[DrTodd13]

Here are a few things I heard the other day. Silverstein supposedly got 7 billion in insurance payouts. It doesn't sound right but the same report said he had only invested 15 million in the properties. That's one heck of a return on investment. Yes, they cited that he had also taken out policies specifically covering terrorist attacks right after getting the lease. I don't know if that is an unusual action or not.

I also heard that WTC 7 fell about 6pm and that last firefighter left the building 5 or 6 hours previous to this. This docu I saw claimed that Silverstein's "pull" comment referenced the time around which the building fell and not 5 or 6 hours earlier when the firefighters left. Also, there was some debate over the use of the word "pull" in the demolitions industry. This same docu had a clip of a demolitions guy using the word "pull" to describe finishing the demolition of one of the WTC buildings in the days after the attack. This docu was obviously pro-conspiracy so take it as you will and check the sources.

Also, there was obviously a conspiracy to damage these buildings. The only question is whether it was a conspiracy of 25 or 50 radical muslims or whether the conspiracy included anyone in government. It is obviously possible to keep this conspiracy quiet enough because it happened so I don't think the "any conspiracy that large would be detected" argument necessarily applies.

[Winstonm]

Would someone explain this to me, then, if the "official" story is right? http://www.911studie...ostudies116.htm
and this: http://www.911studie...ostudies121.htm

What happened to WTC 6, an image caught on CNN videotape before any of the collapses had begun?

And take particular notice of item #5 here: http://www.911studie...tostudies17.htm

Cars magically change colors here: http://www.911studie...tostudies20.htm

And maybe even this: http://www.911studie...tostudies43.htm

Again, does the official story make sense?

[Winstonm]

pbleighton, on Sep 21 2006, 08:40 PM, said:

Winston, why did the planes fly into the buildings?

Peter

For what reason did they fly into the buildings? I don't know. I don't even think that is particularly relevant. I don't think the issue is who stood to gain from two airliners crashing into the towers but who would have profited the most from the total collapse of both towers.


I view the crashes and the collapses as two separate events and possibly each having its own orchestrator and profit motives. Who caused the crashes is not nearly so important as who or what caused the collapses.

The WTC had been attacked before with bombs so it wouldn't be a surprise if indeed terrorists once again attacked those symbolic creations; why this same group would also pick on the pentagon for attack makes no sense. But if your goal is to create a new enemy against which to wage your agenda then an attack on the pentagon makes more sense - and these people can simply be ordered to keep mouths shut.

But some others would have to be paid off.

Supposedly, the twin towers were white elephants, tremendous money losers whose owners had trouble keeping filled with renters. They were also supposed to have been filled with blow-on asbestos, making them nearly impossible to implode legally or to clean. If this is true, then it is rather an amazing coincidence that Larry Silverstein signed a 99-year lease on these losers and then inusred them for billions against terrorist attack only weeks before the attacks and ended up with a relatively nice, clean new construction site free of asbestos claims and problems with the EPA. Not only did Larry Silverstein collect billions from the insurance, he retained the right to rebuild on the same site.

And someone or someones made millions off put-options on Untited and American as well as other higher-than-normal put options on the companies that occupied WTC and the insurers of the WTC. Surely just a coincidence.

The biggest problem with WTC is pulling the pieces together from so many fragmented sources and eliminating the speculative and irrational - when you concentrate on the proven and the recordings, an entire new perspective is gained that cannot fail to create almost overwhelming doubt as to the official line.

Anyone interested should look into the list of doubters - you won't find the usual Clinton-killed-so-and-so crowd; what you find are engineers, professors of physics, PhDs, and other bright, questioning minds who no longer accept the fact-finding of the NIST and are calling simply on a re-opening of the investigation.

You will find speculation, such as I have made, about who stood to profit - but with so much secrecy and ineptitude shown by the original investigation, to speculate on "who stood to gain" is a reasonable question asked mostly by reasonable men and women.

The hardest part is ferreting out the non-sense and real conspiracy whackos and focusing on the concerns of bright, questioning minds.

Vincent Bugliosi used to tell his juries that circumstantial evidence is not like a chain, as the defendent's lawyers claimed, that if a chain is broken the entire chain becomes useless; no, circumstantial evidence is like a rope - if you cut through one strand the rope is still solid and strong.

Much of 9-11 investigation is like building a rope from individual strands picked up here and there - just because one strand turns out to be weak or breaks does not affect the other strands that have been shown to be true.

