Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,717 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 2,072,071
Pageviews Today: 3,017,777Threads Today: 700Posts Today: 15,650
09:58 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

911: What really happened AND WHY

 
hcc
CatRWall

User ID: 6493463
United States
09/10/2012 12:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
911: What really happened AND WHY
Hey, OP, try this "hybrid" theory on for size!

1. Terrorist chatter was up all through early 2001 and only increased in August right before the event. A LOT of people knew something was up.

For evidence (since you are probably a scientific type) go to

www.historycommons.com

then go to their 9/11 Complete timeline, and look under precursor events or warnings (some title like that). You'll see that the U.S. security was on high alert. There were even specific warnings about planes being used (don't believe Bush & Rice when they claim "no credible signal").

2. The WTC was obviously a high value target and people in the know would have been worried about it coming down.

3. What's worse than two giant towers falling into their own footprints and killing 3000 people? Two giant towers TOPPLING over onto other buildings and killing 10s of thousands.

4. Answer: Prepare the buildings for a controlled demolition should the unthinkable happen. It did, and the plan worked.

5. Why lie about it: How can you explain to the families of the 3000 that their loved ones died to protect the 10s of thousands? You can't. It's a horrible decision that no one wants to make but in fact it gets made in warfare all the time.

QED
mems3

User ID: 21352299
09/10/2012 12:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
Hey, OP, try this "hybrid" theory on for size!

1. Terrorist chatter was up all through early 2001 and only increased in August right before the event. A LOT of people knew something was up.

For evidence (since you are probably a scientific type) go to

www.historycommons.com

then go to their 9/11 Complete timeline, and look under precursor events or warnings (some title like that). You'll see that the U.S. security was on high alert. There were even specific warnings about planes being used (don't believe Bush & Rice when they claim "no credible signal").

2. The WTC was obviously a high value target and people in the know would have been worried about it coming down.

3. What's worse than two giant towers falling into their own footprints and killing 3000 people? Two giant towers TOPPLING over onto other buildings and killing 10s of thousands.

4. Answer: Prepare the buildings for a controlled demolition should the unthinkable happen. It did, and the plan worked.

5. Why lie about it: How can you explain to the families of the 3000 that their loved ones died to protect the 10s of thousands? You can't. It's a horrible decision that no one wants to make but in fact it gets made in warfare all the time.

QED
 Quoting: hcc


They tried to blow it up before. it didn't work look that up and find out who did it.
memsEntertainment.com
vargas123

User ID: 17574346
Canada
09/10/2012 01:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
Hey, OP, try this "hybrid" theory on for size!

1. Terrorist chatter was up all through early 2001 and only increased in August right before the event. A LOT of people knew something was up.

For evidence (since you are probably a scientific type) go to

www.historycommons.com

then go to their 9/11 Complete timeline, and look under precursor events or warnings (some title like that). You'll see that the U.S. security was on high alert. There were even specific warnings about planes being used (don't believe Bush & Rice when they claim "no credible signal").

2. The WTC was obviously a high value target and people in the know would have been worried about it coming down.

3. What's worse than two giant towers falling into their own footprints and killing 3000 people? Two giant towers TOPPLING over onto other buildings and killing 10s of thousands.

4. Answer: Prepare the buildings for a controlled demolition should the unthinkable happen. It did, and the plan worked.

5. Why lie about it: How can you explain to the families of the 3000 that their loved ones died to protect the 10s of thousands? You can't. It's a horrible decision that no one wants to make but in fact it gets made in warfare all the time.

QED
 Quoting: hcc


this is the biggest load of crap i have ever read.pre-wire a building for demolition?,in case something happened!?those three specific buildings!?!?!?!?!? this is some outrageous bullshit right here.seriously,Is this a joke?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23403601
Canada
09/10/2012 06:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
With regard to OPPORTUNITY, a number of critical points show that it had to have been Halliburton with no aid from the US Government or DOD.

If someone is found at the scene of any crime with a dagger int heir hand, it is usual to regard them as a key suspect. As can be seen in the footage of the Pentagon and other places, construction workers and their huts were present, yet these were always ignored by both the Offical 9/11 Commission investigators and 99$ of all Truthers, yet they were there at the scene of the crimes.

