Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#511    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 12,688 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milky Way Galaxy 3rd planet

  • They're wearing steel that's bright and true
    They carry news that must get through
    They choose the path where no-one goes

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:50 PM

View Postredhen, on 14 January 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

I was going to type up a summary of the replies I have received; a series of random, unconnected names and events, punctuated with some abusive language unfortunately.

Part way through I stopped and thought it would be easier to just post a video of Billy Joels song We didn't start the fire.

If you changed the title to We didn't start the theory, you would have a new Truther theme song.

"JFK, blown away, what else do I have to say?"

Well, Mr. Joel, you didn't actually say anything. Just a bunch of random, unconnected names and events, set to a catchy melody.


Enjoy



This isn't evidence for or against anything, it's just a funny idea. If anyone does create a mashup of this song and it goes viral, I demand a cut, lol.
Did you miss my post?

Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation

#512    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:06 PM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 14 January 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

Most of the cost was covered by insurance companies, so that other purpose would have been what? Profit? Bonus' for the big wigs?

Much of the latter cost was not covered by insurance companies, not to mention the lives loss. In addition, the government will be paying millions of dollars and providing care for disabled veterans in the years to come and now, the Pentagon is facing a huge budget cutback.

Quote

    Pentagon braces for sweeping budget cuts

The Pentagon is bracing for deep spending cuts that will affect every facet of the US military if lawmakers fail to agree to a deal to avert dramatic budget reductions, officials said Monday. The Defense Department will be forced to scale back training for troops, reduce spending for spy agencies, cancel purchases of some weapons and issue furlough notices to hundreds of thousands of civilian workers, they said.

http://www.rawstory....ng-budget-cuts/

-----------------------------------------------------------------

*   $7 billion: Amount paid out through the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund to the survivors of the 2,880 people killed and 2,680 injured in the attacks.

*   $8.7 billion: Estimated lifetime potential earnings lost of the victims who perished in the World Trade Center towers.

*   $500 million: Amount the city of New York paid in overtime compensation to clean up Ground Zero.

*   $19.6 billion: The drop in U.S. airline revenue between 2001 and 2002.

*   $5 billion: Direct government aid to U.S. airlines to cover losses incurred during three days of grounded flights immediately after 9/11 and sustained through the end of the year. The government also extended $10 billion in future loan guarantees.

*   $21.8 billion: Cost to replace the buildings and infrastructure in New York destroyed in the attacks.

*   $500 million: Cost to repair the Pentagon after the attack.

*   $40 billion: Insured losses related to the 9/11 attacks, including property, business interruption, aviation, workers compensation, life and liability insurance.

*   $192 million: Cost to run the NYPD's counter-terrorism and intelligence activities for one year.

*   A change in the way we travel by air.

Nothing there where gains were made for the United States.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 January 2013 - 09:18 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#513    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:11 PM

View Postredhen, on 14 January 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

You suggest?
no, the fact he stayed in the classroom whilst the attacks were ongoing "suggests". you asked for a reasoned argument and i gave you one.

Quote

Ok, glad to see it's just a suggestion and you're not claiming this as a fact.
it is prima facia evidence so the ball is now in your court so you need to suggest something more plausible that isn't retarded.

Quote

Good for you. I could suggest alternatives; the government was paralyzed, like a deer in a headlight.
sorry but that's retarded. airforce one was minutes away. his security team should have taken him to safety which would have been to be in an airbourne situation. if you believe this was a surprise attack, there would have been no way of knowing what was coming next, maybe even russian nukes. your response implies his security team were negligent and untrained. as I said already, the day before there was a security threat in florida where he was staying overnight. the school was not safe from the ground nor the air.

Quote

That's off the top of my head, I could come up with more if needed.
well you are going to have to because it's prima facie. but whatever you come up with has to be more plausible and not retarded.

Quote

But I just need one viable alternative to show that that attacks could have happened without a conspiracy.
no, because you are on record stating you are not after proof. merely suggesting an alternative does not make your alternative a stronger argument. using your logic you are using here, I could ask you to explain why you believe 1+1=2, after seeing your evidence, i could claim that you never took into account whether 1+1 equals 2 on a sunday or on a leap year.

