Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

Please be honest and practice the same standards of proof that you demand of others. Honesty is always the best policy.

Agreed.

You cannot prove that Osama planned and executed it. However the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that the same parties who have covered up so much are the same parties who planned and executed the events.

Proof, certitude, certainty, I'm not asking for that, I just want a coherent, reasoned argument. I wish people would stop shifting the burden of proof. That's a violation of the rules of argumentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did al qaeda own? Nothing.

The attacks have provided support and recruitment for al-Qaeda, not to mention jubilation in the Middle East.

...The cost to the US for the attacks has been estimated at 95 billion.

And, we can add lives as well, but, the cost doesn't stop there.

The US gdp was 15 trillion. So the cost was 1/157th of the earnings of the US for one year. Not really crippling, usless you use it as an excuse for never ending war.

You don't seem to understand that the billions of dollars could have been used for other purposes. Al-Qaeda knew that retaliation was coming and as a result, most of al-Qaeda's senior leadership are now dead and gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The attacks have provided support and recruitment for al-Qaeda, not to mention jubilation in the Middle East.

And, we can add lives as well, but, the cost doesn't stop there.

You don't seem to understand that the billions of dollars could have been used for other purposes. Al-Qaeda knew that retaliation was coming and as a result, most of al-Qaeda's senior leadership are now dead and gone.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lightly, in case you missed it, this thread is about the logical argument that truthers make (actually I haven't seen one yet). So no pictures, videos or links to documents, at least not yet. Thanks

*snip*

p.s. I've noted that you qualify your statement on the "why" with "my guess". That excludes you from the truthers since they claim to know who and why.

Hi redhen, All "truthers" want is the truth. It's the 'believers' who claim to know who and why. Sorry but i'm going to post this picture again because it reveals some truth.

The guy (top left) who made an admission in a video is not OBL. OBL is top right . The image of the guy on the left is an image of one frame of the video that we, as a nation, were shown. It is irrefutable Proof that we were lied to. Is it not?

post-86645-0-88209000-1358194815_thumb.j

How do you explain the video admission of guilt?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bush's behaviour in staying in the classroom whilst the attacks were ongoing suggests whoever made the decision to stay in the classroom knew that bush and his party were not in danger, something that could not have been known unless the events were under the control of whoever gave that order.

You suggest? Ok, glad to see it's just a suggestion and you're not claiming this as a fact. Good for you. I could suggest alternatives; the government was paralyzed, like a deer in a headlight. That's off the top of my head, I could come up with more if needed. But I just need one viable alternative to show that that attacks could have happened without a conspiracy.

rumsfeld changing the defence response procedure shortly before 911 facilitated the attacks. all he had to do was be unavailable to give the scramble orders for the critical time period.

Clear weather also facilitated the attacks. I need to see a set of connected propositions, each with warrants, to justify your main conclusion.

you aksed why, i already said - for empire.

Yes, I got the "why", that's the easy part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem to be the case, but I don't think it should be the case.

Heads should roll.

Ok, thank you for the clarification.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that the only part of my post you quoted was "shadowy figures meeting in secret" which i used deliberately because; 1. i cannot provide evidence other than circumstantial.

Ok, well can you at least connect this circumstantial evidence together showing a causal relationship? Then you would have an argument.

2. it could refer to both al qaeda or numerous other groups often labeled conspiracies.

Al Quaeda is not a conspiracy as far as I know. They have made their existence, plans and motivations well known.

What i don't understand is why you ignore the FACT that the US CIA is showing false Osamas (i.e. deliberate properganda aimed at the US public) and claiming that these people are honest and you accept their story beyond question.

I will review your photographic evidence and its credibility once I get a coherent, reasoned argument. Think I'll just use an acronym from now on, CRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US you meant.. you made error right there..

You have lost me....I meant what I put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, well can you at least connect this circumstantial evidence together showing a causal relationship? Then you would have an argument.

Al Quaeda is not a conspiracy as far as I know. They have made their existence, plans and motivations well known.

I will review your photographic evidence and its credibility once I get a coherent, reasoned argument. Think I'll just use an acronym from now on, CRA.

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?

I was not referring to al qaeda. I said it could relate to them OR other groups. These other groups (while being real entities) are often labelled conspiracies because their goals and motives are unknown.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

[media=]

[/media]

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.

Edited by redhen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

[media=]

[/media]

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The first step was to end the Cold War.

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

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.

The wall came down,

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

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.

The United States set them up as an economic partner

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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) :)

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?

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

What is your evidence?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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?

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

That's right, just a convincing argument.

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

True

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.

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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

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

December 13, 2001

220px-2001-12-13-frame-grab-DoD.jpg

magnify-clip.pngThe 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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.