The end of "911 Conpiracy", and the beginning of "911 Common Knowledge"

the neutral reader may want to look through this info before deciding on the merits of Kings assertions..

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

[edit on 19-7-2009 by pccat]

So if a newbie appears, and stands his ground...he is suspect, and probably part of an organization.

I fail to see what explanation I have received, on this matter...the response seem to be classing this Larry Silverstein as inhuman, is this an explanation.?

Originally posted by king9072
MORAL OF THE ANECDOTE = THOSE WITH NOTHING TO HIDE ARE EAGER TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE, WHILE THOSE WITH SOMETHING TO HIDE DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO HIDE THEIR GUILT.

Are you kidding me?'
You seriously think this is how people react?
Your same logic means that if a police officer were to pull you over for no reason and demand to search your car, you wouldn't have a problem with that.
or
Police show up at your door and want to search your house?
or
They want to search your computer?
or
Your bank records?
or
your personal affiliations?
or
Your telephone calls?
or
The books you read and movies you rent?
or
Who you voted for and why?
or
strip searched ?
etc.
etc.
etc.
After all since you are innocent and have nothing to hide, you wouldn't have a problem....RIGHT ??????

You're completely wrong about "human nature". Humans typically don't want their privacy and space intruded upon....even when they're innocent.

reply to post by ironbutterflyrusted


There's empirical evidence and circumstantial evidence. The Silverstein connection is VERY fishy and should be investigated. Is it empirical evidence he is involved in the bring down of the towers? No, it's not.

The presence of military grade Thermite, an engineered explosive, in the dust of all the buildings? That's empirical evidence, and more than enough to warrant a new investigation.

Thanks for the link.

I still only see a man that likes to lead, he found `loopholes` with good lawyers, and pursued them. Others seeing this, tried to do the same.

Any one of the capitalists would have done the same.

Before buying you would have a good idea of the possible returns...these returns did not come because the buildings where gone...replan and continue, make this unforseen event work for you.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by king9072
MORAL OF THE ANECDOTE = THOSE WITH NOTHING TO HIDE ARE EAGER TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE, WHILE THOSE WITH SOMETHING TO HIDE DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO HIDE THEIR GUILT.

Are you kidding me?'
You seriously think this is how people react?
Your same logic means that if a police officer were to pull you over for no reason and demand to search your car, you wouldn't have a problem with that.
or
Police show up at your door and want to search your house?
or
They want to search your computer?
or
Your bank records?
or
your personal affiliations?
or
Your telephone calls?
or
The books you read and movies you rent?
or
Who you voted for and why?
or
strip searched ?
etc.
etc.
etc.
After all since you are innocent and have nothing to hide, you wouldn't have a problem....RIGHT ??????

You're completely wrong about "human nature". Humans typically don't want their privacy and space intruded upon....even when they're innocent.

If he had a serious probable cause then yes, I must submit to a search. Same as if the owner of the store and simply noticed me walk past the front of his store - he has no grounds to ask me to empty my pockets. But the fact that I was acting suspicious in the back of his store gives him probable cause to ask for a reasonable search - me emptying my pockets. Which I would no doubt have no problem with if I were innocent.

If they have absolutely no cause to think I have done anything wrong, then every single point you have made is moot.

So on 911, when the people in charge of protecting us, cannot come up with a reasonable explanation to justify all of the numerous, astronomical anomalies that day, then yes, we do have the right to demand answers from them.

reply to post by king9072


Two 110 story buildings exploded and disintegrated, vanishing from the New York City skyline in little more (a few seconds) than the time it would take for any object, whether a car or a steel safe or a grand piano, to traverse the same distance falling through nothing but AIR.

Yes, it's entirely self evident, that the plane impacts and fires were not the causal mechanism of destruction, and it's in that destruction that most of the people were killed.

Newton's Three Laws of Motion were presumably still in effect on 9/11.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]

jfj123

Not at all, I have rights and I have fists to fight anyone coming onto my property and demanding things for no apparent reason...just because I see things on a more level plane, does not mean I am a sucker.

I still do not see the explanation, because I have not received one.

Other than this guy sees the sale of the century, while others are blind. Has a vision of the potential and expansion, while others have none.
After the event seeks to cover his potential losses and maybe gain a little help, while others damn him.
Manages to pull it off, others damn him again, but then try to follow suit.

Okay Baboo and a couple others would like me to post a few things, since ole Larry is mentioned currently on the last page of the thread, I will start there.