Only the Turner Corporation had access to the elevator shifts granting access to the Trusses to have been able to place the explosives. Turner Corporation, a close ally of Halliburton, also had access to a Naval base in the USA where the newly developed THERMATE (as opposed to ThERMITE) was held as they were doing construction work there at the time. As Turner Corporation is not only an ally of Halliburton, but is currently owned by a German company, best known for its construction of Auschvitz, given Halliburton's Dick Cheney's CIA access to files on the parent companies directors, it is not hard to fathom out that the possibility of blakcmail might well have payed a key role in ensuring Turner's help to Halliburton.

Likewise, there is the question of what hit the WTC. "September Clues" makes it clear that it could only have been a missile, besides which, if the Pentagon was clearly hit by a missile, then there is no reason not to suppose that missiles also hit the WTC.

Whereas the US NAvy loads, paints and maintains the cruise missiles for the US Navy, after becoming Prime Minister, of Britain, Tony Blair, despite being a "socialist", hence against privatisation, contracted out the maintenance, including painting of Britain's nuclear subs, their cruise missiels (the same as the USA ones) and their fire control systems to... Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiaruy of Halliburton. As each missile resides in a separate silo onboard, no sailor, not even the captain would have seen what his own missiles would have looked like in terms of paintwork once loaded by KBR. in terms of fire control, it would have been easy for KBR to have had a technitian replace a circuit board or two to allow the cruise missiles to be electronically hijacked and for the fire control systems to report that the missiles on a test launch had been destroyed rather than flying on to the Eastern Seaboard of the USA.

The next question is one of how missiles actually beat the US Radar defence systems to hit the Pentagon which is supremely defended. The answer lies in the Falklands War. During this, the Exocet and no other Argentine missile did catastrophic damage to the British fleet. The reason for this was revealed at the time. NATO planners long ago realized that a NATO/WARSAW PACT sea battle would last seconds due to the staggering destructive firepower. Radar and missile technicians would have split seconds to respond, so in order to simplify NATO radar systems, a new standard was adopted in which NATO radar systems, including those of the Pentgon, only show…
- potential enemy missiles and aircraft
- your own country’s missiles and aircraft
- civilian and neutral country missiles asd aircraft.

In short, NATO systems as blind to missiles and aircraft belonging to missiles and aircraft of your allies. Hence, a cruise missile launched from a British or French sub would be ENTIRELY INVISIBLE to all of the Pentagon’s radar systems. However, not all systems meet this code and indeed, the base scrambling the jets to head to Whiskey 386 patch of ocean were still fitted with OLD equipment wupon which such missiles would have been clear.

So who had the access to these Norad systems? Not just the USA, but also her allies, such as Britain who had contracted their own work out to…KBR, the subsidiary of Halliburton.

So, where do British subs test fire their missiles? At a place in the atlantic called… Whiskey 386. So were there any British subs in the region? Records on line that I have seen, submitted by one peace grouop in the UK clearly established that HMS Trafalgar left port in the UK on 1st September 2001 to travel via the Americas to the Far East which would have put it in Whiskey 386 or so on 11th September 2001. This peace group who incidentally have nothing to do with the 9/11 movement, established that when HMS Trafalgar reached port in the Far East, her inventory of cruise missiles were down by EIGHT,, indicating a test firing in Whiskey 386 of 8 Cruise missiles on about 11th September 2001. Had this occurred, and they been compromised and electronically hijacked without the sub knowing, they could have been flown straight to the Pentagon and the WTC without a glitch on any NATO radar.

Finally, how did they get a dunce like George W Bush to lie? Simple. he didn't. What he said was LITERALLY TRUE, but open to the wrong interprestation, for the WTC WAS hit by hijacked aircraft, but not jetliners, British cruise missiles.
Dr.DoomLittle

User ID: 6231580
United States
09/11/2012 12:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
Hey, OP, try this "hybrid" theory on for size!

3. What's worse than two giant towers falling into their own footprints and killing 3000 people? Two giant towers TOPPLING over onto other buildings and killing 10s of thousands.

 Quoting: hcc


SORRY, NICE TRY.