Quote

Clear weather also facilitated the attacks.
again, you are now asking for proof in contradiction to your earlier statement. rumsfeld took action which would have been necessary to ensure the attack was successful. there is no legitimate reason why an automatic standard procedure which had been in place for 30 years should have been replaced by rumsfeld with a less safe procedure which failed because it relied on proactive action from rumsfeld which never materialised, this change was implemented merely weeks before 911, and then changed back again days after 911.

Quote

I need to see a set of connected propositions, each with warrants, to justify your main conclusion.
I've given you two prima facie reasons, the balls now in your court to refute those two reasons otherwise the conclusion is justified.

Edited by Little Fish, 14 January 2013 - 09:47 PM.


#514    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:24 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 14 January 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

...airforce one was minutes away. his security team should have taken him to safety which would have been to be airbourne situation.

After President Bush boarded Air Force One, were you aware of the climb-out profile that was conducted by Air Force One? Such a profile would only have been conducted in time of a national emergency, which was an indiction that the safety of President Bush was taken into consideration.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#515    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:36 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 14 January 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

After President Bush boarded Air Force One, were you aware of the climb-out profile that was conducted by Air Force One? Such a profile would only have been conducted in time of a national emergency, which was an indiction that the safety of President Bush was taken into consideration.
faulty logic. if the official narrative is true, then the safety of the president was not taken into consideration whilst he was at the school. he remained at the school ~2 hours after the hijacks were known about, ~45 minutes after the first impact, and ~half an hour after the second impact. whatever procedures were followed after that have no bearing on what occurred before.


#516    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:42 PM

View Postjoc, on 14 January 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

A powerful secret group sought to control the world and everything in it...they called their 'new' world...The New World Order.  This Secret Entity  comprised of Ronald Reagan,  George H. Bush,  and Mikhail Gorbichev , created a well thought out plan to bring about a New World Order in which the United States and Russia would control everything...from who became President of the United States,  to who became the head of state of Whatever Country, to who would be allowed to wage wars.  Ultimately they sought to control  all Financial Affairs Globally. p1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good stuff


Quote

The first step was to end the Cold War.

There are many who argue that the Cold War is not over.

Quote

Reagan and Gorbachev put in place an avenue for that with Perestroika.

and SDI or "Star Wars" technology, which bankrupted the USSR trying to keep up.

Quote

The wall came down,

Thanks also to you Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul II.

Quote

East and West Germany united and The Old Soviet Empire crumbled.  The rise of China was also part of the Great Plan of New World Order.

Cool.

Quote

The United States set them up as an economic partner

Hmm, I seem to recall Nixon opening up China with his "ping pong" diplomacy?

Quote

and the Russians sold them their unfinished aircraft carriers.

Commies selling military hardware to Commies, gee.Anyways, China still doesn't have a fully functioning aircraft carrier. Or if they do it's only in the last few months.

Quote

Complicit partners in the NWO plan were The Clintons, who made it possible for China to gain high tech weaponry by 'losing' a valuable rocket and allowing the Chinese to take it into their possession.

I'll look at this evidence please.

Quote

The Plan involved  Russia invading Afghanistan.  During the time of their occupation, they trained, along with the CIA, a large number of 'terrorists' to put forth the ulimate plan that would bring them the World Control they sought.  

So the Russkies are gonna sacrifice thousands of their soldiers while the CIA ships a few handheld anti-aircraft missiles?

Quote

They also put forth the 'idea' to the world that they were actually wanting to control Afghanistan for strategic purposes.

No ****? The communist Soviet Empire "put forth" that they actually wanted to take Afghanistan to extend their empire, and strive once again for a warm water southern port? Really? That's preposterous! lol

Quote

After they had achieved the results they wanted...the Russians left Afghanistan...and it was reported that Afghanistan was Russia's Vietnam.

Hmm? That's probably because it cost them thousands of lives and lasted 9 years, you know, like a quagmire.

Quote

The Clinton Administration made it possible for the CIA to work without the FBI knowing what they knew.  The CIA in conjunction with Russian Intelligence trained Osama Bin Laden and an army of terrorists, most if not all believed they were waging Jihad for Allah.  

I'll buy that.