Much has been made about the supposedly sweetheart deal he has. Some think that he made his WTC deal because he knew it was going to be destroyed and somehow he would reap billions in profits.

Lets look at some of the key points made by "truthers"

"He bought terrorism insurance"

After 1993, I would too if I was going to be doing business there. That aside much is made about the amount he purchased. Only problem is, he tried to buy LESS insurance.

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding. His lenders, led by GMAC, a unit of General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, agreed

www.forbes.com...

If he was thinking he would make a profit on the destruction/rebuild, why would he buy less insurance than it would cost to rebuild? Doesnt make much sense does it? Especially since the actual policy had not been issued by the time the complex was destroyed.

Complicating the picture is the fact that there was no insurance policy yet issued on the properties when they were destroyed. Since the Port Authority transferred management of the properties to a group of investors led by Mr. Silverstein shortly before the attack, the insurance policy was under negotiation at the time the buildings collapsed and final wording had not been completed. The insurers have agreed to be bound by the ''binder'' agreements on the coverage although differences of opinion emerged yesterday about their interpretation.

www.nytimes.com...

In addition, since 2001, he has paid nearly 2.75 billion to the Port Authority under his lease agreement. 2.75 billion dollars paid on a property that is not (and for the most part will not) be earning any revenue for years to come.

Silverstein, who must pay the authority rent, said it has gotten $2.75 billion from him since 2001. The Port Authority in turn has paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines because it failed to complete some of the site preparations so building could begin

www.reuters.com...

2.75 billion versus hundreds of thousands....nope, not making any money there either. Not to mention that currently, he still does not have all the financing needed to fully redevelop the site, but he must still keep sending that check to the Port Authority.

Then there is the argument that the Towers were an asbestos ridden white elephant with no tenants.

Building assessments conducted in 2000....
911myths.com...
911myths.com...:MH2_Complete.pdf

Report on fire engineering of the WTC...
911myths.com...

Then here is a Port Authority release from Feb 2001....
www.panynj.gov...

Ninety-eight percent occupied....

Larry is paying out more money than he is earning, his buildings (save wtc 7) arent built yet, and yet the truth movement expects you to believe that he leased the "asbestos ridden" "money losing" complex because he was going to make billions after its destruction and rebuild?

Yeah right.

Originally posted by king9072

If he had a serious probable cause then yes, I must submit to a search. Same as if the owner of the store and simply noticed me walk past the front of his store - he has no grounds to ask me to empty my pockets. But the fact that I was acting suspicious in the back of his store gives him probable cause to ask for a reasonable search - me emptying my pockets.

Acting suspicious in and of itself does not constitute probable cause. If it did, the police would be pulling over everyone.

Sorry jfj123 I thought that was directed at me.

I agree though...with your assessment of the `little boy` approach, but it was just not a good example, when pursued...no crime there.

I think that you should concentrate efforts on the empirical evidence, nothing else will get you heard.

But even though I agree totally with a united, coherent cause, I disagree with the supposed facts about Silverstein.
Now this is precisely where it fails, when people dig in their heels without the empirical evidence, but feel it should play a part.
Who is going to decide the outcome, when two pieces of info, supporting the same cause...collide.? or will it just result in a fracture, that is now even more difficult to unite.?

I used to believe the government but then I saw that Zeitgeist movie, that did it for me. I recommend to see it if you haven't it really convinced me that it was a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by baboo
READ IT. Don't waste our time because you don't want to spend yours to inform yourself. I can provide you information on any aspect of the bldgs you want if you just ask. I've read and watched a lot on this . I'm not going to insult you by calling you names but I will say you are ill-informed or you have other reasons for being here. If you have legitimate questions then pose them and I and others, I'm sure, will attempt to provide you answers.

Just because I hold a contrary view to your does not mean I am misinformed, mate. I consider myself to be quite well informed, I just don't think that there is the evidence to suggest the WTC was felled by any other means other than aircraft, the resultant fire and building design. What's wrong with that, apart from not fitting in with your belief?

If you cannot articulate - or point me to compelling evidence to the contrary then you just have to live with it. I am open minded to compelling evidence.

You are right not to call me names because when you do, we all know you've lost the arguement. Try to be civil as that helps with debate.

Regards


[edit on 19/7/2009 by paraphi]

The issue is not whether your opinion fits my belief or not. If this event had never happened I would be spending my time on cook outs and ball games. 911 changed everything.

