The next logocal step in the 9-11 Conspiracy Theory

[SFC Ollie]

How many times did the newscasters say "might"? I do believe the first thing said was "Might, MIGHT, have".....

So they considered their news report as weak.

 

[PredFan]

Sorry all, I was away from my computer for a few days.

 

[PredFan]

i just did... Terrorist dupes working under guidance and with assistance as in 93

How did they get Obama Bin Laden to cooperate? How did they get him to claim he did it and not give them up when they were trying to kill him?

If one of the planes were stopped like the other one was then they'd be in BIG trouble because the evidence that the buildings were rigged to blow would still exist in the standing building. How do you explain away that they would take that risk?

Well there was the smaller building that came down under suspicious circumstances.
Why not a second?
And if they were able to plant explosives without getting caught,i'm pretty sure they had a plan for getting them out if need be.

So if one of the buildings was hit but the other wasn't, do you REALLY believe that the conspirators would be able to conduct an operation to remove explosives from the standing building, under all that scrutiny and world wide attention without being seen?

 

[PredFan]

If one of the planes were stopped like the other one was then they'd be in BIG trouble because the evidence that the buildings were rigged to blow would still exist in the standing building. How do you explain away that they would take that risk?

They could always blow up the building anyway and then claim that it fell due to office fires caused by damage sustained from the other fallen buildings.

Oh, wait a minute ...

They could I suppose, but that would take a LOT more explaining than the building you are referring to.

 

[PredFan]

PredFan?

Check out the last 7 minutes or so of the following vid (from about 36:10 onward).
9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed! - YouTube​

Did you show me that to make me laugh?

 

[PredFan]

i just did... Terrorist dupes working under guidance and with assistance as in 93

How did they get Obama Bin Laden to cooperate? How did they get him to claim he did it and not give them up when they were trying to kill him?

If one of the planes were stopped like the other one was then they'd be in BIG trouble because the evidence that the buildings were rigged to blow would still exist in the standing building. How do you explain away that they would take that risk?

Are you accepting IDeot's claim that the gov't guided and assisted the terror-rats who hit the WTC in 1993?

I'm ignoring that as it is irrelevant to this thread.

 

[PredFan]

Ok, let's assume that the towers were brought down by explosives. Let's not argue that point in yet another thread, let's move on.

So then how do they get the terrorists to fly the planes into the buildings? One plane was diverted away from it's target, how would they know that one or more of the others wouldn't be?

If the terrorists weren't real terrorists, but volunteers, how did they get Osama Bin Laden to cooperate? How did they get him to pretend he did it? How did they stop him from telling the world of the US Government's plot to drag the country into a war for oil?

The US Government's involvement in the attacks on 9-11 is too much to ask me to believe. The Truthers like to point out the holes in the NIST's report and also ignore the gaping and glaring holes in their own conspiracies.

So folks, let's address the problems with YOUR theory.

First off, I don't like to say or insinuate that the whole US government is to blame.
It is my opinion that only a handful of people in authority would be necessary to accomplish a 9-11.
A good place to start would be to see who was in these positions of influence, in the Bush administration, and little background regarding PNAC, and who actually benefited from an attack on the US, one of which was into remote guidance systems of aircraft.

To even begin to try to understand much of this , one would have to dig into the relationship with OBL, and Alqaeda.

The NIST report or the 9-11 commission have nothing that could be gained about this.
NIST was charged with making sure that their investigation did not deviate from the official narrative that devout Islamic Jihadists flew the planes and cause all the damage, because they hated us for our freedumbs. The NIST report did its job in keeping with the theme, and when Itry to speak about it, I try to point out the instances where they did so, in another thread..
So do you want to seriously talk about the military, political and other objectives that are the real reason for 9-11 attacks, or are you really convinced that we were attacked because Bush said "they hate us for our freedoms"?
Feel free to start addressing what problems there may be in an alternative cause and explanation.