Quote

They used the Islamic Movement put in place by the insertion of their Islamic Puppet, the Ayatollah Khomeini who began the Fundamental Movement by calling The United States, The Great Satan.  

So the French were in on this too, since they sent him back to Iran, (not on a train like Lenin) :)


Quote

This was part of the plan to create an enemy that would set up the eventual scenario that led to the destruction of the WTC in New York City. p2

Hmm, that's a long, convoluted, expensive, dangerous and secret conspiracy. Wouldn't it have been easier to stage a false flag operation from Canada that lead to dusting off Plan Red?

Quote

Thus, 911 was an inside job (main conclusion)

Cool, I finally got an argument. Grats to Joc.

I'll get back to you later, thx


#517    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 January 2013 - 10:32 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 14 January 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

faulty logic. if the official narrative is true, then the safety of the president was not taken into consideration whilst he was at the school. he remained at the school ~2 hours after the hijacks were known about, ~45 minutes after the first impact, and ~half an hour after the second impact. whatever procedures were followed after that have no bearing on what occurred before.

First of all, there was no way the terrorist could have found that school from the air without adequate planning beforehand. Secondly, the fact that President Bush was warned not to return to Washington D.C. was another clue, and thirdly, there was a prime reason why Air Force One conducted that extreme climb-out.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 January 2013 - 10:43 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#518    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 January 2013 - 10:35 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 14 January 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

First of all, there was no way the terrorist could have found that school from the air without adequate planning beforehand. Secondly, the fact that President Bush was warned not to return to Washington D.C. was another clue, and thirdly, there was a prime reason why Air Force One conducted that extreme climb-out.
none of which negates what i said.


#519    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 January 2013 - 10:41 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 14 January 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

none of which negates what i said.

In fact, they do. Such misconceptions is why 911 conspiracist have fallen on their backs and because they are not knowledgeable enough to understand the specifics behind each case. How many times have I corrected them on the way we do business in the real world of aviation?

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 January 2013 - 10:49 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#520    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 14 January 2013 - 11:11 PM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 14 January 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

Casual relationship? Glen Becks favorite saying "follow the money". Seeing as i don't work for the IRS i don't have the evidence sorry. Useless you want me to break in Jack Reacher style?

Ok, so explain how the money flowed, as you believe it happened.

Quote

Would it not be best to review the evidence that the people who constructed the official story have a proven track record of supplying misleading properganda (lies) to the American people?

Sure, their has been deliberate misinformation in the past. But we are debating 911.


#521    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 14 January 2013 - 11:19 PM

View Postredhen, on 14 January 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

Ok, so explain how the money flowed, as you believe it happened.

So you can say that i am making claims without evidence? I have told you i have no hard evidence so anything i write will be treated as pure speculation. No point.

View Postredhen, on 14 January 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

Sure, their has been deliberate misinformation in the past. But we are debating 911.

On the day of 9/11 the media was already claiming that al qaeda was behind the attack and Osama Bin Laden's name was mentioned. Osama came out via a tape recording, saying he did not commit this attack (9/11). The CIA release an Osama tape claiming he was behind the attack (9/11) with an obvious imposter. When were we not debating 9/11


#522    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 January 2013 - 11:24 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 14 January 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

rumsfeld took action which would have been necessary to ensure the attack was successful.
  

What is your evidence?

Quote

there is no legitimate reason why an automatic standard procedure which had been in place for 30 years should have been replaced by rumsfeld with a less safe procedure which failed because it relied on proactive action from rumsfeld which never materialised, this change was implemented merely weeks before 911, and then changed back again days after 911.

First of all, Air Force pilots did not receive permission to shoot down any airliners before the last airliner crashed, and many Air Force pilots are not familiar with air defense protocol of NORAD nor trained to shoot down airliners. As one F-15 pilot put it, even if he intercepted an airliner, he would not have shot it down.

Shooting down an enemy bomber is one thing, but shooting down an airliner is another.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#523    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 14 January 2013 - 11:29 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 14 January 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

no, the fact he stayed in the classroom whilst the attacks were ongoing "suggests". you asked for a reasoned argument and i gave you one.


Facts don't suggest, people's interpretation of the facts suggest.

Quote

it is prima facia evidence so the ball is now in your court so you need to suggest something more plausible that isn't retarded.