[Winstonm]

bid_em_up, on Sep 21 2006, 09:19 PM, said:

pbleighton, on Sep 21 2006, 08:40 PM, said:

Winston, why did the planes fly into the buildings?

Peter

Or rather, next he will be claiming that no planes actually flew into the buildings.

Oh, I know....the "conspiracy" just created those images in our minds. No planes ever actually flew into them at all, right? Geez.

Have you heard of Operations Northwood? This was a document released in 1998 by the freedom of information act. It was a proposal created and signed by the joint chiefs of staff in 1962 and delivered to Robert McNamara, and it proposed creating false attacks against Americans and blaming the attacks on Cuba, so as to garner public support to go to war to overthrow Castro.

This is not whacko conspiracy theory. This is fact. This actually happened.

Do you remember Joseph McCarthy?

How about the Tonkin Gulf?

Bombing Cambodia?

Watergate?

Or how about this quote from "The Godfather"?
Michael: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.
Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed.
Michael: Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?

Yes, who is being naive?

[EricK]

http://en.wikipedia....piracy_theories

gives a balanced account of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Well worth a read if you are interested in this sort of thing.

[Gerben42]

Why is this thread still running?

+++ THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM THE MINISTERY OF TRUTH +++

No planes have crashed into the World Trade Center. These buildings were demolished to make room for a monument honouring our great Leader.

Big Brother is watching you.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Why is this thread still running?

Because a recent poll shows that 36% of the American public now believe the government was either involved in or had enough information available to prevent the attacks.

5 years after the Kennedy assasination you would have been hard pressed to find 1% who believed it was a conspiracy.

To convince 36% takes compelling evidence and not just the rants of a bunch of looneys.

[cherdano]

Winstonm, on Sep 23 2006, 02:08 AM, said:

Quote

Why is this thread still running?

Because a recent poll shows that 36% of the American public now believe the government was either involved in or had enough information available to prevent the attacks.

Not sure what the 36% really means, but if they believe the government let or made this happen on purpose, then these 36% are irrational enough that no discussion will make them change their mind. So I see no point to this thread.

[Winstonm]

cherdano, on Sep 22 2006, 07:17 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 23 2006, 02:08 AM, said:

Quote

Why is this thread still running?

Because a recent poll shows that 36% of the American public now believe the government was either involved in or had enough information available to prevent the attacks.

Not sure what the 36% really means, but if they believe the government let or made this happen on purpose, then these 36% are irrational enough that no discussion will make them change their mind. So I see no point to this thread.

So you are saying that being in the majority equates to being rational? If minority viewpoints equated to irrationality whereas majority viewpoints always coincided with the truth we would still believe in a flat Earth that was the center of the universe. Fortunately, not eveyone believed the official doctrine.

[helene_t]

DrTodd13, on Sep 22 2006, 04:52 AM, said:

Here are a few things I heard the other day.  Silverstein supposedly got 7 billion in insurance payouts.

Yes, a lot of popular media hits have been proven to be fabricated in order to get money out of the insurance companies. Some well-documented examples include Exxon Valdez, the Dresden bombings, the Spanish flu, the Russian revolution, Egypt's 7 plagues and the extinction of the dinosaurs. Not to mention the performance of the Polish open team in Estoril.

Winston said:

To convince 36% takes compelling evidence and not just the rants of a bunch of looneys.

Ha-ha, do you know how many percents of the American public believes in ghosts, astrology and UFOs, not to mention creationism, hydrogen fuel, anti-bacterial soap and the Gerber convention? I'm sure you can come up with a better argument

[EricK]

Winstonm, on Sep 23 2006, 12:08 AM, said:

Quote

Why is this thread still running?

Because a recent poll shows that 36% of the American public now believe the government was either involved in or had enough information available to prevent the attacks.

5 years after the Kennedy assasination you would have been hard pressed to find 1% who believed it was a conspiracy.

To convince 36% takes compelling evidence and not just the rants of a bunch of looneys.

The reason these conspiracy theories are so widespread today compared to the sixties is the internet.

What sources of information did people have after the Kennedy assassination? How easily could some random crank get his theory into a place where millions, even billions of people could see it?

Note that since the rise of the internet far more people believe in every single conspiracy theory. By selective reporting of evidence it is quite easy to convince people of some really quite crazy ideas which the totality of the evidence just doesn't support.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The reason these conspiracy theories are so widespread today compared to the sixties is the internet.

