Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA


Maybe there is no reason for you to believe otherwise...

Nope, because I base my reasoning on the overwhelming evidence to suggest that terrorists attacked the WTC and The Pentagon, not on the non-existent evidence that the U.S. government was somehow involved in a conspiracy.

Yes, the most simple explination. The petro-dollar is in trouble, we need to control the region.
Not "the petro dollar is in trouble, lets sit on our hands. OH LOOK! some wonderful terrorist attacked us, we can send troops now. Fancy that."

What evidence do you have to suggest that the "petrol dollar" was in trouble at the time of the attack? Secondly, assuming that you do have evidence to suggest that the petrol dollar was "in trouble" at the time of the attack, what evidence do you have to suggest that this was the motivating factor behind them retaliating to al-Qaeda's attacks? This is nothing but mere conjecture based on more conjecture.

Your right. There is "evidence" gathered by a commission and a 3rd party private research firm.

And what's your point? I don't understand as to why enclosed the word evidence in quotation marks.

And no government agencies were involved.

Well, the FBI was for starters.

Your correct. No sworn-in investigator was responsible for the conclusion of any "facts".

Even if a "sworn-in investigator" as you claim them to be "concluded" that 9/11 was somehow an inside job (assuming that this is what you are implying) this means absolutely nothing as there is a mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise. If there is no evidence to support a claim then it does not hold any weight whatsoever.

I don't think it was so much as the terrorists wanting the U.S. military to send their troops after them so much as it was about them understanding that their actions would have consequences but choosing to go ahead with doing such anyway. As far as I know there were plenty of reasons behind al-Qaeda wanting to carry out the attacks, such as the occupation of Saudi Arabia by the U.S., the aid of Israel by the U.S., and the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the U.S.

So Bin Laden would have to abandon reason to fit your theory?

Our definition of "reason" could very well be significantly different than Bin Laden's definition of reason.

How could Bin Laden possiby prevent the inevitable? He sent a plane into the pentagon...

Well, exactly... that doesn't necessarily mean that he wanted the U.S. to retaliate unless he felt that it would somehow reinforce some esoteric point if they did so.

They flew a plane into the pentagon and then what? Dinner at Red Lobster?

Nope. I am supposing that a lot of the terrorists believed they were going to be with 72 virgins. Dying in battle is viewed as a valiant thing in the Islamic faith IIRC... so this, also, probably had a lot to do with why they went through with what they did.

So you have a name that you like to call anyone that does believe what they are told by the mainstream?

Yep because, again, there is no valid, logical reason to believe otherwise.

a reply to: firerescue

You spend god knows how much time and effort rigging the building with your alleged demolition charges then you fly a plane into the sections of building you have just rigged ...... The impact alone would have destroyed any demolition charges damaging wires and detonators by impact and resulting fires .

Not true. If money is not a factor you would use remote detonators. Their would be no evidence left behind. If the plane destroyed some it wouldn't matter as they are all independent.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

If money is not a factor you would use remote detonators. Their would be no evidence left behind. If the plane destroyed some it wouldn't matter as they are all independent.

Hundreds of Remote detonators cannot be left active for weeks in a high RF area.
These are conspiracy concepts made up by people who have no knowledge of how things work.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Doctor Smith

If money is not a factor you would use remote detonators. Their would be no evidence left behind. If the plane destroyed some it wouldn't matter as they are all independent.

Hundreds of Remote detonators cannot be left active for weeks in a high RF area.
These are conspiracy concepts made up by people who have no knowledge of how things work.

Exactly. Additionally I find it very difficult to believe that not one single person did not see demolitions experts setting up explosives assuming that it was a controlled demolition...

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Not true. If money is not a factor you would use remote detonators. Their would be no evidence left behind. If the plane destroyed some it wouldn't matter as they are all independent.

Ever try to use a cell phone in a large building ...?? Doesnt work too well .....

This is why REAL demolition contractors use wired chargedfor safety and reliability . Also charges are tied together
with det cord, delay elements are often placed in the det cord to sequence the explosions to remove building supports in predictable pattern

originally posted by: logicsoda

Nope, because I base my reasoning on the overwhelming evidence to suggest that terrorists attacked the WTC and The Pentagon, not on the non-existent evidence that the U.S. government was somehow involved in a conspiracy.

No such overwelming evidence exists. If it did it would have been presented by NIST or the 9/11 Commision. There wasnt anything but theory presented. And NIST and the commission never presented anything that wasn't already known on 9/12/2001. So there was no investigation either. The mainstream story about 9/11 was delivered from the private sector - NIST, Discovery Channel, Popular mechanics and now Debunking911. These are the only sources to any mainstream claims. The 9/11 Commission report hides in the shadows becuase it couldnt hold a cup of water.

In January 2008, NBC News released an investigative report on the 9/11 Commission's use of information acquired by torture of detainees.[10] Current and former senior U.S. intelligence officials said that the operatives cited by the Commission were subjected to the harshest of the CIA’s methods, the "enhanced interrogation techniques", subsequently determined to be torture by US, UN and EU authorities. According to the NBC analysis, more than one quarter of all footnotes in the 9/11 Report refer to CIA interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives who were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques.