None of the above. I'm not going to argue about whether the NIST's report is valid or not. I'm taking the NEXT step and trying to point out that there are serious problems with the theory that the towers were brought down by explosives.

 

[PredFan]

You aren't answering any of my questions, you are evading them by asking questions of your own.

He did not claim he did it

Not personally no, but he directed it andtakes credit for directing it.

How did OBL happen to plan this attack on the same day that the US was running simulations about terrorists attacking the US? Do you think he just got lucky? Hijacked planes flying over US airspace for 2 hours?
Don't you think this is something he would have claimed responsibility for right off the bat to encourage others into siding with him and add a sense fearlessness, credibility, and serious devotion to Alqeada?
Why did the FBI say they had no evidence of his involvement?
Why were there reports of him being hospitalized the day before?
Why were their numerous reports that he actually died?

On a curious side note, are you aware that the 7-7 London bombings also occurred on a day that was scheduled for terrorists drills?

Also where are you getting your evidence that he even took credit for it, or directed others
in their participation?
Why was he allegedly murdered and thrown into the ocean, instead of parading him about, and being "interrogated" at length? Surely much useful information could have been gained from this, and even more important, much needed credibility on behalf of the US and coalition forces was to be gained as well.

I do not believe the OCT because there are many instances of lies, and complicity between OBL, and certain US officials, and their family as well.
How many instances of these lies, regarding 9-11, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Halliburton, PNAC etc are you personally willing to just ignore and set aside before you start to research these matters.

I'll engage you in this discussion if I at least know what you believe happened. Do you believe everything occurred the way it has been explained from official sources?Some do and some don't....I personally think that given all the instances where there is compelling contradictions, that the OCT is full of shit, and that people who do adhere to it are naive, never have dug deeper into it then what they heard on from the MS, or know that it is BS but are afraid to talk about it.

I will answer the highlighted question this one last time since I've answered it for you multiple times in other threads:

I do not believe it happened exactly the way the government said, but I believe that their version is the closest one to the truth. The reason the government doesn't have it right is because they are trying to piece it together after the fact. Much of the evidence was destroyed and all they really have to go on is theory.

As opposed to if they were in on it and they would have a pre-fab story all ready that covered all the bases. We have discussed this in other threads and I will not discuss that any further in this thread. I will only discuss things that address the questions in the OP.

 

[PredFan]

Not personally no, but he directed it andtakes credit for directing it.

How did OBL happen to plan this attack on the same day that the US was running simulations about terrorists attacking the US? Do you think he just got lucky? Hijacked planes flying over US airspace for 2 hours?
Don't you think this is something he would have claimed responsibility for right off the bat to encourage others into siding with him and add a sense fearlessness, credibility, and serious devotion to Alqeada?
Why did the FBI say they had no evidence of his involvement?
Why were there reports of him being hospitalized the day before?
Why were their numerous reports that he actually died?

On a curious side note, are you aware that the 7-7 London bombings also occurred on a day that was scheduled for terrorists drills?

Also where are you getting your evidence that he even took credit for it, or directed others
in their participation?
Why was he allegedly murdered and thrown into the ocean, instead of parading him about, and being "interrogated" at length? Surely much useful information could have been gained from this, and even more important, much needed credibility on behalf of the US and coalition forces was to be gained as well.

I do not believe the OCT because there are many instances of lies, and complicity between OBL, and certain US officials, and their family as well.
How many instances of these lies, regarding 9-11, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Halliburton, PNAC etc are you personally willing to just ignore and set aside before you start to research these matters.

I'll engage you in this discussion if I at least know what you believe happened. Do you believe everything occurred the way it has been explained from official sources?
Some do and some don't....I personally think that given all the instances where there is compelling contradictions, that the OCT is full of shit, and that people who do adhere to it are naive, never have dug deeper into it then what they heard on from the MS, or know that it is BS but are afraid to talk about it.

dont forget to mention to him that Al-queda was funded by the CIA and the lead highjacker whats his name,had connections to the CIA as did Bin Laden and that Bush sr allowed the Bin Laden family to fly out of the country when everyone else was grounded and the spokesperson for the boeing that allegedly hit the pentagon that they said the wreackege is not that of a Boeing airliner.He'll just ignore it all and everything else you just posted as well acting like you never said any of that and then run off. He does that everytime he is cornered.this troll actually still thinks oswald killed kennedy and wont even look at the evidence at that that proves a conspiracy so count on him running off from this post of yours as well.

