Another thing about demolition.

[andreasz]

Andreas, let me ask you, if 9/11 was an inside job, isn't the risk of discovery a downside to the operation? And if this risky, overly-complicated plan, involving planting controlled demolition charges in probably the busiest office complex in the U.S., had been discovered, would that not lead to impeachment, prosecution, and possibly the death penalty?

Sounds like a pretty big downside to me....

Of course it would. But let me ask you this. Given the situation that those things were discovered and one third of the population believes it was an inside job... Who would call them in? Who would charge them with what?

The medias power in the united states is almost unlimited. That's exactly the reason why we're all having this discussion.

Did you ever watch 'The Running Man'? Evil TV network, a lot of fakery, the original video is shown, the people in responsible meet their justice and everybody's happy.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in the real world. There is so much wrong with this 'configuration' in the united states, and I don't believe that any moderately intelligent person would deny this.

So where's the revolution?

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Of course it would. But let me ask you this. Given the situation that those things were discovered and one third of the population believes it was an inside job... Who would call them in? Who would charge them with what?

This is a BS claim about 1/3rd of the population believe it to be an inside job. As always with you truthers, you take a poorly question on a survey, and then interpret the results to your liking, and then have the gall to think you're quoting with authority. http://www.debunking911.com/zogby.htm

The medias power in the united states is almost unlimited. That's exactly the reason why we're all having this discussion.

And the media hates the current administration. Go figure. You've been proven wrong again. Of course, NOT LIVING HERE IN AMERICA, you'll obviously only be able to go on second hand information and hearsay. How does it feel to be TOLD what to think? It's something you truthers seem to enjoy. Just like good little cultists.

Did you ever watch 'The Running Man'? Evil TV network, a lot of fakery, the original video is shown, the people in responsible meet their justice and everybody's happy.

You're diving deep into woo land here. By saying that a MOVIE is real is just asinine. Ever see that dreadfully boring movie Four Weddings and a Funeral? Yeah that has as much bearing on the current state of the media as The Running Man does. You seriously have an issue determining the difference between reality and fantasy if you think real life is like movies.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in the real world. There is so much wrong with this 'configuration' in the united states, and I don't believe that any moderately intelligent person would deny this.

Considering your "real evidence" doesn't show reality. You claim that there was NO 2nd plane hitting the WTC, and then angrily discredit EYE WITNESSES to the action, and rely on your blurry, pixelated NTSC to PAL to NTSC to PAL to YOUTUBE to GOOGLE converted video as proof

So where's the revolution?

You first... A foreigner such as yourself starting a revolution in MY country would be met with overwhelming force. And I'd be right there with them. Against you.

 

[Cuddles]

So where's the revolution?

Exactly. If 1/3 or 84% or whatever made up statistic you choose believe it was the government, where is the revolution? I don't know if it's ever happened on the same scale in the US, but in the UK, and many other European countries, large strikes and protests happen all the time that severly disrupt the whole country. These are often done by people of just a single profession or a minority belief, and yet they can bring large parts of the country to a standstill. And yet in the US, tens of millions of people can't even manage to get noticed, let alone have a significant effect on anything.

If so many people really do support you, where are they?

 

[T.A.M.]

1/3rd of the population DOES NOT BELIEVE it was an inside job. They may believe they were not told everything, that the govt is covering up something regarding the attacks. THIS DOES TRANSLATE TO 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!

TAM

 

[Belz...]

And then there's this jewish name Silverstein...

Not a truther my sore left eye.

 

[VespaGuy]

- a 'right'/'reason' to go to war was there.

This is more likely to be evidence that it wasn't an inside job than it was.

If one of the end results of this huge risk was to invade Iraq, why wouldn't the conspirators actually plant evidence linking Iraq to 9/11?

 

[A W Smith]

The asbestos in the thirty something floors of the first tower to be built had already been abated. The remaining 180 something floors combined did not contain asbestos containing spray on fireproofing to begin with. Ever.

It is incorrect to describe asbestos as a "deadly poison" . It is not. if that were so everyone who would come in contact with it would be affected. Thats simply not the case. Asbestos is considered a carcinogen that may cause a very specific cancer of the mesothelium outer lining of the lungs called Mesothelioma.

What is particularly scary about asbestos is that compared to other cancer causing agents, there are no safe limits of exposure. Mesothelioma can be caused 20 or 30 years later by just a few fibers brought home on a workers clothes and transferred to the environment in a child's house. I know for a fact I have exposed myself to friable asbestos many years ago when I was in my twenties and thirties. yet I have no fear of mesothelioma. i may get it. i may not. I subcontract out all my asbestos removal now even including the relatively safe removal of non friable asbestos cement siding and roofing.

 

[Corsair 115]

If one of the end results of this huge risk was to invade Iraq, why wouldn't the conspirators actually plant evidence linking Iraq to 9/11?

Well, the answer there is simple: the conspirators HATE simplicity. They instead have an incredible fascination and liking for plans which exhibit Rube Goldberg-like complexity.

 

[andreasz]

what's the problem with you guys and reading? GIVEN THE SITUATION. WOULD. COULD.

