The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[nicepants]

Scott was the ONLY one who got the memo concerning said power down.

And even though he knew something was up....he didn't keep the memo.

 

[stateofgrace]

Me too. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that WTC 1 & 2 were "powered down" for the entire week before 9/11. So what? How is PROOF of a controlled demolition or anything suspicious?

We're New Yorkers, it's not another terrorist attack I'm worried about, it's another attack by Con Edison.

That's the thing isn't it? If there was a power down it is obviously when the explosives were planted, so obvious in fact it makes you wonder why the perps never thought about it at the time. It kind begs the question why guys who are hell bend on blowing up the towers would do such an obvious thing like powering the towers down. It' must have gone some thing like this

Perp 1 " Ok swtich off the powers and in we go in to plant all the explosives. Nobody will notice because the power is down"

Perp 2 " Ehhhh, won't anybody notice that the towers were powered down before hand after we blow them? "

Perp 1 " No chance, nobody will notice such an obvious clue"

Enter the twoofers

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Ok, I am confused, is it 26 or 36 hours?

both, man... didn't YOU get the memo?

 

[jab712]

both, man... didn't YOU get the memo?

Well yeah, but I didn't actually read it.

 

[Alt+F4]

For arguments sake, let's pretend that Scott is telling the truth or not mistaken and 40+ floors were powered down for 26 hours. What happened in the building during those 26 hours, if not cabling? MJD, what do you think happened in those 26 hours?

How much detonation cord would be needed? How many workers to do it in 26 hours? Why would the building even need to be powered down to rig it with detonation cord?

 

[HeyLeroy]

I guess I missed that post.

Highlighting will be mine:

If that was a practical joke to get me to read your OP again, it worked. However, I can't find the answers to those questions. Why don't you just come out and admit that you can't answer them?

Errrr... no, they are answered, both in my OP, and in the post which you quoted, then stated that you couldnt find the answer!

But never mind. I will answer your question once more. Read it carefully.

The conclusion is beyond question that the building was imploded. This conclusion is based on the propositions that:
a) First responders are seen, before the collapse, and interviewed after the collapse stating that the building was (about to be) blown up, exploded, brought down etc. cool.gif That such terms are synonymous with "imploded"c) That these witnesses have no motive to lie.

These lead us to the indisputable conclusion that 7 was imploded. Of course, if you want to dispute it, as you can see, you would have to do so either by refuting the propositions, or the link to the propositions and the conclusion.

Now, once such a conclusion is established as valid, necessarily, all other explanations must bend to that conclusion which, due to its clearly illustrated coherence, becomes a proposition in itself (i.e. in the same way that the 3 propositions above are each coherent and indisputable). Conseuqences of that conclusion that may sound a bit "funny", are worthless tools for disproving the conclusion.

So, we then apply the same system to answer your questions, should one wish to do so. So:

q1) Who planted the explosives?

Given that we have established the propostions that:
a) 7 was imploded

and we can go on to say that
cool.gif Nobody has come forth yet to state publicy that they saw the explosives that led to the implosion being planted

the answer is that we do not know who planted the explosives, since they were either not seen, or were seen and the witnesses have not come forth yet. Clearly, this does not invalidate the proposition.


q2)when were these mystery explosives planted and wired together

Once again, using the same 2 propositions:
a) 7 was imploded
cool.gif No one was seen planting the explosives,

the answer to your question is equally simple- they were planted and wired when nobody of the inclination to have come forth by now, was looking. All conclusions must bend to the propositions.

q3) what types of explosives could've survived the fires?

Given that
a) 7 was taken down by explosives
and
cool.gif there were fires in parts of the building

This brings us to the conclusion that the explosives were either planted away from the fires, or that the fires were not strong enough to hinder the explosives (either due to qualitie of the fires/qualities of the explosives)..

****

Now, as I hope you have learnt, if you are to dispute a conclusion, you must do so in one of 2 ways:
1- Dispute the propositions on which the conclusion is based
2- Dispute the linkage betwene the conclusion and the propositions.