Since this is my thread and I am directing it to the Truthers here I will not ignore you here.

Will you address the OP?

 

[PredFan]

as always,predfan troll gets his ass handed to him on a platter.

As always, you think that whatever nonsense you say is true.

 

[SAYIT]

How did they get Obama Bin Laden to cooperate? How did they get him to claim he did it and not give them up when they were trying to kill him?

If one of the planes were stopped like the other one was then they'd be in BIG trouble because the evidence that the buildings were rigged to blow would still exist in the standing building. How do you explain away that they would take that risk?

Are you accepting IDeot's claim that the gov't guided and assisted the terror-rats who hit the WTC in 1993?

I'm ignoring that as it is irrelevant to this thread.

Which is irrelevant? IDeot's claim or my response? It clearly seemed relevant enough to him to post it and it's how CTs justify their beliefs. BS supporting their BS.

 

[PredFan]

If one of the planes were stopped like the other one was then they'd be in BIG trouble because the evidence that the buildings were rigged to blow would still exist in the standing building. How do you explain away that they would take that risk?

They could always blow up the building anyway and then claim that it fell due to office fires caused by damage sustained from the other fallen buildings.

Oh, wait a minute ...

Who is "they" in your conspiracy theory?

He was addressing the hypothetical "they" in his response to me.

 

[PredFan]

Are you accepting IDeot's claim that the gov't guided and assisted the terror-rats who hit the WTC in 1993?

I'm ignoring that as it is irrelevant to this thread.

Which is irrelevant? IDeot's claim or my response? It clearly seemed relevant enough to him to post it and it's how CTs justify their beliefs. BS supporting their BS.

His claim that the FBI was in on the '93 attack is irrelevant to this thread.

 

[SAYIT]

as always,predfan troll gets his ass handed to him on a platter.

As always, you think that whatever nonsense you say is true.

I use the "thanks" feature to acknowledge a post that says what I would have said or adds something of value to the discussion. 9/11 Hand Job has garnered fewer than 300 "thanks" for his nearly 6700 posts which is not only incredibly low, it may be historically low. That not only tells me virtually no one appreciates his BS but that pretty much no one wants their name attached to it or him. I can't imagine why.

 

[PredFan]

Answer and/or address these points in this thread please:

1. How was both towers rigged to explode without the knowledge of the thousands of office workers, maintenance staff, cleaning crew or security knowing about it?

2. How were those buildings dropped from the point where the planes hit when no one would know for sure where the planes would hit exactly?

3. Why was there no explosives or explosive residue found after the towers fell?

4. How did they get OBL to cooperate and to stay quiet after we were trying to kill him?

You want to argue about the NIST report, or the 1993 bombing, or who was involved then there are many other places to discuss that.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Ok, let's assume that the towers were brought down by explosives. Let's not argue that point in yet another thread, let's move on.

So then how do they get the terrorists to fly the planes into the buildings? One plane was diverted away from it's target, how would they know that one or more of the others wouldn't be?

If the terrorists weren't real terrorists, but volunteers, how did they get Osama Bin Laden to cooperate? How did they get him to pretend he did it? How did they stop him from telling the world of the US Government's plot to drag the country into a war for oil?

The US Government's involvement in the attacks on 9-11 is too much to ask me to believe. The Truthers like to point out the holes in the NIST's report and also ignore the gaping and glaring holes in their own conspiracies.

So folks, let's address the problems with YOUR theory.