Hypothesis. IF there were, how WOULD it be?

Of course it's not one third of the population who believes that... Where the hell would I get those numbers from?!

 

[Pardalis]

what's the problem with you guys and reading?

Have you read these yet?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/worl...on,facts&figur
(see WTC Insurance Issues)

http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm
(see part about asbestos)

 

[andreasz]

You first... A foreigner such as yourself starting a revolution in MY country would be met with overwhelming force. And I'd be right there with them. Against you.

My entire family lives in the united states. I spend a lot of time in CA. It's not that I am completely unfamiliar with 'your' country.

And judging the way you are writing, I don't take you as in any way represantive for other americans. The 'monkey' part of your nickname fits you well.

Feel ignored from now on and have a nice life.

 

[andreasz]

Have you read these yet?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/worl...on,facts&figur
(see WTC Insurance Issues)

http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm
(see part about asbestos)

Yupp. Most of it. The insurance part was really confusing in the movie. That shone some light on it, thanks.

 

[VespaGuy]

what's the problem with you guys and reading?

Not sure if i'm one of the 'guys' you are refering to, but I have read all of your posts. I was addressing this one specifically:

Anyway... This whole controlled demolition theory sounds so reasonable because there are too many possibilities to make money and achieving goals with it than losing it.
[...]
- a 'right'/'reason' to go to war was there.
[...]
All of you asking WHY people even consider this being a setup, here's your explanation.

One of your reasons that the "whole controlled demolition theory sounds so reasonable" is that 9/11 gave us a "'right'/'reason' to go to war".

Do you think the war in Iraq makes the 9/11 "controlled demolition" sound reasonable? If so, how?

Thank you.

 

[Drudgewire]

Did you ever watch 'The Running Man'? Evil TV network, a lot of fakery, the original video is shown, the people in responsible meet their justice and everybody's happy.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in the real world.

Well yeah... because unlike in a fictional movie written by a horror writer, THEY DIDN'T FAKE THE FOOTAGE HERE!!

 

[tsig]

I already supposed something like that about that insurance thing. I am myself in germany working in that business. Part of my job is kind of an equivalent to a financial planner in the united states. But I don't know what insurance policies look like and I don't know any big insurance company which doesn't regularly correct coverage and price due to inflation.

But that's exactly why I am skeptic about the modification. The movie makes another point, which sounds reasonable to me (I watched it in full by now). The reason it points out that Silverstein got a few billlion out of the case, is that the WTC buildings had asbestos inside the structure, which had to be removed sooner or later. Which is actually why so many of the search dogs died due to poisoning.

Asbestos is known to cause cancer and is highly poisonous if you get into direct contact. That we know for a fact.

So, anyway... Insurance policies are modified regularly, most of the times by the insurance company. It might be interesting to know what was the status before Spring 2001, because that part of the story seems to have been part of the trial.

Anybody here who knows something about that?

I guess you all see where I am getting at. It would have cost millions to get rid of all the asbestos. Even more than millions, because you can't have the office space rented for the period of renewal. And then there's this jewish name Silverstein... Sounds all too suspicious to me

But seriously... Does anybody know what the status BEFORE this policy modification was?

I must be dead since I have held asbestos in my bare hand.

 

[Viper Daimao]

Still, we did NOT support the idea of going to war because suddenly, everybody seemed to know where the responsible people are located, that everything is connected to Saddam Hussein, and so on...

Everything connected to Saddam? But nothing was connected to Saddam. We did know where the responsible people were located because they told us (remember those tapes from OBL and Zawahiri?). Heck we caught the mastermind behind it Kaleid Sheik Mohammed. (probably spelled that wrong).

I'm just really confused about your thought process here.

 

[andreasz]

Not sure if i'm one of the 'guys' you are refering to,

You're not. I was referring to the people who don't know how to deal with conditions in sentences and words like 'if' and 'would'.

but I have read all of your posts. I was addressing this one specifically:
One of your reasons that the "whole controlled demolition theory sounds so reasonable" is that 9/11 gave us a "'right'/'reason' to go to war".

Do you think the war in Iraq makes the 9/11 "controlled demolition" sound reasonable? If so, how?

Thank you.

Well. I think it's not as easy as a conspiracy theorist may put it, because there's no way to know for sure. But in the current situation I would say it was even necessary to have the towers collapse in order to cause so much anger in the population that they are willing to go to war.

Americans were sick of their own reputation, being the world-police. Of course, there are still those 'cowboys' who are convinced that a different culture is just a bunch of bull and the best thing to do is just get rid of it. But that's not the point of going to war. THe only thing I am mentioning these guys is because they're easier to convince.

Reasonable people don't want to go to war. They want their money spent on health insurance, a welfare system, higher job security. They don't want to listen to politicians mentioning that these services are way out of the governments budget while the government spends billions an wars and war machinery.

So, back to your question. Bringing the towers down in a controlled demolition is a spectacular way of showing it to everybody and building up a lot of anger in the population.

