Originally posted by bsbray11

You'll have a hard time getting a reasonable answer from him, too. He's too clever for that.

Ahhh yes you again, at least you're not insulting me this time ( or are you calling me a disinfo agent kinda confused here);D...

Originally posted by bsbray11

At least maybe we can agree that the US could pull it off if al Qaeda could, and if al Qaeda could, then so could Israel, and even the Brits (if they would have any reason to). Right? At least anyone who thinks to begin with should be able to agree with this.

Well..now that's possible, but highly doubtful, don't see the USG trying it ( no real motive IMHO ), the Israelis ahh maybe ( could be, to help get rid of their problem. But they've always taken care of them selves in the past so why try this ), AlQ yes they had the most to gain, think about it, they have a jihad, on all western countries, so why not start with the USof A...

Originally posted by bsbray11
I personally don't think that either al Qaeda or the Brits could/would do this alone. US factions certainly could, if anyone could, and maybe Israeli factions.

See comment above...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Really I'm losing interest in this thread, lol. Everyone that believes the US doesn't do such things will simply blame others if they even accept the conspiracy, while everyone else seems to agree that the US was at least involved in the attacks.

Don't know what you're saying here, but I think that people are just looking for a way out, think about it, this was something that happened that has never happened before. Something that was was too unbelievable too have happen but yet it did...

You know...I hear that the physics say that this is impossible, but yet they said that manned flight was impossible too, and so was space flight...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Should we look to the circumstantial stuff, or is there even a point? Because that's a lot of info.

In a court of law circumstantial evidence is not really admissible, so the choice is yours...

It's alright, Griff.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I personally don't think that either al Qaeda or the Brits could/would do this alone.

Originally posted by Griff
Al-CIAda couldn't have done it alone.

I don't think we're in much disagreement anyway.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Who could have done it?

-- Who had the means (construction drawings, explosives, security, workers, etc.), the motives, etc. to actually rig the buildings?

We can consider...

A) Factions of the US Government/Military, and/or Corporate Powers
B) Same, except Israeli
C) al Qaeda
D) Some combo of the above
E) Other

E) A Qualified Other, which are probably within selection (A) {Factions of gov't, et al }

i doubt i'll ever be convinced that all three buildings were demoed or intentionally brought down

my suspicion is that only WTC 7 was intentionally a controlled demolition,
but the 2 towers were a real 'shock & awe' & surreal event to just about everybody.... which, to the thinking of the top leadership needed to be covered up...

so a quick thinking team got into a rapid response mode, and controlled-demolitioned WTC7 to add confusion to the larger WTC catastrophe.
because, what if the masses gave up in the faith & trust of the gov't
A government which permitted, inspected, allowed variations in building codes, then guaranteed as safe, the 2 towers that collapsed.
~even IF they were 30+ years old & slammed by large, fuel laden jetcraft~

It is still possible, that as the fervor & passion that many have in believing that the two towers were brought down, fades....
it might be possible to develop, uncover facts, then present the scenario that the 2 towers were 'accidents-waiting-to-happen'

As long as there remains doubts about pre-planted explosives/ or covert operations or confusion exists...then the status quo wins
then the trust & authority & taxing, planning, laws, regulations we consent to the gov't will stay in effect...
as the masses will not turn their back on the (some say corrupt) system and live their lives in a black-market economy,

call the 9-11 gestalt, a form of americanized-zionism...
preserve the 'State-of-the-Union" at all costs !!
so be it

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Because noone has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were planted explosives in the buildings (I'm not talking fuel lines etc either)...

The only proof we have of what happened that day was 2 jets slamming into the sides of the buildings, and then they collapse, anything other that that is just opinion...

Just as no one has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that these
buildings collapsed due to the official story.

And your opinion stinks.

my suspicion is that only WTC 7 was intentionally a controlled demolition,
but the 2 towers were a real 'shock & awe' & surreal event to just about everybody.... which, to the thinking of the top leadership needed to be covered up...

so a quick thinking team got into a rapid response mode, and controlled-demolitioned WTC7 to add confusion to the larger WTC catastrophe.
because, what if the masses gave up in the faith & trust of the gov't
A government which permitted, inspected, allowed variations in building codes, then guaranteed as safe, the 2 towers that collapsed.
~even IF they were 30+ years old & slammed by large, fuel laden jetcraft~

WHAT? So a quick thinking team can accomplish in hours what it takes
weeks to accomplish, without being noticed! If the WTC 7 was
demolished those charges were set in advance, and if those charges
were set in advance, so were the charges in WTC 1 &2. You cannot
have it both ways.

1 answer and 3 questions...

Who did it? Al-qeada. In 1993 they attempted to bring down WTC, and did not suceed. They did suceed on 9/11. Try either watching "The day the towers fell" or read the book "102 minutes". They both give eyewitness accoutns from survivors, people who were there. The floors were collapsing, and the entire tower actually shifted so hard, people views out of thier windows changed. WTC 7 was not controlled either, it burned for over 7 hours and collapsed.


Now, 3 questions..
1. Where is a blasting cap?
2. Where is one piece or trace of explosive?
3. Where is the link between Al-qeada and the CIA? (please try to answer realistically with no links to prisonplanet plesae, thanks)


You may also want to read the NIST report in its entirety.

The only conspiracy is flight 93. We shot it out of the sky.

The thing that gets me is why would Bin Laden and company be so concerned with when these attacks happen. The date has to be something special, the planets and stars have to be in some specific configuration, there is just too much concern with numbers and other crap that deal with the occult.

Bin Laden would just say, lets go blow some stuff up, dirka dirka Muhammad jihad. These attacks were carried out by factions in the government who have their own agenda at hand. They probably belong to some occult group and plan world domination or some nonsense like that. They have made trillions and will continue to make such fortunes as long as ignorant people continue to thrive.

If I believed the official story regarding various events on that day, and ignored the lack of air response, then yeah, I might believe Osama could have done it (if there was any evidence to support that notion).

But I don't think it was as straightforward as a couple of planes being flown into a couple skyscrapers, and crossing your fingers for a "progressive collapse." For Osama to have expected that would make him quite a genius, because full "progressive collapses" did not even exist until 9/11. Just the Murrah Building during the OCB, and that was far from what was seen at NYC on 9/11.

And if you finally accept that the towers were blown, and still think Osama did it (hat's off to the media and our federal disinfo agents on that one), then just look at what the federal government is still saying about what happened on 9/11 and it should become pretty obvious that they've been lying. They've even put major agencies behind the b.s. to decorate it and give some authority to it.

As each plane struck the tower, seconds before, they titled the wings to cause the most damage. Look at the pictures and any reference material.


If there is any conspiracy to the WTC it is the Port Authority not having anything to code, and allowing the WTC to be built without conforming to modern standards. There was no concrete or reinforcement, and they were nto designed for stability, they were designed to extract the most commercial space.

This space was designed as the heart of Americas financial district, envisioned by the brothers Rockefeller and bought to fruition, and destroyed by Al-Qeada. Case closed.

You say that it these guys didn't have expertise in flying planes, but they're not landing or taking off, they are directing the planes. This can be done over training, possible small craft flights simulators, all they had to do was crash, if they missed they still created enough for Bush to counter. Possibly they use two planes incase one missed, but they got both. If we take the argument away and direct it in a more diverse area, if we take away creed, religion, race, and just say that it was religious fanaticals in general, that done this. They possible targeted them due to the wealth and after all money is meant to be the down fall to the world.

What surprised me more than anything else was that it seemed the attack was out of the blue, there was no friction between nations. It was a resting time almost, although I know that there wasn't exactly peace either. As sad as it seems I believe Bush was conected sometime.
But a good friend of mine possed this question to me and I'd like to pose it to you.
If there are flights going in and out of New York both Night and Day why did'nt they do it at night where it would have had less tradegy. Bush would still have all his ammo to go to war if it was done by night. But it was done in the morning why the Morning?? maybe there is a clue with the time as well as the day, in a coded manner. (I'm just thinking outside the box here what if this event was ment to happen regardless on this particular day, which obviously did, so why. What religious day was it? saints day? prohpets day?? was there any prophacies for these events at all.)
Although I think Bush may have been behind it, is he that much of a Butcher??

Personally, I think it was in the morning so that it would fill everyone's minds for the rest of the day. If it was propoganda, they would want it as effective as possible. Happening right before you go to bed, or during the night, might diminish the "We're gonna git you now!" display afterwards. Watching it all unfold would also have more of an effect, I would imagine. They want people to want what they want, so that they don't have to try to do any convincing. In this case they would've wanted us to want war, before they announce to us that we're going to have it. I think the date 9/11 was even chosen so that there would be associations with emergency (ie, the emergency number 911), but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more to it than that.

The First Casualty

Originally posted by bsbray11
If I believed the official story regarding various events on that day, and ignored the lack of air response, then yeah, I might believe Osama could have done it (if there was any evidence to support that notion).

To date, I have seen no proof that Al Qaeda was directly responsible for 9-11. That does not mean Al Qaeda didn't do it any more than it means they did.

They have, however, repeatedly and publicly declared open war on every man, woman and child in the United States, and nothing any self-styled expert says will blind me to that fact.

Regarding 9-11, the only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that, more than four years later, I still don't know what the honest-to-God truth is about what actually happened, and that bothers me.

It also bothers me that so many of my fellow members see fit to offer speculative theories as if they were fact.

Neither the whitewashed “official” story nor Google-fueled armchair punditry are satisfactory substitutes for the truth.

All I want is the truth, and given the choice between truth later and lies now, I'm willing to wait as long as it takes.

Progressive Collapse

Originally posted by bsbray11
But I don't think it was as straightforward as a couple of planes being flown into a couple skyscrapers, and crossing your fingers for a "progressive collapse." For Osama to have expected that would make him quite a genius, because full "progressive collapses" did not even exist until 9/11. Just the Murrah Building during the OCB, and that was far from what was seen at NYC on 9/11.

According to the rather suspicious “I did it” tape that was aired, Osama didn't expect a collapse. However, it's not clear that he actually said that, or again, that he was even involved in planning and carrying out the attacks.

That does not mean Al Qaeda was not involved, since Al Qaeda is not a monolithic organization, but a loose confederation of Islamic extremist groups with common goals.

Thus an Al Qaeda affiliate may bear direct responsibility for 9-11, rather than Al Qaeda as a whole, but Al Qaeda's support of these affiliates still makes them accessories to mass murder, and that, coupled with all their many other ghastly crimes and repeated announcements that they intend to commit more of them makes their utter annihilation desirable in my sight.

No amount of disingenuous hand-waving will change that.

Some members talk as if they know what Osama was thinking prior to 9-11, and what he's thinking now.

Speaking as an individual who has some personal familiarity with the so-called “paranormal”, suffice it to say that I find such psychic claims to be woefully unconvincing.

Giving Lie To The Truth

Originally posted by bsbray11
And if you finally accept that the towers were blown, and still think Osama did it (hat's off to the media and our federal disinfo agents on that one), then just look at what the federal government is still saying about what happened on 9/11 and it should become pretty obvious that they've been lying. They've even put major agencies behind the b.s. to decorate it and give some authority to it.

If the federal government is lying about 9-11, then it is observing a time-honored tradition of lying to the people that dates back to its founding. Thus I don't recommend trusting the U.S. government.

In fact, it's my opinion that for Americans to trust their government is to be derelict in our Constitutional duty to serve as the final check and balance against federal tyranny.

So let's not cloud the waters on that.

I think it will be difficult but not impossible for ATSers to learn the truth about 9-11, provided we keep our minds open and go where the evidence leads.

To the extent we do otherwise, however, the odds of learning the truth rapidly approach zero.

That's why I continue to recommend skepticism with respect to all theories surrounding 9-11, including the “official” ones.

Sure, let's consider them, and make sure all possibilities get a fair hearing, but I think it's far too early to be lining up the faithful and passing out the kool-aid.

We need to be honest about what we don't know.

The alternative is self-deception, and that's something I'm not interested in.

Originally posted by Majic
All I want is the truth, and given the choice between truth later and lies now, I'm willing to wait as long as it takes.

You can put pieces together for a good idea, regardless of a lack of any single piece of evidence beyond debate that directly links government factions to 9/11. For me, it's a lot of reading between the lines. I will form opinions now, based on the evidence that we have now, and if evidence to the contrary is presented later, I will change my position.

We need to be honest about what we don't know.

The alternative is self-deception, and that's something I'm not interested in.

I can respect the desire to be as honest as possible with yourself, but the lack of evidence to prove much of anything troubles me, because another alternative is a repeat of the most horrible of modern history with hardly anyone seeing it coming. This is what I'm watching out for, and I don't have any problems trying to get a few heads to turn to see if they can verify what I'm seeing. At any rate, when the final evidence arrives, I don't want it to be way too late to prepare.

It's unfortunate that 9/11 is the most concrete event that I know of to check up on myself, but it's still much more concrete than trying to prove what all of those FEMA bases under REX 84 are for, or the new "detainment camps" for which Halliburton is being commissioned, or trying to investigate how many people are actually being "detained" by the US Government at any given time or where all those Mid-Eastern Americans went after 9/11. Being as fair and accurate as possible with information is a priority for me, but so is trying to paint an overall picture to figure out what in the hell is actually going on in the world.

Originally posted by MCory1
Aside from the accessibility, how necessary are the blueprints in performing a demolition? I mean, couldn't anyone with decent demolition experience take a reasonable guess as to where to put the charges?

I know you dont subscribe to the theory, but I would like to point out for others that if 'anybody' with demolition could rig the building with tnt, why did they pull the dynamite sniffer dogs a week before 9/11? Strange.

Connecting The Dots

Originally posted by bsbray11
I can respect the desire to be as honest as possible with yourself, but the lack of evidence to prove much of anything troubles me, because another alternative is a repeat of the most horrible of modern history with hardly anyone seeing it coming.

Likewise, I respect a questioning mind, and don't in any way, shape or form want to give anyone the impression that we should adopt complacency in the absence of facts.

I have plenty of suspicions of my own, you can be sure of that.

My caution is against yielding to the temptation to confuse speculation with facts, which is an ailment that is all too common amongst us "conspiracy wackos".

It may require more “weasel words” to handle speculation properly, but compared to the alternative, it's relatively painless.

But definitely, “keep painting,” because a clearer picture may yet emerge.

Originally posted by bsbray

In a court of law circumstantial evidence is not really admissible, so the choice is yours...

Wrongo matey. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in a court of law. It's often all we have to go on. It has less weight than direct evidence but it is admissible.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by seattlelaw]

Jedi_Master said that, not me.

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

Originally posted by bsbray11
Should we look to the circumstantial stuff, or is there even a point? Because that's a lot of info.

In a court of law circumstantial evidence is not really admissible, so the choice is yours...