BOOM ROASTED... I'm really not sure on which side of the aisle I stand with regards to the conspiracies, but there is certainly good reason to be skeptical of the story we were fed. Also, I remember reading a story about the owner of one of the towers taking on a massive insurance plan on one of the buildings soon before its "fall", any validity to that?
Afghanistan may have been the main prize. Just another opium war like vietnam... And opium wars have been going on for a loooonnnng time. Drug profits are off the charts.. Wachovia got busted laundering $390 BILLION in drug money (and the DOJ only made them pay a $110 million fine ) _ and that's just Wachovia... The invasion of Iraq was a distraction because other than getting a central bank there and Dick (and the Bush family) making money with Halliburton it was unnecessary. No... My logic is _ "it looks suspicious." Do you know how many successful hijackings have taken place in this country since the 80's...??? But yet you wholeheartedly believe the movie plot hijacking story that was lead by a man in a cave in the middle east... You guys are the actual tin foil conspiracy nut theory believers because that's what that hijacking story sounds like...
Hanlon's Razor: [rquoter] Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. [/rquoter] Paranoia is one of the most common mental pathologies. The brain seems to be wired to see agency and personally directed malace in random events. People find meaning in personally directed attacks, whereas being having your pain be an irrelevant side effect of events is bewildering. If someone's out to get you you can fight the good fight. If your family dies as part of God's plan it's part of the order of the universe. If they die for no reason other than wrong place, wrong time, it becomes really difficult to integrate it and move on. It's also same reason people always set up foundations after tragedies - trying to generate meaning from randomness.
Ok - let's break it down.... So there's a lot of failed logic already here. Let's say they were powerful, rich, and intelligent. First question is this: who would you trust enough to plot an event that if you got caught would result in your losing everything, including your life. From a risk-to-reward perspective, you'd be risking all that riches and power you have (not to mention your life) to gain a small incremental amount more. It's a stupid thing to do. The consequences are so grave. To think that a group of people would seriously discuss attacking their own country to make a few bucks with a high risk of getting caught is nuts in my opinion. Maybe you believe in shadowy groups like SPECTRE or the Syndicate or Cobra maybe? Seriously way too many movies. How would such a sinister group actually span religious divides and exist as a network? Would you trust that any member would never give you up if the poop hit the ceiling? Rich and powerful people don't get to where they are by taking life-threatening risks - they take smart risks which don't have horrible negative consequences. So the logic here is already falling apart. On top of that, you actually believe that there would be a large influx of money for starting a war with Iraq???? It's just silly. Haliburton wants a war in Iraq to make money. So they decide to go to the syndicate whom they trust with their lifes and plot the destruction of U.S. icons in order to goad the country into a war which will cost trillions so they can make a few millions in profit? And if they ever got caught they would all get the electric chair and die as traitors. Yeah, totally plausible! So your 9/11 theory already would require that Bin Laden be a double spy working for a shadowy entity. A guy who didn't trust anyone would be reachable by some powerful entity sitting in a U.S. highrise. Bin Laden did not have close ties with the Bush family. Bin Laden's extended FAMILY did. Bin Laden may have had contacts with the CIA back when they were both fighting the Russians. But Bin Laden became a threat to the us and interests well before 9/11 - as far back as the early 90's. In fact, Clinton and the CIA tried to take him out and kill him. The evidence is actually against what you are suggesting. Why not just cede that anything is possible. Maybe I am Bin Laden too. That's possible. Maybe Bin Laden will rise from the dead and tell us to turn the other cheek now too. Anything is possible. And to think that he somehow was running the secret Al qaeda movement bent on attacking the US for 10 years with success so that it could inspire an invasion of Iraq - that's truly some mastermind. How many terrorists have a 20 year plan? If I were trying to manipulate 7 billion people into thinking my faux terrorist attack was just to start a war, I seriously doubt I'd want people to see it on national tv as it happened and be exposed to 1000's of engineers and experts finding trace of my bomb at the scene of the crime. So in order to pull this off, the PNAC would really just need a few things. Which you have not yet established Which sounds like more than minor stretch of the imagination. Hey have you ever read the illuminati trilogy? much better than unwilling terrorists that you find elsewhere A way to bypass security without anyone