Anything else is worthless. If you cannot do that, then the conclusion is valid, and the answer to any of your qualms is whatever bends to that valid conclusion.link

Apparently now mjd1982 is arguing for the 'demolition of the Twin Towers using pre-planted explosives' fantasy, even after stating this:

SO DUMB!!!

I'm have never argued for the implosion of the TT's... oh maaaaan....

Listen, I suggest you leave the debating to the adults. There must be a kiddies room in this place...
link

 

[twinstead]

mjd how do you expect to successfully use the technique that most of your peers use--refuse to be tied down to any opinion so you don't have to defend any position, simply find real and perceived anomalies in the competing theory--when your words make it very clear what your actual position is?

 

[lapman]

Thank you. Don't you love how he creates definitions out of thin air?

 

[HeyLeroy]

Thank you. Don't you love how he creates definitions out of thin air?

Yup:

This is true, if one accepts "with great probability" as being (more or less) synonymous with "certainly"
link

 

[Belz...]

This is true, if one accepts "with great probability" as being (more or less) synonymous with "certainly"

Why not ?

After all, for many people, "maybe" means "yes".

(Hell, for some people, "no" means "yes".)

 

[tsig]

Seeking the truth and accepting the truth are two different things.

Truth seekers seem most happy off the track.

 

[mjd1982]

Above you say to be fired, he must implicate AND lie, but below you say he must only implicate. Do you wish to modify your claim quoted below?





You have failed 2x to respond to the question below:

#2448

 

[mjd1982]

Darn, I missed this one. Again, I say that the "Truth Movement" is not anywhere close to as important as you make it out to be. As I stated in my last post, Scott's statements on a few web sites and one public interview that was not a headliner would not make FT respond. So it's not astonishing that FT has made no statement whatsoever. This shows how insignificant Scott's statement and the "Truth Movement" really is. Now if Scott's statements were headline news and was broadcast on any major news station, then FT would have to respond. So, in reality, only one person believes in the FT cover up, and that's you.

Only one person in the world believes in Forbes, me. Riiiight...

If the TM werent a factor, then what the hell are you and your kook brigade doing on this forum?

 

[twinstead]

If the TM werent a factor, then what the hell are you and your kook brigade doing on this forum?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's that we don't like arrogant, raving ideologues accusing innocent people of mass murder on the slimmest of evidence.

No matter though--it's probably just some silly pet peeve.

 

[mjd1982]

maybe they do not know about his claims, it is only your word for it that they do, how honest is that? should i email them and ask them if they are aware of his claims, not his apparent implications that you read into his statements but his initial claims? if i do and they are aware of them then he has nothing to fear?

#1- If you and I are aware of them, you think his employers of at least 6 years will not be?
#2- He has stated that he is being hassled by them to keep quiet.

snideness and rudeness again,

I'm sorry, but with posts like the above, what else do you expect? You know what the facts are, you know that FT will be aware of what he has said (if you are not stupid), and you must know that he is being hassled, hence why he isnt coming out and telling everyone his story as he otherwise might. I have met him, I have relayed all this to you. So why do you continue playing silly buggers if you are interested in the facts? Leave that to the other clowns on this thread

the fact that he is in the uk would mean that he would be going to the uk authorities not the us ones, not the people who had already investigated it, and a lawsuit against them if they sacked him would not happen because it would be a uk industrial tribunal, you know very well this is different than the us system, how could they bring a case against him if he is telling the truth, he just needs to tell the police he has proof that FT are covering something up

Right. So the Met are going to go to the US and uncover the 911 plot. What planet do you live on? How could such an occurrence ever be possible?

as irrelevant as his real name remark you made, you are a coward for not answering about your actions if it was you

???

I just gave you the answer, worthless though it is. What the hell are you talking about?

there is no denial by FT but you have said there was?