First off, I don't like to say or insinuate that the whole US government is to blame.
It is my opinion that only a handful of people in authority would be necessary to accomplish a 9-11.
A good place to start would be to see who was in these positions of influence, in the Bush administration, and little background regarding PNAC, and who actually benefited from an attack on the US, one of which was into remote guidance systems of aircraft.

To even begin to try to understand much of this , one would have to dig into the relationship with OBL, and Alqaeda.

The NIST report or the 9-11 commission have nothing that could be gained about this.
NIST was charged with making sure that their investigation did not deviate from the official narrative that devout Islamic Jihadists flew the planes and cause all the damage, because they hated us for our freedumbs. The NIST report did its job in keeping with the theme, and when Itry to speak about it, I try to point out the instances where they did so, in another thread..
So do you want to seriously talk about the military, political and other objectives that are the real reason for 9-11 attacks, or are you really convinced that we were attacked because Bush said "they hate us for our freedoms"?
Feel free to start addressing what problems there may be in an alternative cause and explanation.

None of the above. I'm not going to argue about whether the NIST's report is valid or not. I'm taking the NEXT step and trying to point out that there are serious problems with the theory that the towers were brought down by explosives.

The opposition to your CT relies on the NIST reports ignoring controversial instances that point to the investigation being politicized and conducted in a way that keept in line with the official story, that justified the reasons for invasions of other countries to get revenge for the 9-11 attacks..
There are serious problems that have been pointed out regarding the official story line, and the NIST reports that try to legitimize it.
The problem with those that oppose any alternative and counter views, is that not many look at what and why there is opposition to the OCT.

I at least try to understand why you folks have the opinions that you do, and what compels you to believe it.
I just don't understand why many of you give the glaring discrepancies of the official narrative such an easy pass. To fully understand why some people do not, you must try to be more open minded and take an honest view regarding them, and also include the history of less then benevolent actions by your own government in the past, and try to understand that 9-11 was just one of many incidents where the American people were mislead, and if we just stay focused on the events of 9-11, those that oppose the official narrative do have some good points and questions that argue against it, and the NIST report is just one of many, and good place to start.

9-11 was just a launching point, a "Pearl Harbor" event to galvanize support and sentiment for plans that were drawn up many years before and included both political parties and their advisers. It just so happened that the majority of them were of the Zionist persuasion, with Israeli interests first and foremost on their minds.

One shouldn't limit or dismiss that we were lied to again, simply because there is no hard proof of explosive demolition devices and no confessions from those that might have participated.
If anything was seriously examined by NIST, that might point to any other alternative explanation and was removed, destroyed, ignored etc...it does not mean nothing incriminating didn't exist, it simply means that they did not want to even include any other possible explanation, because it would not fit with the needed story line to continue with planned objectives such as the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, and other nations on the list.

9-11 had nothing to do with catching OBL, or destroying "terrorism" for the advancement of democracy and our "freedumbs", in many peoples opinion including mine.
NIST could not have conducted an honest investigation for fear of revealing the possibility that those buildings were imploded and that the possibility that the 9-11 attacks were facilitated by other entities other then Alqaeda and OBL, who supposedly only used only planes, fires and gravity, while circumventing national defense on the same day it would be overwhelmed by terrorist drills and phoney radar blips on screens.

The explanation had to stay in step with what was needed to establish "proof" to blame the jihadists and to get overwhelming national and world support so the planners could fulfill their objectives.
There is nothing anyone can do to change what happened, but awareness about the 9-11 attacks, and all that is connected to them, is a way to be on the look out for any other future schemes, and hopefully curtail or avoid another such event, by Americans being better informed especially about who they throw their support at in all future elections and appointments.
The rhetoric about Iran is one such case where we are hearing the same things as we heard about Iraq.
By directing attention to, and discourage supporting and electing people into official government positions, who would in turn possibly support and appoint their own like minded criminals, once they are elected, like those who have the same goals for more war based on BS intel and info, as those who held positions that advocated and pushed ahead the disastrous actions and or inaction's such as those that allowed 9-11 to happen (and were even rewarded for it), and disastrous actions that took place after, "justified" by the 9-11 attacks, Americans might be able to hold off and possibly even stop another 9-11, or another financial disaster, and other scandals.
9-11 happened partly because Americans were asleep and too trusting of who had control of their government, and assumed nothing like it could ever happen to America because there are no evil men in America? They're all good guys?? BS.