knowing that they are helping a bunch of foreign nationals from Islamic nations bypass security despite no report from any personal at multiple airports that they felt they were compromised in any way. This is far harder that you think. After the 1993 truck bomb explosion you weren't allowed to drive anything into the WTC. Do you understand that? You couldn't get a car close enough. So someone would have to physically carry the bomb into the building through multiple security check points, onto the elevator and take it to wherever. Not just one, but many many - enough to take out two skyscrapers. Oh, and the WTC had a bomb sniffing dog. His name is Sirius. See i know this because I worked at the WTC for a few years and every day you walked passed a bomb sniffing dog. Everything thing that got near those towers had to get passed those dogs. They were always there. Always. So now you have to add all the staff of the WTC being in on it because they would have had to seen the suspicious activity of bombs being brought in and the dogs not sniffing out the bombs - so the dogs must have been on it too. Oh and all those engineers who said that it was not a demolition but rather a collapsing building are wrong right? What about the fact that the the towers did tip over at points above the break and damaged adjoining buildings. Does that happen in a controlled demolition? And why would you bother to collapse the building with bombs and risk your plot being exposed when you had planes flying into buildings? The planes hitting were enough. Don't you think. In any case, this depends on all the experts and engineers being in on it or not really knowing anything about buildings compared to folks like yourself which would really be scary. As for your 2200 Architects and Engineers - they don't exist. It was the invention of a guy who received a mission for a preacher and claims he has a list but never backed it up or shared any of the names. His petition doesn't exist. What does exist is that every one of his claims have been scientifically proven false and he has been exposed: http://www.architectmagazine.com/design/architects-shy-from-trutherism_o?o=1 You have to wake up here. You are the one being fed garbage and believing into it. The truth just takes logical thinking and application of science. You don't have to trust "them" or anyone. Use your own ******* brain and realize at how extreme you have to twist and obscure something to make this ridiculous theory plausible. When all it was was a fanatical guy who hates the U.S.A. succeeding through simple means to launch the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. Bin Laden didn't do it alone, he has a lot of help. That help was called Al Qaeda.
/tinfoilhaton First off, that's not a logic fail. A logic fail would be the actions not generating the desired result. What you are arguing is risk tolerance is unacceptable, which has nothing to do with logic. I have no idea how a group like this approaches how much risk they will tolerate. Who knows if they had patsies or contingency plans they had lined up. You are simply not in a position to claim the risk is too high for them, because you have no idea if it is, or it isn't. Again, that is not a logic breakdown. That is you choosing to believe that it is not possible that a group of people are capable of doing a horrible thing for their own benefit. This is actually where YOUR logic starts breaking down. So essentially, my argument is to show motive, backed by a publicly available manifesto which outlines goals, and what it takes to get there. Your retort is simply that it is "no its too risky", backed by nothing but your opinion. That is not something I find convincing. So, I see you didn't actually bother to read any of the sources I provided. You just doubled down on the "TOO RISKY" argument. Here I will help you. Here is there explicitly stated goals below and a graph to show you they got exactly what they wanted: No, it doesn't take that at all. One theory is that Bin Laden could have been an asset. Another is he wasn't at all, his plan was just known to them. At minimum, all it takes is a few members of the PNAC group to know what Bin Laden was planning to do, allow him to do it, then piggy back off his attack to make it much worse than it was. Lets assume you are right and he wasn't a shill. All of this is still possible, provided they had evidence of what he was going to do. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/ Any ceded possibilities are supported by some underlying evidence which shows it could be true. If there were something that suggested you might be Bin Laden or he will rise from the dead, we could discuss it. Unfortunately there isn't, and it is intellectually dishonest to compare those two possibilities to those I put forth. Furthermore, to suggest "somehow was running the secret Al Qaeda movement bent on attacking the US for 10 years with success so that it could inspire an invasion of Iraq - that's truly some mastermind. How many terrorists have a 20 year plan?" illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory. I would expect you to spend more time, atleast understanding the position, if you are too be so adamantly against it. And yet they they very may well have and then those 1000s of engineers went and started asking questions: http://www.ae911truth.org/ Um, it could not more clearly be established. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century No I haven't. Is it good? Ok sure, we don't even need to assume they had inside help. The terrorists bypassed the security by themselves. Doesn't dismiss the overlying premise. I think you should definitely watch more movies, because your creativity and imagination seems to be lacking. What you would need to do is wire up the support shafts which would be a project, however easily accomplished by one of the many renovation crews who were in and out of the building in the days before 9/11. There was an ongoing 200m elevator reconstruction, where there would be unlimited access to the support beams in both towers. Contractors, materials, etc typically don't use the security high traffic entrances, but regardless, they could wire up the support beams without detection, because wires are not a sign of a terrorist attack. Once the wiring was complete, you wouldn't need more than a day or two to actually attach the explosives. So tell me, when you were there, were you a contractor who most likely used the freight elevator? And luckily your friend Sirius and his co-workers were removed five days prior to the collapse. http://web.archive.org/web/20090216...dzero/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,3192994.story If you have a group of 2200 engineers and architects who agree its all hogwash and have laid out there reasoning, I would be happy to review it. Right now we have the commission report, which didn't even investigate the possibility of controlled demolitions, and who else exactly? The list is right here: http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html Your article doesn't say much of anything, other than repeatedly saying that the AIA and his organization is not affiliated. The only relevant piece is: I haven't looked at anything by FEMA or ASCE, but NIST, who wrote the comission report, and PM were critiqued here: http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html Well, again, let me reiterate, I find these theories interesting, which is a far cry from I believe them. I approach every piece of evidence with an equal amount of scrutiny, because I am actively seeking information on this topic. Your rebuttals have been less than underwhelming. It has basically come down to you saying "its too risky" and here's an article that says the engineers for truth are not affiliated to the AIA. It is a shame too, because I think you are a smart poster and I agree with alot of what you say on other issues. I wish you spent more time looking into these types of things. Watch the videos, if not for anything else, to laugh at. /tinfoilhatoff
It would also require essentially the entire national intelligence apparatus - FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD - to manufacture false evidence to cover it up. Several thousand people at least, from directors to low level analysts, are now keeping this quiet. Sure. Because reasons.
You see, normally when you advocate that if say, defense spending should be increased, you talk to the American people, lobby, and do all that stuff. You don't decide "We are going to kill 3000 Americans using an incredibly convoluted plan that if we get caught we will be shot like dogs."
How did building 7 go down perfectly? How did the steel beams give out evenly and not fall over like a chopped tree? If one side was obviously stressed more, then the building would topple. Not collapse perfectly. It looked controlled. I don't know what this is so hard to understand.
Here is further video evidence. Mind you bbc reported this building as collapsed 20 minutes before. The one plane that crashed in a field was likely heading for it. No matter, the explosives had to be demolished anyways. You can see the blasts. Also there are countless witnesses describing hearing explosions before the collapse. http://youtu.be/mhROd7Jt3-w
and isn't it too convenient to label it a conspiracy theory? That way people doubt anyone who questions the oddities that are abound with this incident. It instantly makes people dismiss listening to an alternative. Do your homework.
By putting for the conspiracy theory - you are claiming the risk is not too high for them. So clearly it's ok for you to do that but for others not to? You are defeating your own argument here. You haven't shown a compelling motive yet. correlation does not mean causation. So who in on it and whom was not? Do you think Bin Laden was a shill? Do you think he faked the attack on the Cole and Clinton faked the attack against him to lay the ground for 9/11. Do you believe that everything is that manipulated? Is all news just theatre? This is not a legit group - it has been discredited. He was there that day - he was a victim of the attacks. The "removal" is a lie. You need to fact check your conspiracy points. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wtc-police-dog-remembered/ https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-ae911truths-wtc7-explosive-demolition-hypothesis.t1727/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories
