Simply put: Skeptics, I know it's hard...

Originally posted by thrashee
Think about it: which is more plausible to believe? The conspiracy masterminds want to set it up like it's terrorists:

A) Get them on planes, get them to learn how to fly planes, hijack said planes, risk being taken down by any brave people on the planes, coordinate the planes to hit the towers, WHILE still rigging the buildings to go down, and WHILE knowing that even "laymen" (as you say) could see through the fact that these puny planes couldn't possibly take the towers down alone.

B) Wire the buildings to blow, and blame it on terrorists.

You tell me.

Tell me. How would they explain how the terrorists wired a building that has bomb sniffing dogs and has been previously bombed before? Incompetence? I know that's the excuse for everything else dealing with 9/11 but we would be asking for heads in that case IMO.

My belief is that the terrorist's plans of using planes were real. It's just that someone knew of the plot and used it to their advantage. Like the '93 bombing that the FBI had a hand in.

reply to post by Griff


Then you must answer your own question: how did they plant the bombs with all those dogs sniffing about?

I have not chased the 9/11 conspiracy however four points.

Arabs were trained by our military, including flying, my ex was in class with them.

Arab military training encampments are setup here in the US. Nothing is done to these military training camps but the government is raiding farmers on flimsy excuses.

The results of 9/11 has stripped away Constitutional rights, allowing spying on the ordinary citizen and the gutting of Posse Comitatus so military is allowed to police US citizens.

Illegals and the Mexican Millitary/Police are allowed over our boarders on a regular basis with no effective response by the US government and hardly any news coverage.

Given extremist strikes in other countries something like 9/11 could be expected. Wether it was a set up or not the reality following it makes no sense except in terms of consolidation of world power.

“In March 2001, after months of harassment and surveillance—including USDA agents spying on the family farm from nearby mountaintops—armed federal agents seized what they had identified as an iminent danger to the American people: a flock of 140 organically raised dairy sheep.” - Linda Fallace

At 5:00 AM on September 12, 2006, Cindi and Danny Henshaw were awakened by their local Virginia game warden, who arrested Danny on an apparently trumped up Class 2 Misdemeanor charge and took him from his Willis River Hunting preserve for supposedly, “operating a mammalian hunting enclosure without a permit.” Danny was released from custody in 2 hours and allowed to return to the farm where he and Cindi were controlled around the clock by armed guards from September 12th through September 22nd. - The Boar Wars

“We went to court with Danny on March 02, 2007 and once again I am totally disgusted with the justice system.
While we were talking to Norman, Dan’s Lawyer he pointed out the laws that were sited on the original warrant. ( there were several quoted on the original papers) and Norman found, after a great deal of study, there was no law at all that pertained to this case, especially how it was carried out with no notice or warning to correct the problem, if in fact one existed. Basically the bottom line is Danny was convicted on laws that do not even exist. SO MUCH FOR JUSTICE….” -Nonais.org

Islamberg is not as benign as a Buddhist monastery or a Carmelite convent. Nearly every weekend, neighbors hear sounds of gunfire. Some, including a combat veteran of the Vietnam War, have heard the bang of small explosives. None of the neighbors wished to be identified for fear of "retaliation." "We don't even dare to slow down when we drive by," one resident said. "They own the mountain and they know it and there is nothing we can do about it but move, and we can't even do that. Who wants to buy a property near that?" deathofnation.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Ahabstar


Building 7 sounds so far-fetched for many people because the repeated call of "fell in their footprint" repeated over and over until it became a "fact". The reality is that there was debris all over the immediate area including across the street that flatten an old church. Of course that church could have fallen just from the rumble of the ground, but it was covered in debris. Of course "fell in their footprint" is better than fell into other buildings causing a domino effect like from a cartoon or Rube Goldberg scene all over Manhatten. Reality shows bits in buildings all around the area...that seems to be glossed over rather quickly by the "fell in their footprint" crowd.

Sorry but the church was flattened by either WTC 1 or 2 not 7. WTC 7, by the definition itself, fell into it's on footstep. It did fall onto Vessey st(I think that's the name) and caused some damage to the Verizon building(I believe). A 47 storey building is not going to fall perfectly into it's own footprint, even with the best demo team in the world.

Didn't refresh my memory before I posted so If there are any errors I apologize.

Originally posted by thrashee
There is a principle in science called Occam's Razor. It goes something like this: the simplest explanation is most often the correction one. So again, I ask you, if there was a conspiracy, which option is the simplest?