How fucking naive is that? Have we learned to be more diligent and aware as citizens?
How many more obvious grievances do there have to be for us to become so?
Awareness and courage on Americans part is important. Stepping back away from the "system" and conducting your own personnel observation of it and the order (disorder) of things and what is happening, is the next logical step.
Don't support and cast your vote for the same cast of liars and criminals who coddle up to moneyed interests and un American foreign influences.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Answer and/or address these points in this thread please:

1. How was both towers rigged to explode without the knowledge of the thousands of office workers, maintenance staff, cleaning crew or security knowing about it?

Asking this just shows how naive you are and simple minded your way of thinking this.
We don't know how they rigged, partly because such a thought was never even a real consideration. Planes with fuel rammed the towers and they revolved their"investigations" and subsequent assumptions and theories around that and ONLY that.
And what in hell makes you even think "thousands" had to fucking know? Why would so many just have to know?

2. How were those buildings dropped from the point where the planes hit when no one would know for sure where the planes would hit exactly?

The point of impact would have to be the logical place for the "collapses" to start don't you think?

3. Why was there no explosives or explosive residue found after the towers fell?

Found by who? NIST? This was never ever even considered, as I said above the purpose of their investigation was to provide an outcome for the "observed" events and damage, and they had to do a lot of work that included very questionable tactics to do it. That is why there is much criticism thrown their way.

4. How did they get OBL to cooperate and to stay quiet after we were trying to kill him?

Perhaps because he was already dead? Many reports were saying as much, and why should he have been worried anyway? Bush said he wasn't concerned about him, and the FBI had no solid evidence against him linking him to 9-11.

You want to argue about the NIST report, or the 1993 bombing, or who was involved then there are many other places to discuss that.

Yes there is, but you asked questions that mentioning the NIST can't be avoided when answering them. Seems like you basically started a thread to knock down strawman arguing points. You ask questions that could have been answered by an honest investigation, and because one wasn't done, you use the fact that they didn't find anything incriminating to your advantage, when the truth is they did not bother to even look for, or consider anything that may have pointed to anything other then the planes, fuel, and gravity....Of course they didn't find anything, why would they if they didn't bother to even look???
The question is why didn't they bother to look at ALL the scenarios, evidence, witnesses reports etc? You don't want to even bother to think this is even odd. After all...the WTC security was infiltrated fucking bombed once in 1993, but that is out of bounds for I guess.
BTW, the WTC had a bad fire in 1975 as well that was pretty bad. It didn't even partially collapse either.

 

[PredFan]

1. How were both towers rigged to explode without the knowledge of the thousands of office workers, maintenance staff, cleaning crew or security knowing about it?

Asking this just shows how naive you are and simple minded your way of thinking this.
We don't know how they rigged, partly because such a thought was never even a real consideration. Planes with fuel rammed the towers and they revolved their"investigations" and subsequent assumptions and theories around that and ONLY that.
And what in hell makes you even think "thousands" had to fucking know? Why would so many just have to know?

WTF kind of answer is that? You think my question is naive and simple-minded (How fast you stoop to personal attacks) yet you can't give it a straight and sensible answer. To rig a building to drop like it did would take some SERIOUS explosive power. To do that takes time and a crew. They couldn't just duct tape C-4 to the column walls, they would not only have to rig it but they'd have to hide the explosives and the rigging. This is a major flaw in the CT that the towers were brought down by explosives. Apparently you have no answer for that.

How would the conspirators know where the planes would hit the buildings before hand in order to bring them down from the point of impact?

