you don't need to remove even one of the many points that EVERY CD EXPERT WOULD REMOVE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE COST, OR HOW MUCH TIME....

OR, you DO need to remove these key supports,  


Which is it then? Are you going to agree with all these CD experts? Or do you claim these experts are morons wasting so much time and money?

You have to choose one. But I expect you'll keep on avoiding the problem entirely, as usual.

[booNyzarC]

psychoticmike, on 19 November 2011 - 04:11 AM, said:

you know which statements are mine and which are yours, it really isn't hard to tell. Unless your blind. Its just another excuse to dodge my response. Evidently you would like people to believe that a simple mistake equals stupidity.
Now, lets be real. Do I seriously need to go back and redo my whole post? I will if you'll actually respond to all my points this time instead of throwing up a straw man. You did mention your not interested in the 911 threads anymore, so maybe its just a waste of my time.

If you made the effort to organize your response in a more legible format, yes I would take the time to respond.  And if you don't, well, at least take comfort in the fact that I think you have one of the coolest avatars on the forum.

By the way, dropping your attitude would go a long way too.

Cheers.

Edit: Typo.

Edited by booNyzarC, 19 November 2011 - 07:11 AM.

[psychoticmike]

Q24, on 17 November 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

The best chance of that at the moment is getting Ron Paul into office: -




He has flatly distanced himself from ‘conspiracy theories’ and the 9/11 truth movement (whether that’s a necessary smokescreen to boost his chances I don’t know) but has said, “I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever… ”

And as seen in the clip above, he appears open to a new 9/11 investigation.

I agree. Imo, hes the only candidate who will actually listen to the people. Btw in that other thread a while back, I wasn't trying to imply you were lying, its just you never know where someones trying to lead you. I agree with most of your posts, your a great contributor despite the critics.