You are more than welcome to your opinion. But, when you enter a forum of debate be prepared to defend it. You are not ready to do that. Your defense is to say you don't believe it and that's it. Well, OK, have your opinion but the fact that you give it in this venue means I'm allowed to rebut it.

Your science is not sound on this issue. There is a mountaiin of solid circumstantial evidence saying that the event needs to be investigated honestly by people without a vested interest in proving it is a terrorist act.

There is a trail of lies from day one to the present. You ask for evidence to inform you yet when that evidence is laid at your feet you refuse to consider it. There are organizations in existence at this moment made up of experienced professionals in the engineering, military, commercial airline , and other businesses ready to tell the world that this event is bogus and you say there is no evidence. My only response is that it is there---READ IT! If you come up with a compelling, well supported, defense of the official story bring it here and we will vet it for you.




[edit on 19-7-2009 by baboo]

[edit on 19-7-2009 by baboo]

Good info Swampfox46_1999...the PDF`s take an age on my machine, would you be so kind as to paint an overall picture, of the contents.?

These tussles of opinion are the only way to reach the goal of consensus...there are no short cuts. Laying out a plan that others have to follow, more often ends in a bitter, personal pursuit.

Just the opinion of a `thicko`.

Amen to the OP!!!

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that the official story of 9/11 is false. To me (and I would argue any reasonable person), it is also beyond a doubt that no plane hit the Pentagon. What did, however, hit the Pentagon and cause all the destruction in New York is not 100% clear, nor does it need to be to arrest all of the involved parties. Their trials (and I would presume an ensuing TRUE public inquiry) with forced access to all available information and testimony would be where the correct sequence of events could conceivably be compiled.

The police do not need to win a conviction in a trial by jury before going after the (likely long gone) suspects, nor should they have to. We must demand justice now, before any more people are murdered, tortured, locked up without any rights and before they eliminate what shreds are left of the already thoroughly raped and gutted Constitution in the name of this event.

Whether 9/11 was indeed a false flag operation (as I am inclined to believe given what evidence is around) or whether the "PTB" (as we so lovingly call them) simply allowed it to happen, there are serious questions to be answered and even more atrocities happening on a day to day basis because they are "justified" by the thoroughly unbelievable official story.

PS: BTW has everyone forgotten building 7's controlled collapse?

[edit on 19-7-2009 by dangerouslogic]

[edit on 19-7-2009 by dangerouslogic]

Back on topic,the Holy Story.Despite the efforts of the paid per post/word crew here,the reality is sinking in.The cognitive dissonance that resulted when so many bought so much is being replaced.First by confusion then bewilderment then anger.As a process,it will grow in strength as in numbers.The evidence has been sanitized,so there really is no legal recourse,unless you want another sham,like the commision report.What to do?Dubai Portsworld seems to be home safe for those guys,no extradition treaty with the US.Somehow gotta stop them from making it there with all our money.Getting the word out will eventually reach them by the 'degrees of separation' theory.It is a race against time,really.

Originally posted by Parallex
*
'What harm can a PROPER investigation do? None. It would clear things up once and for all. The OP's main point about raising the right question, and getting a proper answer by the lack of one is excellent.'

Sorry to add a proper investigation would do no good as the same conspiritors against the American People would head up the investigation.

I not only believe the OS is a coverup but I know in my gut it is. I ask the disbelievers this: If you think the US Govt is so honest and truthful, why have they not given us an explanation as to why these "planes" were not intercepted? Especially at the Pentagon?

and I don't know this for a fact, but was there ever a published passenger list from the crashed passenger planes? I don't remember memorial services and families of dead passengers speaking out. Please guide me to this information I missed.

Since there is no "official story" the "you're either with us or against us" philosophy will fall flat on its face.

And here I thought you guys were against Bush....

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by Seventh
Sorry was busy then, anyway as requested here`s a list of some pretty impressive people..........
patriotsquestion911.com...

Thanks. I would argue that they are not that impressive. Most are individuals with opinions and books to sell, retired years ago or have a grudge and some were not that senior at all. I thought you were going to provide some real heavy weights.

Excellent point and it echos my opinion of them. "Impressive" is a relative term. The individuals on that list relinquish any and all claim to "expert" based on their complete lack of credibility in the areas they pretend to be "experts" in.

Is it a coincidence that this is one of hte best 9/11 threads ive seen 0.0

give this evidence to all those anti-conspiracy people.

[edit on 7/19/2009 by die_another_day]