Actually, Occam's Razor begins with "All things being equal". Just mentioning that you forgot to add that part.

All things being equal, do you really think it's easier to sneak into a building and rig it to demolish it or to hijack a plane and fly it into the building?

IMO, hijacking a plane would the simplest thing. Especially when considering what buildings we are talking about here.

Originally posted by Griff
All things being equal, do you really think it's easier to sneak into a building and rig it to demolish it or to hijack a plane and fly it into the building?

IMO, hijacking a plane would the simplest thing. Especially when considering what buildings we are talking about here.

Then you seem to support the mainstream view. Glad to hear it.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by thrashee
There is a principle in science called Occam's Razor. It goes something like this: the simplest explanation is most often the correction one. So again, I ask you, if there was a conspiracy, which option is the simplest?

Actually, Occam's Razor begins with "All things being equal". Just mentioning that you forgot to add that part.

All things being equal, do you really think it's easier to sneak into a building and rig it to demolish it or to hijack a plane and fly it into the building?

IMO, hijacking a plane would the simplest thing. Especially when considering what buildings we are talking about here.

as a side note: who said anything about sneaking into a building. If this was an inside job, (and far be it for me to argue either side since this debate is taking on religious proportions -i.e., belief is not an easy thing to debate) there would be no need for sneaking. You tell all the superiors to have their men stand down and dress your people up as maintenance workers and start planting what ever and where ever you want. so really, its a fallacy to think that some middle eastern men in all black clothing are playing spy vs. spy tip-toe techniques around guard/bomb dogs and security detail. but boy it is funny to picture with some Benny Hill music playing in the background.

reply to post by Unnoan


Haha, your post made me laugh

No, if it were an inside job, there would not need to be a need for sneaking...or there would be less of one (after all, if it's inside, they'd want to keep it under wraps).

My point was simply this: if they wanted to stage it, why would they go through the trouble of the planes? Sure, security may be tight, but can you honestly picture this discussion at the round-table of the shadow government:

GOV-1: "So how do we frame this on terrorist activites?"
GOV-2: "Simple, standard operating procedure, just like Oklahoma. Plant bombs, plant scapegoats, done."
GOV-3: "No no no. No one will believe that terrorists in this country were able to penetrate our defenses so easily. It would never fly."
GOV-2: "Well, what do you suggest, if not a bombing?"
GOV-1: "Wait, I got an idea. Why don't we have them train to fly jets, hijack 3 different planes, and have them fly those planes into 3 different targets."
GOV-2: "Uh...."
GOV-3: "Interesting. I like it. It's much simpler."
GOV-2: "Uh...."
GOV-1: "And then we'll have bin laden go into hiding, claim responsibility for the attack, and he'll never get caught."
GOV-2: "Are you sure plane crashes will be enough to bring down the towers?"
GOV-1: "Hmm. Good point. Ok, we'll plant inside bombs to help the collapse along, and time it all perfectly."
GOV-2: "Um, don't you think other people might notice that the planes aren't enough to bring them down?"
GOV-3: "Don't worry about little details like that. We'll just cross our fingers."

Originally posted by thrashee
Then you must answer your own question: how did they plant the bombs with all those dogs sniffing about?

Are bomb sniffing dogs trained to detect thermobarics? Serious question as I'm having trouble finding the answer.

Plus, there's a difference between terrosists supposedly being able to get by the dogs as oppossed to men with badges who look like maintenance being able to do it.

And if we say that the terrorists could have done that, then we get led to the questions of who exactly signed for their badges etc. Leaving a trail of people to follow.

If all perps die in the plane crash, then there's no people trail to follow.

So, if all things being equal, what would be the simpler plan?

Originally posted by thrashee
Then you seem to support the mainstream view. Glad to hear it.

About 85-95 % of it. Yes.

Originally posted by Griff
Are bomb sniffing dogs trained to detect thermobarics? Serious question as I'm having trouble finding the answer.

I honestly have no idea.

And if we say that the terrorists could have done that, then we get led to the questions of who exactly signed for their badges etc. Leaving a trail of people to follow.

Just as we are asked, who trained these terrorists to fly? How did they get passports? How did they get on the planes?

If all perps die in the plane crash, then there's no people trail to follow.

The terrorists would still die in the hypothetical explosions.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by thrashee
Then you seem to support the mainstream view. Glad to hear it.

About 85-95 % of it. Yes.