That is exactly right - I remember back in the sixties all we had to rely on were the newspaper accounts and the news shows.

One explanation is the lack of credibility within the news - where are the Edward R. Murrows or Walter Cronkites of today? The other problem is the lack of openness to address the questions raised - when the concerns raised are seemingly valid and no forthright explanation is forthcoming, the only avenue left is debate within a group and independent investigation - which is what takes place on the internet.

As we all know, anyone can say anything on the internet and make any wild type of claim without facts - and with the advent of computer enhancements and photo workshops not a single picture or tape can be accepted as genuine.

It makes for a confusing and deceitful atmosphere with real information interspersed with misinformation. No wonder so many simply accept the official story as reality.

I know for me, it would be interesting to hear from a commercial airline pilot about the chances of an inexperienced pilot whose only previous training came in Cessnas and simulators taking the controls of a jumbo jet at 30,000 feet and 200 miles out and being able to not only find the right major city on instruments only, but then to deliver the aircraft into a preselected target - and what would the chances be for this to occur 3 times?

The reason the 9-11 question marks won't go away is because the ramifications are so great if the official version is untrue - much higher stakes than for the Kennedy assasination or Watergate or the Gulf of Tonkin.

I don't consider myself any type of whacko but at the same time I would surely like reasonable and satisfactory answers to the seemingly many questionmarks and holes in the official version of events.

I am not in the camp with the conspiracy theorists nor am I on the side of the government's version - suffice it to say I am sufficiently puzzled by the omissions and contradictions to want to see a comprehensive re-investigation by an independent agent - if we were willing to spend umpteen million dollars on Clinton's sex life surely we can spend a few more on a point-by-point explanation of the contradicting arguments.

[cherdano]

Winstonm, on Sep 24 2006, 05:53 PM, said:

Quote

The reason these conspiracy theories are so widespread today compared to the sixties is the internet.

That is exactly right - I remember back in the sixties all we had to rely on were the newspaper accounts and the news shows.

One explanation is the lack of credibility within the news - where are the Edward R. Murrows or Walter Cronkites of today? The other problem is the lack of openness to address the questions raised - when the concerns raised are seemingly valid and no forthright explanation is forthcoming, the only avenue left is debate within a group and independent investigation - which is what takes place on the internet.

As we all know, anyone can say anything on the internet and make any wild type of claim without facts - and with the advent of computer enhancements and photo workshops not a single picture or tape can be accepted as genuine.

It makes for a confusing and deceitful atmosphere with real information interspersed with misinformation. No wonder so many simply accept the official story as reality.

I know for me, it would be interesting to hear from a commercial airline pilot about the chances of an inexperienced pilot whose only previous training came in Cessnas and simulators taking the controls of a jumbo jet at 30,000 feet and 200 miles out and being able to not only find the right major city on instruments only, but then to deliver the aircraft into a preselected target - and what would the chances be for this to occur 3 times?

I think this would be a waste of time. Probably every serious pilot knows this is possible, after all it's evidently a lot easier to fly a plane into a building than to land it safely on a runway.

So if someone is willing to believe that we were misinformed about who was flying the planes, why should he believe a single experienced pilot about your desired claim? If s.o. includes such a huge part of the administration and law enforcement in his conspiracy theory, what stops him from including a few more airline pilots?

The same has happened with the demolition theories. It has been discussed in the engineering community (and yes, independent of the US government) to great extent whether the buildings could collapse just by the impact of the plane and the resulting fire, and the conclusion was a clear yes. Do the conspiracy theorists care? Of course not, they still know there had to be explosives in the towers.

And anyway, big parts of the American public believe stuff that is a lot more dangerous. They believe Saddam was behind 9/11, global warming doesn't exist/isn't caused by humans/doesn't matter, etc. If I were trying to convince the American public to be rational about one of these things, I would rather pick a topic that is politically so dangerous. (Convincing the American public of the non-existence of Saddam-9/11 ties a few years ago might have saved some couple of thousands lives, after all.)

Arend

[rona_]

Quote

(Convincing the American public of the non-existence of Saddam-9/11 ties a few years ago might have saved some couple of thousands lives, after all.)

More like 60,000 lives, unless you don't count Iraqi lives.

[pbleighton]

"More like 60,000 lives, unless you don't count Iraqi lives."

