What Really Happened on 9/11?
- Thread starter conspiracybeliever
- Start date
Bronze Dog
Copper Alloy Canid
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 4,993
"When given a choice between incompetence and malice to explain an apparent conspiracy, pick incompetence every time" -Some guy.
That must be it!He means the government is perfect and infallibly efficient, so when something doesn't go perfectly, there's shenanigans involved.
No, let's wait for his answer. I think I know what it will be, and, boy, do I have the response. Cuz I did my homework....
ntech
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Messages
- 809
True. Cheney, Halliburton and their cronies are making money from the Katrina disaster but they didn't cause the hurricane. Evil and vile folks such as them will always jump to profit from the misery of others. I must however state that I am convinced that the war in Iraq was preplanned and provoked to make profit for Halliburton and other Cheney, Bush friends.
CptFarlow, not every racketeer in this world is Dr. Evil or Dr. No or Goldfinger or some other diabolical movie villain out to bring the plot of Plan 9 From Outer Space to life.
Most are just low-lifes like John Gotti.
This is particularly applicable to politicans.
Most are just low-lifes like John Gotti.
This is particularly applicable to politicans.
With all due respect, I think the war in Iraq is far more complicated.
You know just as well as I do that any time a plane deviates from it's flight plan, fighter jets are flown in to escort the aircraft and visually inspect to determine the situation. So your argument is null. The fact is, procedure wasn't followed that day, and that day Dick Cheney was in charge. Why, even after two planes hitting the WTC, would a plane be allowed to fly directly toward the Pentagon, circle overhead, and hit the CIA building without anybody blinking an eye until it was done?
So you are saying that it is completely normal for our President to ignore statements by his aides when he is told that his country is under attack. It is well known that at first he says something along the lines of, "well, that's a bad pilot." But he didn't stop his reading session until after both towers were hit, and had been burning for some time. I would hope that the leader of our country would be worried about the fact that a bunch of his people are in danger, no matter if it were a small single engine plane, or a 757.
Yes, he did win it fairly. BUT, if he was so worried about terrorism destroying his buildings, why would he take out an insurance policy covering terrorism but not acts of war? I realize this point doesn't prove much of anything at all...but it is still peculiar.
But why were the put options 4, 5, even 11 times their usual amount? Isn't that a bit odd considering there was a major impact to the airline industry in the week afterwards?! Over $2.5 million in profits of these put-options has yet to be claimed.
Sure, the FBI does just that. But why would they have anything to hide? If they are so sure that a 757 really did hit the Pentagon, all they would have to do would be to release just one of the three tapes confiscated. What "national security" are they protecting by keeping them?
Do you really believe that a fire brought down that tower? Let's say that the fuel tank did explode, even though that conflicts reports that the fires weren't that bad at all. The fuel tank explodes, there is a fire. Why would the fire make the building collapse all at once? Why is there the distinctive "crimp" in the building, that is a tell-tale sign of controlled demolition? If fire damaged any part of the building, wouldn't that part of the building collapse first? I find it very hard to believe that every single support column broke at once, from a few scattered fires. We, as humans, have seen countless buildings burn for hours, even days, yet they still stand. But on this one day, bulldings that were designed to withstand this very incident, completly fell, symetrically, neatly, onto their own footprints. Buildings close the the two towers were damaged even more than WTC7, yet they stood until they were demolished in the cleanup effort.
Hope that helps.
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
Been reading all these threads faithfully (hey, beats work) and I am struck at the sameness of them, no matter who the poster.
They normally start with the "Controlled Demolition" argument for WTC 1 and 2, which is normally rebutted without difficulty..they then segue into the WTC7 collapse and try to make that the focus (We haven't seen the "pull it" quote referenced in this thread yet, but we will, we will). Normally the Pentagon comes last, and we've seen the first reference to the tapes question.
At least this particular bunch of CT'ers seems to be grounded enough to concur that it was commercial airliners that hit the buildings (I could be wrong and we have yet to hear from CptFarlow on the Pentagon to any great degree). But always the same arguments. Nothing new. Seen it once, seen it again.
Well, as the Duke of Wellington purportedly said of the French at Waterloo: "They came at us in the same familiar way and we saw them off in the same fashion".
Press on.
They normally start with the "Controlled Demolition" argument for WTC 1 and 2, which is normally rebutted without difficulty..they then segue into the WTC7 collapse and try to make that the focus (We haven't seen the "pull it" quote referenced in this thread yet, but we will, we will). Normally the Pentagon comes last, and we've seen the first reference to the tapes question.
At least this particular bunch of CT'ers seems to be grounded enough to concur that it was commercial airliners that hit the buildings (I could be wrong and we have yet to hear from CptFarlow on the Pentagon to any great degree). But always the same arguments. Nothing new. Seen it once, seen it again.
Well, as the Duke of Wellington purportedly said of the French at Waterloo: "They came at us in the same familiar way and we saw them off in the same fashion".
Press on.
There had already been a terrorist attack on the WTC
It's hard to disagree with billions of people who saw it LIVE.
Confiscating tapes concerning an attack on the Pentagon is a pattern of behavior that's not unusual from the FBI. It is not an evidence of conspiracy by itself. If they hadn't confiscated anything, now I would have been worried.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
are you suggesting waiting for evidence is not rational?
ntech
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Messages
- 809
Really? I think complexity is beyond our as*hole in chief.
Why, even after everything had happened on 9/11, would a student pilot be allowed to joyride over the White House without being shot down? Was that part of the Illuminati plot too?
**** happens, Captain. We live in an imperfect world. Everything which happens in this world is not part of some huge sinister plot. Just the work of sometimes hugely imperfect human beings.
I meant be rational with the theories.
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
Fortunately, none of the thousands of people needed to pull this conspiracy off are talking, publishing books, appearing on Larry King, having their husbands or wives rat them out...it is a really good conspiracy in that sense. THey picked really good conspirators...other potential conspirators should take note of the quality of the humans selected to participate.
lol. I'm sure they all explained it to him with nice pictures with funny animals.
Imagine the money they would make just by speaking out!
That is what I was trying to get at. I just think that Cheney saw an oppurtunity to make some money on Katrina, and did so, by taking advantage of the distress of those less fortunate.
It has also been shown, even more in the recent news, that the current administration had planned on invading Iraq regardless of what the UN said about it. They just needed an excuse to do it...*cough* 9/11. *Sneeze* Problem-reaction solution...ahem.
So what?? This is a thread about the 9-11 conspiracy theory!