IT TAKES MONTHS TO PREP A BUILDING FOR CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. MONTHS.
Dr.DoomLittle

User ID: 6231580
United States
09/11/2012 12:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
With regard to OPPORTUNITY, a number of critical points show that it had to have been Halliburton with no aid from the US Government or DOD.

If someone is found at the scene of any crime with a dagger int heir hand, it is usual to regard them as a key suspect. As can be seen in the footage of the Pentagon and other places, construction workers and their huts were present, yet these were always ignored by both the Offical 9/11 Commission investigators and 99$ of all Truthers, yet they were there at the scene of the crimes.

Only the Turner Corporation had access to the elevator shifts granting access to the Trusses to have been able to place the explosives. Turner Corporation, a close ally of Halliburton, also had access to a Naval base in the USA where the newly developed THERMATE (as opposed to ThERMITE) was held as they were doing construction work there at the time. As Turner Corporation is not only an ally of Halliburton, but is currently owned by a German company, best known for its construction of Auschvitz, given Halliburton's Dick Cheney's CIA access to files on the parent companies directors, it is not hard to fathom out that the possibility of blakcmail might well have payed a key role in ensuring Turner's help to Halliburton.

Likewise, there is the question of what hit the WTC. "September Clues" makes it clear that it could only have been a missile, besides which, if the Pentagon was clearly hit by a missile, then there is no reason not to suppose that missiles also hit the WTC.

Whereas the US NAvy loads, paints and maintains the cruise missiles for the US Navy, after becoming Prime Minister, of Britain, Tony Blair, despite being a "socialist", hence against privatisation, contracted out the maintenance, including painting of Britain's nuclear subs, their cruise missiels (the same as the USA ones) and their fire control systems to... Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiaruy of Halliburton. As each missile resides in a separate silo onboard, no sailor, not even the captain would have seen what his own missiles would have looked like in terms of paintwork once loaded by KBR. in terms of fire control, it would have been easy for KBR to have had a technitian replace a circuit board or two to allow the cruise missiles to be electronically hijacked and for the fire control systems to report that the missiles on a test launch had been destroyed rather than flying on to the Eastern Seaboard of the USA.

The next question is one of how missiles actually beat the US Radar defence systems to hit the Pentagon which is supremely defended. The answer lies in the Falklands War. During this, the Exocet and no other Argentine missile did catastrophic damage to the British fleet. The reason for this was revealed at the time. NATO planners long ago realized that a NATO/WARSAW PACT sea battle would last seconds due to the staggering destructive firepower. Radar and missile technicians would have split seconds to respond, so in order to simplify NATO radar systems, a new standard was adopted in which NATO radar systems, including those of the Pentgon, only show…
- potential enemy missiles and aircraft
- your own country’s missiles and aircraft
- civilian and neutral country missiles asd aircraft.

In short, NATO systems as blind to missiles and aircraft belonging to missiles and aircraft of your allies. Hence, a cruise missile launched from a British or French sub would be ENTIRELY INVISIBLE to all of the Pentagon’s radar systems. However, not all systems meet this code and indeed, the base scrambling the jets to head to Whiskey 386 patch of ocean were still fitted with OLD equipment wupon which such missiles would have been clear.

So who had the access to these Norad systems? Not just the USA, but also her allies, such as Britain who had contracted their own work out to…KBR, the subsidiary of Halliburton.

So, where do British subs test fire their missiles? At a place in the atlantic called… Whiskey 386. So were there any British subs in the region? Records on line that I have seen, submitted by one peace grouop in the UK clearly established that HMS Trafalgar left port in the UK on 1st September 2001 to travel via the Americas to the Far East which would have put it in Whiskey 386 or so on 11th September 2001. This peace group who incidentally have nothing to do with the 9/11 movement, established that when HMS Trafalgar reached port in the Far East, her inventory of cruise missiles were down by EIGHT,, indicating a test firing in Whiskey 386 of 8 Cruise missiles on about 11th September 2001. Had this occurred, and they been compromised and electronically hijacked without the sub knowing, they could have been flown straight to the Pentagon and the WTC without a glitch on any NATO radar.

Finally, how did they get a dunce like George W Bush to lie? Simple. he didn't. What he said was LITERALLY TRUE, but open to the wrong interprestation, for the WTC WAS hit by hijacked aircraft, but not jetliners, British cruise missiles.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23403601


i KNOW YOU WANT TO STRESS HALIBURTON DID IT ALONE..