Wow Griff, that's cool. I am glad to hear that...you always seemed too smart for the spin and rhetoric.

reply to post by JimBeam


Thank you for clearing up what might have been confusing as I was typing without editing. Now if building 7's debris were to have flattened the church which was quite farther away from building 7 as building 7 is tall then there would be some proof of demolitions.

I want to say it was closest to tower 2 but again, just going off the top of my head.

Back on topic:

Other glaring omitted details have me asking lots of questions such as the fire from the jet fuel wasn't hot enough to phase the steel. So I ask the question of how much hotter the fire would have been from the synthetic carpet, plasitics from office equipment and glues from laminate office furniture?

Lack of bodies everywhere. Common decency not to air bodies and body parts to a greiving nation by the media perhaps? Especially in rural PA as I am sure every NY news crew was busy in NYC and left it up to the local news teams to shoot the footage.

Poor video coverage at the Pentagon? Well gee, think they would let every joe six pack with a camcorder to walk around the military headquarters of the US? Or even a camera crew with proper news teams?

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Ahabstar]

Originally posted by thrashee
reply to post by Griff

 

Then you must answer your own question: how did they plant the bombs with all those dogs sniffing about?

"On Thursday before 9-11, building security removed the bomb-sniffing dogs that had been safeguarding the World Trade Center against bombs. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

On Saturday and Sunday before 9-11, the power was shut down in the twin towers and unidentified technicians „rewired“ the buildings from the 50th floor upwards; it is obvious that this could have been an opportunity to plant demolition charges to later take the buildings down.


The private security company who was responsible for the security of the World Trade Center on 9-11-1 was Securacom, a Bush family company. On the Board of Directors of Securacom was Marvin P. Bush, one of President George W. Bush’s brothers. This Bush family company was a joint venture with the ruling Al Sabah family of Kuwait."


source www.cloakanddagger.de...

Not to mention photos of heaps of concrete dust all through the buildings. This has been banged on about millions of times now, people who have been around researching this long enough and are not paid govt pumpers know what has happened and have a logical pattern of events to go with pointing squarely at govt involvement.
You simply cannot slander, detract from and dig at some truthers one or two theories and say it's not a conspiracy when there is a metric #load of evidence and coincidence pointing it's fat finger at the PTB.

[edit on 19/8/08 by GhostR1der]

reply to post by GhostR1der


Hate to tell you this, but your source is full of BS.

The bomb dogs that were normally assigned to the Tower complex were there that day. The dogs that were "removed" were EXTRA dogs temporarily assigned there.

As for the power down, that story originates with a gentleman named Scott Forbes. He originally claimed that the tower his company was in, was completely powered down for the whole weekend. In further interviews, he admitted that it was parts of three floors his company was on that were powered down, and then they were only powered down for 19 hours.

So, want to tell us where to find the supermen that managed to wire three buildings for destruction when they only had access to parts of three floors in just ONE of the buildings????????

reply to post by GhostR1der


THEN there is Securacom.

1. Was not responsible for security at the towers, they did some electric systems set up. John O'Neill was in charge of security.

2. Marvin Bush left the board of directors in June 2000, before his brother was the GOP nominee.

3. The Bush family does not own or run Securacom.

Originally posted by Ahabstar


Thank you for clearing up what might have been confusing as I was typing without editing. Now if building 7's debris were to have flattened the church which was quite farther away from building 7 as building 7 is tall then there would be some proof of demolitions.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Ahabstar]

I guess you are laughing at yourself because you don't make any sense.

It WAS either wtc 1 or 2 that flattened the church, there is no argument guy. I wish I knew exactly which tower it was, but I get confused by north/south and 1/2.

Anyway, keep believing in your fanasty this all controlled demo's fall perfectly into there own footprint.

Pseudo SKeptic and debunker started threads and coments....lol


"Truther throws in towel"

" I give up no conspiracy to 911"

"Skeptic, I know its hard"



Funny, Pseudo Skeptics and trolls hope that they since they are at a conspiracy site they can convince people who are on the fence of the facts that 911 was planned by elements of the British, Israeli, Pakistani, and U.s governments.

Debunkers: It must be hard to sell lies that nobody buys. I know its hard to lose everyday on forums and be hated by everyone. I know it must be hard to be hurting for money and have to resort to lies and ignorance to put food on the table. I feel for some of you and when the time comes where they are hanging people for 911, I might have some pitty.

reply to post by IvanZana


Your post may have been amusing if it was logically and syntactically coherent enough to follow. Unfortunately it was neither.