No, I said it has been scrubbed from the official record, according to Scott. I cannot recall the record he was talking about; my statement may be taken at face value then.

so from my comments you are inferring i am facist or have facist beliefs?
back this up? do you know the leanings of the political parties in the UK? try and guess which one i vote for?

(sigh) I dont give a s***!

waffle, they have changed and you said they had not, the amount of time, the fact that he does not know for certain that it was all floors after claiming he did, these are changes whether you like it or not

I said substantial

has his story changed, yes it has, he has made conflicting statements regarding this weekend, some of which we now know are false

as above. enough of the barrister tactics please, we are intereste din the truth, not winning or losing

no, the power down apparently happened to all floors from the 50th up, this did not only affect FT, so they quite conceviably not be the only ones implicated? were they the only business on these floors?

If that is the case, then so be it

he has never at any point implicated FT, if you continue to say he has show it or stop claiming it, see previous posts regarding proof

if you want to read between the lines like you seem to like to do you would see that it seems more like he is implicating the PA

Listen. As with the rest of the gang, you allow yourself to be deliberately obtuse when you dont want to understand something. Realise that to implicate FT, he does not have to say the words "I hereby impicate FT". No. He simply has to relate a story that implicates FT by simple inference- something which you guys are not fond of when it doesnt suit your ends. In stating that they participated in the power down, and in that they havent come clean about it, informed the authorities to look into it etc, they are part of the cover up by implication, in his eyes.

I have asked you guys to address this point for many pages now, and nothing. Not even an admission, as I have willingly done, that it is an "anomaly". Astonishing dishonesty on all of your parts.

I'm gonna give you all another day, and then its back to PNAC.

a point that was irrelevant to what we were discussing, it adds nothing or detracts zero from his story

It was relevant to the point I was making. Re read

a lot, is that hundreds or thousands or millions?

a lot of what?

surveys? millions of people worldwide believe bush and his administration carried out these murders to go to war in afghanistan do they?

have you ever seen a 911 CT survey? Google it

more than believe it was 19 hijackers?

???

70 to 100 out of a population of what? are you saying internet is little or poor advertising for these meetings?

Where have you seen this advertised?

 

[DGM]

Only one person in the world believes in Forbes, me. Riiiight...

If the TM werent a factor, then what the hell are you and your kook brigade doing on this forum?

It's a hobby for me. I enjoy conspiracy theories.
The TM is a insignificant money making scam. This fact is crystallized by the fact that UFOs and Paris Hilton get more attention, and they would rather make a video than seek justice.

 

[mjd1982]

Me too. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that WTC 1 & 2 were "powered down" for the entire week before 9/11. So what? How is PROOF of a controlled demolition or anything suspicious?

We're New Yorkers, it's not another terrorist attack I'm worried about, it's another attack by Con Edison.

where have I said it is? Its evidence of a power down in the TTs to do "cabling" the w/e b4 911 that was subsequently covered up. That should be investigated.

 

[mjd1982]

mjd how do you expect to successfully use the technique that most of your peers use--refuse to be tied down to any opinion so you don't have to defend any position, simply find real and perceived anomalies in the competing theory--when your words make it very clear what your actual position is?

I have stated my position openly many many times, starting with #1 of this thread.

My opinion on Forbes is very clear- there was a power down, an unprecedented and bizarre event, that has since been covered up. This needs investigating. It is not an argument for the CD of the TTs

 

[mjd1982]

It's a hobby for me. I enjoy conspiracy theories.
The TM is a insignificant money making scam. This fact is crystallized by the fact that UFOs and Paris Hilton get more attention, and they would rather make a video than seek justice.

I have made no money off this. So what is your point?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

I have stated my position openly many many times, starting with #1 of this thread.

My opinion on Forbes is very clear- there was a power down, an unprecedented and bizarre event, that has since been covered up. This needs investigating. It is not an argument for the CD of the TTs

I'd watch that word slinging. The last time you called something "unprecedented" you got your face slammed in a car door.