WHICH IS PROBABLY THE ENTIRE INITIATIVE OF YOUR PROPAGANDIZATION.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 19333122
United States
09/11/2012 01:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
Hey, OP, try this "hybrid" theory on for size!

3. What's worse than two giant towers falling into their own footprints and killing 3000 people? Two giant towers TOPPLING over onto other buildings and killing 10s of thousands.

 Quoting: hcc


SORRY, NICE TRY.

IT TAKES MONTHS TO PREP A BUILDING FOR CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. MONTHS.
 Quoting: Dr.DoomLittle


Hmmm.. How many YEARS had they been standing?

SHILL...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23403601
Canada
09/11/2012 01:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
Turner were working on the WTC, specificlly the elevators for 6 months before, right up to the day that they fell.

I vividly remember visiting the WTC, and, whilst waiting for the elevator car, I just happened to peer idly at the slit between the elevator shaft doors and the floor. I could clearly see the trusses exposed running down the elevator shaft.

After 9/11, Turner were asked what building work were they doing in WTC before 9/11. They say that they have no idea as all the records were destroyed in the conflagration of 9/11/ Cheeky!

Each of WTC1 and WTC2 had 47 trusses, even though each tower only needed 12 to stand. As Les Robertson, the structural engineer for their construction had put so many in (inflating his aslary as he was paid a percentage of the superstructure's cost), he put most of them in a cluster in the centre and had all the elevators run up and down between them.
hcc (OP)
CatRWall

User ID: 6493463
United States
09/11/2012 01:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
Hey, OP, try this "hybrid" theory on for size!

1. Terrorist chatter was up all through early 2001 and only increased in August right before the event. A LOT of people knew something was up.

For evidence (since you are probably a scientific type) go to

www.historycommons.com

then go to their 9/11 Complete timeline, and look under precursor events or warnings (some title like that). You'll see that the U.S. security was on high alert. There were even specific warnings about planes being used (don't believe Bush & Rice when they claim "no credible signal").

2. The WTC was obviously a high value target and people in the know would have been worried about it coming down.

3. What's worse than two giant towers falling into their own footprints and killing 3000 people? Two giant towers TOPPLING over onto other buildings and killing 10s of thousands.

4. Answer: Prepare the buildings for a controlled demolition should the unthinkable happen. It did, and the plan worked.

5. Why lie about it: How can you explain to the families of the 3000 that their loved ones died to protect the 10s of thousands? You can't. It's a horrible decision that no one wants to make but in fact it gets made in warfare all the time.

QED
 Quoting: hcc


this is the biggest load of crap i have ever read.pre-wire a building for demolition?,in case something happened!?those three specific buildings!?!?!?!?!? this is some outrageous bullshit right here.seriously,Is this a joke?
 Quoting: vargas123


Sure. Why not? Clearly you disagree, and I'd be happy to hear the reasons why. But yelling insults and flinging virtual spittle doesn't really communicate it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 938316
United States
09/11/2012 01:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
George Bushes Brother , Was in control of security of the WTC .
So much more to the security issue.

WTC 7 was along way from the 2 towers. in fact 2 building were between WTC 7 and the 2 towers, both of witch were hardly damaged.


and on and on and on

come on get a brain, gulf of tonkin lol
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1637551
United States
09/11/2012 01:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
I think we should demand a new private investigation into 9/11 ..... if it's possible to do so. We can't move on as national until we fully this to rest.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23566906
Australia
09/11/2012 01:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
the buildings were hit by planes flown by angry muslims,.
jihad2
they fell down because of tremendous heat, impact and structural deficiencies.
explosion
it's that simple.

any conspiracy is in intelligence failures and substandard construction.

even that fiction writer tom clancy predicted the planes.

sure, the buildings should not have collapsed like that, but all the bullshit out there neatly covers that up.

those towers were poorly designed and most likely poorly constructed from the ground up, workers often commented on their movement and creaking in high winds. and when you examine the record of american construction versus local weather, it is no real surprise. whole towns made of timber blow away in tornadoes and are rebuilt again of timber to blow down in the future.

look at similar era buildings worldwide in design, few, if any of similar size have cutain wall construction, like a huge card stack.

all large constructions, especially those in high value city areas are designed to be pulled down. the easier they come down, the more profit for all involved.they were designed to come down fast and easy and they did.

hold not the illusion that safety governs their construction, that would be like thinking doctors heal people over making

better for some to deny all that and make shit up.
hcc (OP)
CatRWall

User ID: 6493463
United States
09/11/2012 01:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
Hey, OP, try this "hybrid" theory on for size!

3. What's worse than two giant towers falling into their own footprints and killing 3000 people? Two giant towers TOPPLING over onto other buildings and killing 10s of thousands.

 Quoting: hcc


SORRY, NICE TRY.

IT TAKES MONTHS TO PREP A BUILDING FOR CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. MONTHS.
 Quoting: Dr.DoomLittle


That's not necessarily a problem. There was "elevator" work going on for weeks, and there were also several weekend closings with security trucks preventing people from going in .

I don't have a horse in this race, being of a skeptical nature.

But perhaps you can agree with me that this view is MORE plausible than the claim that the entire event was an evil plot by George Bush or that the event was an illusion created for TV viewers.

And perhaps you have an explanation for the traces of thermite found in the debris.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23403601
Canada
09/11/2012 02:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
>>>> those towers were poorly designed and most likely poorly constructed from the ground up, workers often commented on their movement and creaking in high winds. and when you examine the record of american construction versus local weather, >>>>

EXTREME BUNK. The more kit that a structural engineer can dump into a buildings superstructure, the more he is paid as he is paid a percentage.

Les Robertson, the structural engineer was told by the architect that he wanted to be able to touch two trusses at any one time and, as Les put it, "he was a small man."

Les designed each tower to have 47 trusses, when it only needed 12. Furthermore, the outside ribbing, although decorative, has been calculated to have been just strong enough to have held up each tower's basic weight on its own.

With 47 trusses, each tower could have been filled from floor to ceiling with grand pianos and solid slate billiard tables on every floor without any difficulty.

Furthermore, due to the vast number of trusses, Les put most of them in the central core, so it would have needed the impacting flying machines to have smashed their way intact through to the core of each tower a dn TEHN ALSO sliced 36 trusses entirely through simply to have caused the distant chance of collapse.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23403601
Canada
09/11/2012 02:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
>>>> they fell down because of tremendous heat <<<<

EXTREME BUNK.

Whilst the US has NIST, the UK have the BRE at Cardington. THe tests there are way, way more detailed and extensive. Indeed, in a British Court, if BRE back you as an expert witness, it is like the voice of God, YOU WIN, so respected are they.

Long before 9/11, BRE at Cardington, did extensive tests on steel structures. in these tests, amongst other things, they flamethrowered under pressure, burning aviation fuel non-stop for many, many hours directly at the truss and beam joints. They found...

1. That there WAS structural warping, but only after EIGHT AND A HALF HOURS of non-stop blasting, yet the supposed fuel from even full airline gas tannsk would only have burned for minutes.
2. Steel structures act a giant heat sinks. The larger the structure, the lower the maximum temperature that they were able to achieve.

Additionally to this, there is also the issue of the fire in February 1975. At about floor 11, a massive blaxe utterly gutted one of the World Trade Twoers for several floor. Despite having about 100 floors of weight above them and the blaze lasting many hours, there was no sign of any form of warping afterwards, yet on 9/11, despite only having, at most, about 20 floors above it, the blaze is supposed to have caused structural failure in the South Tower after a meagre ONE HOUR.

"Fire damage" and "poor construction and design" is utter, UTTER BUNK.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23403601
Canada
09/11/2012 02:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
"the more profit for all involved.they were designed to come down fast and easy"

EXTREME BUNK that shows that the poster has NO IDEA WHATSOEVER concerning skyscraper construction.

The fact is that the slacker the management, the SAFER a building is. Why? A structural engineer is paid as a PERCENTAGE of the total cost of the superstructure and an architect is paid as a PERCENTAGE of the total cost of the project. Normally, the architect receives about a 2% commission.