It may be self evident to you (if that's what you mean) but if it was then everyone would believe it. And that's not the case.

Quote

sorry but that's retarded. airforce one was minutes away. his security team should have taken him to safety which would have been to be in an airbourne situation.

Perhaps he didn't want to flee and cause a panic?

Quote

no, because you are on record stating you are not after proof.

That's right, just a convincing argument.

Quote

merely suggesting an alternative does not make your alternative a stronger argument.

True

Quote

using your logic you are using here, I could ask you to explain why you believe 1+1=2, after seeing your evidence, i could claim that you never took into account whether 1+1 equals 2 on a sunday or on a leap year.

No, that's an empirical argument and is easily solved. What we have in this thread is a casual argument.

Quote

rumsfeld took action which would have been necessary to ensure the attack was successful.

among hundreds of other orders, secret and not, if they to was carry out this operation.

Quote

there is no legitimate reason why an automatic standard procedure which had been in place for 30 years should have been replaced by rumsfeld with a less safe procedure which failed because it relied on proactive action from rumsfeld which never materialised, this change was implemented merely weeks before 911, and then changed back again days after 911.

Government policy changes all the time, sometime for the better, sometimes for the worse as in this case, so it was quickly put back. Why? I haven't really looked into this, but cost cutting measures are always popular. An automated system means computer hardware, networking, security, admin, etc etc.


Quote

I've given you two prima facie reasons, the balls now in your court to refute those two reasons otherwise the conclusion is justified.

Perhaps you mean prima facie  as in the legal sense, where you have enough evidence at first glance, but is subject to further investigation.


#524    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 14 January 2013 - 11:38 PM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 14 January 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

So you can say that i am making claims without evidence? I have told you i have no hard evidence so anything i write will be treated as pure speculation. No point.

I don't need bank account numbers, just your own thoughts on how money was a factor.

Quote

On the day of 9/11 the media was already claiming that al qaeda was behind the attack and Osama Bin Laden's name was mentioned.

ok

Quote

Osama came out via a tape recording, saying he did not commit this attack (9/11).

Ok, I'll entertain this evidence, show me.

Quote

The CIA release an Osama tape claiming he was behind the attack (9/11) with an obvious imposter.

Obviously? Ok, show me your source for this information.

Quote

When were we not debating 9/11

When you implied that because U.S. officials in the past have lied and spread misinformation, they necessarily did so to cover a 911 conspiracy.


#525    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 14 January 2013 - 11:46 PM

View Postredhen, on 14 January 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

I don't need bank account numbers, just your own thoughts on how money was a factor.

How am I supposed to give you information i do not have?


View Postredhen, on 14 January 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:


Ok, I'll entertain this evidence, show me.
9/16/2001 "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation." This denial was broadcast on U.S. news networks and worldwide.[1]

Link


View Postredhen, on 14 January 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

Obviously? Ok, show me your source for this information.
December 13, 2001

Posted Image

Posted ImageThe 2001 Osama bin Laden video released on December 13, 2001
On November 9, 2001, U.S. military forces in Jalalabad found a video tape of bin Laden.[4]
On December 13, 2001, the United States State Department released a video tape apparently showing bin Laden speaking with Khaled al-Harbi and other associates, somewhere in Afghanistan, before the U.S. invasion had driven the Taliban regime from Kandahar. The State Department stated that the tape was captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan during a raid on a house in Jalalabad.[5] The tape was aired with an accompanying [6] English translation. In this translation, Osama bin Laden displays knowledge of the timing of the actual attack a few days in advance;[7]

Some members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth believe that the man in this videotape is not Osama bin Laden at all, citing differences in weight and facial features, along with his wearing of a gold ring, which is forbidden by Muslim law, and writing with his right hand although bin Laden is left-handed.[10] Andy Laws, a former military imaging analyst for the Royal Air Force, says the fact that bin Laden appears fatter in the 2001 tape is down to the editing process, when subtitles were added and the image was squashed.[11]

Link

View Postredhen, on 14 January 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

When you implied that because U.S. officials in the past have lied and spread misinformation, they necessarily did so to cover a 911 conspiracy.

I implied that you have been lied to about the attacks by the people who have given you the official version of the attacks





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users