9/11 Commission staffers say they "guessed" but did not know for certain that harsh techniques had been used, and they were concerned that the techniques had affected the operatives’ credibility. At least four of the operatives whose interrogation was used in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being "tortured."

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says he was "shocked" that the Commission never asked about extreme interrogation measures. "Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, therefore their conclusions are suspect."[10]

NBC News quoted Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission executive director, as saying that the Commission relied heavily on the information derived from the interrogations, but remained skeptical of it. Zelikow admits that "quite a bit, if not most" of its information on the official 9/11 story "did come from the interrogations."[10]

WIKI

So we torture people till they tell us what we want to hear and you chaulk that up as "overwelming evidence"?

What evidence do you have to suggest that the "petrol dollar" was in trouble at the time of the attack? Secondly, assuming that you do have evidence to suggest that the petrol dollar was "in trouble" at the time of the attack, what evidence do you have to suggest that this was the motivating factor behind them retaliating to al-Qaeda's attacks? This is nothing but mere conjecture based on more conjecture.

What evidence are you looking for? You want a video confession from Sadam that he wanted to sell his oil in Euros instead of the dollar? Sorry, he was hung in a barn by a bunch of masked terrorists that we supported. But here...

Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a competitor to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros, despite the fact that the battered European currency unit, which used to be worth quite a bit more than $1, has dropped to about 82[cents]. Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal "in the currency of the enemy."

The switch to euros would cost the U.N. a small fortune in accounting-paperwork changes. It would also reduce the...

Time link

I would get Gaddafi to tell you himself too but he was drug through the streets of Libya by a bunch of masked terrorists that we supported who shoved a stick up his ass and murdered him. How we love to support "moderate" Islam....

But here...

Gaddafi did not give up. In the months leading up to the military intervention, he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the dollar and euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars.

It is an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world. 

A country’s wealth would depend on how much gold it had and not how many dollars it traded. And Libya has 144 tons of gold. The UK, for example, has twice as much, but ten times the population.

“If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” says Anthony Wile, founder and chief editor of the Daily Bell. 

“So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward from moving him from power.”

And it has happened before.

In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars. Some say sanctions and an invasion followed because the Americans were desperate to prevent OPEC from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the euro.

A gold dinar would have had serious consequences for the world financial system, but may also have empowered the people of Africa, something black activists say the US wants to avoid at all costs.

“The US have denied self-determination to Africans inside the US, so we are not surprised by anything the US would do to hinder the self-determination of Africans on the continent,” says Cynthia Ann McKinney, a former US Congresswoman.

The UK’s gold is kept in a secure vault somewhere in the depths of the Bank of England. As in most developed countries, there is not enough to go around.

But that is not the case in countries like Libya and many of the Gulf States. 
A gold dinar would have given oil-rich African and Middle Eastern countries the power to turn around to their energy-hungry customers and say: “Sorry, the price has gone up, and we want gold.”

Some say the US and its NATO allies literally could not afford to let that happen.

RT link

Well, the FBI was for starters. 

The FBI did not handle the 9/11 investigstion. They threw out big claims like 1,000,000 manhours spent investigating. The reality is though that the FBI has 35,000 employees and anyone with a calculator would know that adds up to 28 hours that FBI spent investigating and there.was not a whole lot else going on for a couple days after 9/11.

a reply to: logicsoda

And what's your point? I don't understand as to why enclosed the word evidence in quotation marks.

Because there has been no cross examination presented to a judge or jury of our peers in order to verify any so called "evidence". The backbone of our society was not present when collecting or proving "evidence" in regard to 9/11.

Even if a "sworn-in investigator" as you claim them to be "concluded" that 9/11 was somehow an inside job (assuming that this is what you are implying) this means absolutely nothing as there is a mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise. If there is no evidence to support a claim then it does not hold any weight whatsoever.

I could say that I have evidence, but until it is brought before a judge or jury of my peers, it's validity is only theory. You throw around terms like "overwelming evidence" yet you have none. You only have a theory and you name-call anyone that does not believe it.

Our definition of "reason" could very well be significantly different than Bin Laden's definition of reason.

I hope by "our" you don't mean you and me. You do not use reason. You throw around absolute terms with nothing to back it up. That is not reason, that is rhetoric

Well, exactly... that doesn't necessarily mean that he wanted the U.S. to retaliate unless he felt that it would somehow reinforce some esoteric point if they did so.

Is that your theory? I see Samken used the same one. Is this the "official" theory?

Nope. I am supposing that a lot of the terrorists believed they were going to be with 72 virgins. Dying in battle is viewed as a valiant thing in the Islamic faith IIRC... so this, also, probably had a lot to do with why they went through with what they did.

And I am going to be accepted into heavan through white pearly gates if I put on a uniform and and help murder over million people because an eye foe an eye. Oh wait, Im actually doing for a paycheck to help support my family in shakey economy. So all excuses aside we use our religions to justify actions that we feel is necessary. And you think that after the last how many times western armies have destroyed parts of the ME with no backlash from the western tax payers that Bin Laden figured this time would be different, especially after Bin Ladin was directly involved in murdering thousands of US tax paying office workers?