Hence, if they can justify it, a structural engineer and architect will try to INFLATE the cost by chucking in every possible piece of safety kit possible... extra beams, extra trusses, extra fire walls. In the case of the WTC, they were very lax and both the Japanese architect and Les Robertson the structural engineer were able to put in 47 trusses instead of the 12 needed per tower AND Les even managed to convince them to put in enough extra kit to allow each tower to be hit by a jetliner, flying at full pace.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23403601
Canada
09/11/2012 02:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
[link to www.youtube.com]

From 2.12 to 2.24 in this video, one can actually see something remarkable. The central core of 47 trusses was so strong, that for a few seconds after the entire rest of the North Tower has collapse, one can clearly see amongst the smoke, a group of the central trusses is still standing around the central elevator shafts like a vast steeple of steel poking out above the main clouds of dust and begins to descend much more slowly to the ground, well after the rest of the srtucture has gone.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23403601
Canada
09/11/2012 03:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
So, how can poor construction and fire damage to the trusses cause collapse if they fell two to three seconds after all the rest of the floors, beams etc had fallen to the ground.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23403601
Canada
09/11/2012 03:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
"evil plot"

Bearing in mind that Hochtief, the parent company of Turner Construction was the company that designed and built Auschwitz, how could it be likely for Hochtief to refuse such a project as WTC demolition on the grounds of conscience?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23403601
Canada
09/11/2012 03:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
Whether another group, company or Government agency or Governemtn (such as Israel) was higher up the food chain or just involved, I am unable to determine and must remain skeptical until further evidence turns up, if ever it does. However, the existing evidence clearly demonstrates to me the involvement of Halliburton and Hochtief and their subsidiaries in the actual execution of mass murder and that it seems deeply unlikely that the US Government had any involvement other than a bare handful of a few individuals, albeit, well placed.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23403601
Canada
09/11/2012 03:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
In the case of Larry Silverstein, it is quite possible that he was involved in the idea of blowing up the WTC in order to claim the insurance, but on the basis of it being empty.

Having crossed the Rubicon, however, of fraud, he would then be at the mercy of blackmail to fall into line and aid the cover-up of mass murder, cornered with the threat of prosecution for insurance fraud if he failed to do so. He is clearly uncomfortable in his famous interview, and, it my honest belief, that whilst he may have expected such an attack, he was not expecting any loss of life whatsoever.
hcc (OP)
CatRWall

User ID: 6493463
United States
09/16/2012 02:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
In the case of Larry Silverstein, it is quite possible that he was involved in the idea of blowing up the WTC in order to claim the insurance, but on the basis of it being empty.

Having crossed the Rubicon, however, of fraud, he would then be at the mercy of blackmail to fall into line and aid the cover-up of mass murder, cornered with the threat of prosecution for insurance fraud if he failed to do so. He is clearly uncomfortable in his famous interview, and, it my honest belief, that whilst he may have expected such an attack, he was not expecting any loss of life whatsoever.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23403601


That's plausible and I like the way you think.

Despite my vast enjoyment of -- and maybe even love for -- GLP, the conversations here tend to go to quickly to

"Who is EVIL"

when it would also be fun to spend some time on questions like "What horrible tough choices are people being forced to make?"
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17601343
Germany
09/16/2012 02:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
The short version:

9/11 was part of the "Jewish Messianic Prophecy". For the Lubavitchers and their Noahide stooges who did it, the murder of 3000 innocent people - all the mayhem and destruction - was doing a Mitzvah! It was about bringing the "Mashiach" (Antichrist)!

These towers are located in a city, in a predominantly xtian country. The collapse of the tall towers will be accompanied by a thunder-like sound and tremendeous fire. The fall will be so massive and it will darken the entire area before noon, and daytime will be transformed into night and nothing will be visible. The loss of life will be enormous and people from all walks of life will perish. People will believe that they will never survive the imminent disasters.
 Quoting: Zohar


[link to dreamingofmoshiach.blogspot.de]
PLEM

User ID: 1000169
United States
09/17/2012 02:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
George Bushes Brother , Was in control of security of the WTC .
So much more to the security issue.

WTC 7 was along way from the 2 towers. in fact 2 building were between WTC 7 and the 2 towers, both of witch were hardly damaged.


and on and on and on

come on get a brain, gulf of tonkin lol
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 938316


7 WTC wasn't that far from the towers. Let's not get crazy now, you make it sound as if it was across town. It was some 350 feet away. You don't think that chunks of falling debris before the tower collapse and during the collapse damaged the building? Was it fending off debris?

and both 5 and 6 WTC were damaged.