The point of impact would have to be the logical place for the "collapses" to start don't you think?

Is that a joke? If you watch the towers fall, they dropped starting from the point of impact downward. If the buildings were rigged ahead of time to drop, how did the people who rigged them know exactly where the planes would hit?

3. Why was there no explosives or explosive residue found after the towers fell?

Found by who? NIST? This was never ever even considered, as I said above the purpose of their investigation was to provide an outcome for the "observed" events and damage, and they had to do a lot of work that included very questionable tactics to do it. That is why there is much criticism thrown their way.

The NIST, firemen, policemen first responders or ANYONE. No one found any. How id that possible?

4. How did they get OBL to cooperate and to stay quiet after we were trying to kill him?

Perhaps because he was already dead? Many reports were saying as much, and why should he have been worried anyway? Bush said he wasn't concerned about him, and the FBI had no solid evidence against him linking him to 9-11.

I have heard the theory that he was dead before obama supposedly killed him but I saw video of him while the attacks were happening and he was very aware of them. He was speaking whatever language he spoke and talking about the atacks. I'm pretty sure he was alive on 9-11. Now if you want to claim that the reason he didn't say anything when Bush went into Afghanistan after him was because he was already dead well, you might have a point there.

One out of four doesn't look good for the "The Towers were Brought Down by Controlled Demolition" theory.

 

[SAYIT]

1. How were both towers rigged to explode without the knowledge of the thousands of office workers, maintenance staff, cleaning crew or security knowing about it?

Asking this just shows how naive you are and simple minded your way of thinking this.
We don't know how they rigged, partly because such a thought was never even a real consideration. Planes with fuel rammed the towers and they revolved their"investigations" and subsequent assumptions and theories around that and ONLY that.
And what in hell makes you even think "thousands" had to fucking know? Why would so many just have to know?

WTF kind of answer is that? You think my question is naive and simple-minded (How fast you stoop to personal attacks) yet you can't give it a straight and sensible answer. To rig a building to drop like it did would take some SERIOUS explosive power. To do that takes time and a crew. They couldn't just duct tape C-4 to the column walls, they would not only have to rig it but they'd have to hide the explosives and the rigging. This is a major flaw in the CT that the towers were brought down by explosives. Apparently you have no answer for that.





Is that a joke? If you watch the towers fall, they dropped starting from the point of impact downward. If the buildings were rigged ahead of time to drop, how did the people who rigged them know exactly where the planes would hit?






The NIST, firemen, policemen first responders or ANYONE. No one found any. How id that possible?

4. How did they get OBL to cooperate and to stay quiet after we were trying to kill him?

Perhaps because he was already dead? Many reports were saying as much, and why should he have been worried anyway? Bush said he wasn't concerned about him, and the FBI had no solid evidence against him linking him to 9-11.

I have heard the theory that he was dead before obama supposedly killed him but I saw video of him while the attacks were happening and he was very aware of them. He was speaking whatever language he spoke and talking about the atacks. I'm pretty sure he was alive on 9-11. Now if you want to claim that the reason he didn't say anything when Bush went into Afghanistan after him was because he was already dead well, you might have a point there.

One out of four doesn't look good for the "The Towers were Brought Down by Controlled Demolition" theory.

Clearly Jones can't wrap his head around your demand that a "truther" patch the gapping holes in their controlled demo theory. As usual he simply (and simple-mindedly) attacks you and the NIST report without offering anything stronger than "Many reports were saying" and "I heard a theory." Certainly none of the "solid evidence" he requires of everyone else.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I really love how they use a typical military exercise as part of their cover story....

I really can't remember not being on one exercise or another (other than one unit i was in) every month. I even remember participating in exercises where we stayed in garrison.

Others where we had what was called player cells.

But the best training was the exercises that were the most realistic....

BTW in the military Exercise means Practice.... You know, what you do to find your weaknesses and strengthen them.....

I hope that NORAD and others have exercises on a regular basis...If they don't we're in deep dodo.......