Yep because, again, there is no valid, logical reason to believe otherwise.

Well, the government and MSM have a strong and long history of lying and toeing the line, there were NO checks and balances used to vett any narrative brought forth by government and media and the the only clear motives that do not rely on religous hystaria, point to western interests.

Where did you get your "evidence" and "logic" from? Fox? CNN? Bush? NIST? Powell?... everyone knows they are all full of snip so where else did you get your evidence?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Where did you get your "evidence" and "logic" from? Fox? CNN? Bush? NIST? Powell?... everyone knows they are all full of snip so where else did you get your evidence?

Their evidence is better than the YouTube evidence presented by the conspiracy minded.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Doctor Smith

If money is not a factor you would use remote detonators. Their would be no evidence left behind. If the plane destroyed some it wouldn't matter as they are all independent.

Hundreds of Remote detonators cannot be left active for weeks in a high RF area.
These are conspiracy concepts made up by people who have no knowledge of how things work.

You could simply have something like a digital code that has to be received before the bombs could activate. They could use any type of signal.

a reply to: logicsoda

Exactly. Additionally I find it very difficult to believe that not one single person did not see demolitions experts setting up explosives assuming that it was a controlled demolition...

They actually caught in on camera according to a CIA asset. locked up for 5 years or so with no charges.



How they EASILY Rigged the WTC Towers for Demolition (Skeptics WATCH THIS)

Enjoy kiddies.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

You could simply have something like a digital code that has to be received before the bombs could activate. They could use any type of signal.

You are making stuff up in an attempt to make your beliefs plausible.

The simple fact is the longer you leave evidence exposed the greater chance of it being discovered.
Example:
Lets pretend they did wire the core with explosives.
All it would take is one stuck elevator and the firemen would see the charges.
Game over.

The only evidence that you have provided to reinforce your claims is conjecture based on more conjecture. It is evident to me that you're not even remotely worth having a discussion with. If you genuinely believe that there is no overwhelming evidence to suggest that 9/11 was a terrorist attack then there is nothing I can do to help you.

Cheers.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: logicsoda

Exactly. Additionally I find it very difficult to believe that not one single person did not see demolitions experts setting up explosives assuming that it was a controlled demolition...

They actually caught in on camera according to a CIA asset. locked up for 5 years or so with no charges.

How they EASILY Rigged the WTC Towers for Demolition (Skeptics WATCH THIS)

Enjoy kiddies.

Assuming that the video camera actually recorded trucks pulling up and stopping at the WTC: How do we know that they were unloading explosives?

Secondly, how do we know that these accounts really came from a CIA insider?

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: logicsoda

Exactly. Additionally I find it very difficult to believe that not one single person did not see demolitions experts setting up explosives assuming that it was a controlled demolition...

They actually caught in on camera according to a CIA asset. locked up for 5 years or so with no charges.

How they EASILY Rigged the WTC Towers for Demolition (Skeptics WATCH THIS)

Enjoy kiddies.

Did you look at the source for these videos?

Here's from some of his video titles:
Demon magicians
Demon possesses guy
Why the illuminati wants your guns
Ghosts demons and aleins
The UFO activity
Lady GaGa is Satanic
The reptilians are demons
Demons shape shifting into UFO's
Hitlers NAZI UFO's

Do you really believe this guy is normal and trustworthy?

a reply to: logicsoda

Secondly, how do we know that these accounts really came from a CIA insider?

Since your question is above average for this forum I will grant you an answer.

Below is the CIA assets story. First video is not working so I'll post the link instead.


Susan Lindauer

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: logicsoda

Secondly, how do we know that these accounts really came from a CIA insider?

Since your question is above average for this forum I will grant you an answer.

Below is the CIA assets story. First video is not working so I'll post the link instead.


Susan Lindauer

How was Susan Lindauer related to the CIA in any way whatsoever? She was an activist, journalist, and U.S. Congressional staffer based on what my research has revealed.

a reply to: logicsoda

How was Susan Lindauer related to the CIA in any way whatsoever?

Didn't you know that activists get back door passes to the CIA ?
Geeesh !

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: logicsoda

How was Susan Lindauer related to the CIA in any way whatsoever?

Didn't you know that activists get back door passes to the CIA ?
Geeesh !

Seems like these truthers think evidence is conjecture based on more conjecture... as I've said so many times before.

a reply to: samkent

Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?


Lunch break?

The guy/agent/terrorist with the detonator had some fiery burritos the night before and had to take a bathroom break that lasted longer than usual?

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: logicsoda

Secondly, how do we know that these accounts really came from a CIA insider?

Since your question is above average for this forum I will grant you an answer.

Below is the CIA assets story. First video is not working so I'll post the link instead.


Susan Lindauer

How was Susan Lindauer related to the CIA in any way whatsoever? She was an activist, journalist, and U.S. Congressional staffer based on what my research has revealed.

Your research is picking the scum out of your belly button if you don't know what a CIA asset is.

She worked for and had relatives who worked in the CIA. She represented the CIA when dealing with other countries.