Last Edited by PLEM on 09/17/2012 02:31 PM
plem
PLEM

User ID: 1000169
United States
09/17/2012 02:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
the buildings were hit by planes flown by angry muslims,.
jihad2
they fell down because of tremendous heat, impact and structural deficiencies.
explosion
it's that simple.

any conspiracy is in intelligence failures and substandard construction.

even that fiction writer tom clancy predicted the planes.

sure, the buildings should not have collapsed like that, but all the bullshit out there neatly covers that up.

those towers were poorly designed and most likely poorly constructed from the ground up, workers often commented on their movement and creaking in high winds. and when you examine the record of american construction versus local weather, it is no real surprise. whole towns made of timber blow away in tornadoes and are rebuilt again of timber to blow down in the future.

look at similar era buildings worldwide in design, few, if any of similar size have cutain wall construction, like a huge card stack.

all large constructions, especially those in high value city areas are designed to be pulled down. the easier they come down, the more profit for all involved.they were designed to come down fast and easy and they did.

hold not the illusion that safety governs their construction, that would be like thinking doctors heal people over making

better for some to deny all that and make shit up.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23566906


structural deficienes which were caused by two giant planes strategically flown into the buidlings in order to cause that damage. they did not fly those planes through the buildings ineptly, they knew exactly where they were hitting in order to cause damage, and of course tried making the towers collpase over--but that didn't happen. And let's not forget weakening from 1993 bombing.

so, I think their purpose was to make the buildings topple over and they didn't. unfortunately they did collapse and i don't think they even thought it was going to happen that way.

Those buildings were designed to sway. That was the creaking and movement that was heard and felt. Wasn't bad construction.

Last Edited by PLEM on 09/17/2012 02:29 PM
plem
bvndy

User ID: 22365385
United States
09/17/2012 02:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
Hey, OP, try this "hybrid" theory on for size!

1. Terrorist chatter was up all through early 2001 and only increased in August right before the event. A LOT of people knew something was up.

For evidence (since you are probably a scientific type) go to

www.historycommons.com

then go to their 9/11 Complete timeline, and look under precursor events or warnings (some title like that). You'll see that the U.S. security was on high alert. There were even specific warnings about planes being used (don't believe Bush & Rice when they claim "no credible signal").

2. The WTC was obviously a high value target and people in the know would have been worried about it coming down.

3. What's worse than two giant towers falling into their own footprints and killing 3000 people? Two giant towers TOPPLING over onto other buildings and killing 10s of thousands.

4. Answer: Prepare the buildings for a controlled demolition should the unthinkable happen. It did, and the plan worked.

5. Why lie about it: How can you explain to the families of the 3000 that their loved ones died to protect the 10s of thousands? You can't. It's a horrible decision that no one wants to make but in fact it gets made in warfare all the time.

QED
 Quoting: hcc


this is the biggest load of crap i have ever read.pre-wire a building for demolition?,in case something happened!?those three specific buildings!?!?!?!?!? this is some outrageous bullshit right here.seriously,Is this a joke?
 Quoting: vargas123


Was not "pre-wired" but was a plan, and was carried out.
Just like they shot down flight 93 to keep it out of DC.
Several explosions were heard, and it was a good call,
saved a lot of lives.
In defense, a lot of time unpleasant calls have to be made,
But you would have to be a moron to watch those towers
fall straight down and not be able to figure it out
You can ignore the consequences of
your actions, but you cannot ignore
the RESULTS of the consequences of your actions

Ayn Rand
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23954817
United States
09/17/2012 02:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 911: What really happened AND WHY
5. Why lie about it: How can you explain to the families of the 3000 that their loved ones died to protect the 10s of thousands? You can't. It's a horrible decision that no one wants to make but in fact it gets made in warfare all the time.

 Quoting: hcc





I've got a better explanation.

The Neocons wanted a "Pearl Harbor type of event" to implement their NWO. Given the lower-than-whale-shit character of the people involved and the mountains of evidence being gathered, I'd bet I could convince a jury before you could.

News