It's always been like this. There are laws and there are exceptions. For instance: We don't have the death penalty here in germany. I am pretty sure it exists nowhere in the EU countries. But let's say there is some rapist, child molestor, somebody who did something really evil, sick and nasty... Start a poll and ask, how many people want this guy dead and override the law, show the execution on live television...

Imagine the numbers you get. Having the towers bombed wouldn't be sufficient... Destruction is necessary to shock people.

But as I said, that's just my opinion. I'll wait and see if some of these things are being revealed in the near future.

 

[T.A.M.]

You're not. I was referring to the people who don't know how to deal with conditions in sentences and words like 'if' and 'would'.

My favorite, is the truther's inability to understand the word "like" used as a comparative, as we use in similes (which Dylan Avery apparently does not understand).

"They sounded LIKE explosions"
"The floors came down boom boom boom, LIKE someone was using a detonator."

Well. I think it's not as easy as a conspiracy theorist may put it, because there's no way to know for sure. But in the current situation I would say it was even necessary to have the towers collapse in order to cause so much anger in the population that they are willing to go to war.

Speculation is so agenda biased that it counts for little here, without evidence to back it up. There is NO EVIDENCE that the towers, any of them, were brought down by CD.

Americans were sick of their own reputation, being the world-police. Of course, there are still those 'cowboys' who are convinced that a different culture is just a bunch of bull and the best thing to do is just get rid of it. But that's not the point of going to war. THe only thing I am mentioning these guys is because they're easier to convince.

Correct.

Reasonable people don't want to go to war. They want their money spent on health insurance, a welfare system, higher job security. They don't want to listen to politicians mentioning that these services are way out of the governments budget while the government spends billions an wars and war machinery.

Now, you are correct, because the sting of 9/11 to most americans has lessened severerly. Try making this statement 3-4 months after 9/11.

So, back to your question. Bringing the towers down in a controlled demolition is a spectacular way of showing it to everybody and building up a lot of anger in the population.

So would hitting a nuclear power plant and killing many more people. There are many ways one can build up anger in a country to go to war. There is no proof that CD was used, so it is, as mentioned earlier, just baseless speculation.

It's always been like this. There are laws and there are exceptions. For instance: We don't have the death penalty here in germany. I am pretty sure it exists nowhere in the EU countries. But let's say there is some rapist, child molestor, somebody who did something really evil, sick and nasty... Start a poll and ask, how many people want this guy dead and override the law, show the execution on live television...

Imagine the numbers you get. Having the towers bombed wouldn't be sufficient... Destruction is necessary to shock people.

But as I said, that's just my opinion. I'll wait and see if some of these things are being revealed in the near future.

You are right here, it is your OPINION, and we are all entitled to them. The weight we put on these opinions, however, depends on the quantity and quality of the evidence that backs them up.

TAM

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You're not. I was referring to the people who don't know how to deal with conditions in sentences and words like 'if' and 'would'.



Well. I think it's not as easy as a conspiracy theorist may put it, because there's no way to know for sure. But in the current situation I would say it was even necessary to have the towers collapse in order to cause so much anger in the population that they are willing to go to war.

Americans were sick of their own reputation, being the world-police. Of course, there are still those 'cowboys' who are convinced that a different culture is just a bunch of bull and the best thing to do is just get rid of it. But that's not the point of going to war. THe only thing I am mentioning these guys is because they're easier to convince.

Reasonable people don't want to go to war. They want their money spent on health insurance, a welfare system, higher job security. They don't want to listen to politicians mentioning that these services are way out of the governments budget while the government spends billions an wars and war machinery.

So, back to your question. Bringing the towers down in a controlled demolition is a spectacular way of showing it to everybody and building up a lot of anger in the population.

It's always been like this. There are laws and there are exceptions. For instance: We don't have the death penalty here in germany. I am pretty sure it exists nowhere in the EU countries. But let's say there is some rapist, child molestor, somebody who did something really evil, sick and nasty... Start a poll and ask, how many people want this guy dead and override the law, show the execution on live television...

Imagine the numbers you get. Having the towers bombed wouldn't be sufficient... Destruction is necessary to shock people.

But as I said, that's just my opinion. I'll wait and see if some of these things are being revealed in the near future.

Pretty much all of your arguments are wild conjecture, speculation and opinion. And sometimes just absurdly wrong (your claim that 1/3 of the world thinks it was an inside job).

We didn't go to war because of 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with it, and Afghan, like Iraq had already been on the table well before 9/11 because of the many previous terrorist attacks carried out from there.

But most importantly, we try to stick to facts here. You claiming that a crime itself is pretty much proof that the victims committed it has no basis in fact land. By your logic, every crime that is committed is done so secretly by the victim. It's an absolutely absurd argument. I suppose next you're going to tell us that the Jews were behind Hitler because they wanted to make their population angry? Come on...

 

[Jonnyclueless]

what's the problem with you guys and reading? GIVEN THE SITUATION. WOULD. COULD.

Hypothesis. IF there were, how WOULD it be?

Of course it's not one third of the population who believes that... Where the hell would I get those numbers from?!

Ooh oooh ooh! I know I know!


YOU MADE THEM UP.