Unfortunately, most Americans don't count Iraqi lives, which is why we are there.

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

I love the "leaked" report that their presence in Iraq has added to their woes by giving incentive to jihadists and providing an easy target.......like pouring gasoline on a fire, if you give these guys something to divert the attention of their downtrodden they are that much easier to control and manipulate. Now, like the Pope, the assumption is that they know what they are doing so either they don't care or it is all part of the plan.....does anyone know if Bush subscribes to "Rapture"?

[hotShot]

Winstonm, on Sep 24 2006, 05:53 PM, said:

I know for me, it would be interesting to hear from a commercial airline pilot about the chances of an inexperienced pilot whose only previous training came in Cessnas and simulators taking the controls of a jumbo jet at 30,000 feet and 200 miles out and being able to not only find the right major city on instruments only, but then to deliver the aircraft into a preselected target - and what would the chances be for this to occur 3 times?

The size of you plane has no influence on navigation.
Beside that remember all the electronic navigation tools there are inside a plane.
It might be enough to enter the position of your target into the autopilot.

Who said that they have no experience flying such a big plane?
Where do you think John Travolta got the licence to fly his Boing?
I guess there are flight schools that prepare you, including practical experience.
You just need lots of money.

How long do you think this was planned? This needed years of preparation.
Long enough to train a few pilots.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Who said that they have no experience flying such a big plane?

The U.S. government. Don't you remember all the flight simulator training reported?

Take this next for what it is worth. The author claims to be a pilot and an aeronautical engineer, but I cannot substantiate that claim.


"Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor."

And this is also included in the same article:

"This excerpt from a letter I received, from a senior 757 captain with one of the airlines involved in 9/11, sums it up:

“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”

A novice would be lucky to find the city, let alone a single building. A strike on the first approach in a tightly-banked 180-degree turn at 400 knots? impossible for trainee pilots whose instructors claimed “could not fly at all”.

One might as well hand the keys to a car to a 12-year-old and ask the child to drive across town to school."

For the entire article which covers the virtually impossible task of a rookie pilot taking over the controls: http://www.physics91...t/sagadevan.htm

See, this is the entire problem in a nutshell - what you say is absolutely accurate in that this could have been planned for years with millions of dollars and carried out by extremely qualified pilots (except for the pentagon) - but that is not what the government has told us.

When you wipe away all the speculative questions, you are left with a handful of seemingly real questions of which there has been no satisfactory answer:

1). What caused WTC 7 to fall at free-fall speed?
2). Could a Boeing 757 aerodynamically be able to crash into the first floor of the Pentagon?
3). CNN tape clearly shows a third white plane flying past the WTC towers (if this tape is not doctored.) What was it and why was it there?
4). Removed: Valid explanation found
5) Aerial photos show a huge empty crater in the center of WTC 6. If this building was destroyed by falling debris, where are the debris and why is the crater empty?
6) What caused the molten steel found in the towers' basements?

None of these questions are speculative - they are simply questions based upon video evidence or upon the government's claim of events. I don't see how they can be construed as controversial or conspiratorial in nature. I would think any person of inquisitive mind would be interested in the answers.

[Gerben42]

Quote

1). What caused WTC 7 to fall at free-fall speed?

Gravity. I know that's a copout I am not a construction expert.

Quote

2). Could a Boeing 757 aerodynamically be able to crash into the first floor of the Pentagon?

Sure. Aiming it is another problem, I dont think they intended to go into the first floor or any floor at all. Just into the building.

Quote

. CNN tape clearly shows a third white plane flying past the WTC towers (if this tape is not doctored.) What was it and why was it there?

Military? There were reports that they were close to shooting the 2nd one down.

Quote

5) Aerial photos show a huge empty crater in the center of WTC 6. If this building was destroyed by falling debris, where are the debris and why is the crater empty?

Why are craters empty? Because the impact velocity is high enough to either propel the impacting body out or to completely vaporize it, or a combination of the two. You need to be incredibly lucky to find a meteorite fragment in a large crater.

Quote

6) What caused the molten steel found in the towers' basements?

Molten steel is liquid so maybe it found the lowest point, which happens to be the basement. Just a wild theory of course.

[jocdelevat]

I hope what this movie shows is not true. Watch and listen.

[URL [url="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change&hl=en"] [/url] [/URL].



If link doesn't work you can google for: Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut.