Why? Answer these 2 questions and you may find the truth

Originally posted by Nonchalant
reply to post by Grimstad

 

They didnt do it at night because they wanted people IN the buildings. In order to justify an incursion by the military in the middle east, this scam needed to have maximum impact. In fact I'll go further and use your argument against yourself and ask YOU the question - Why did it occur at 9am? Why didnt it occur at 7am or 3am or even during the lunchbreak when the building wouldnt have full occupancy? And if your lost for an answer I'll tell you why - because 9am was the exact time of commencement of business when the buildings would be FULL. Co-incidence? Not when there are 11 other hours in the day when it could have occured. And no, 1000 deaths wouldnt have been enough to justify an incursion into the ME at the same time avoiding a nuclear WWIII. This needed to be BIG. At least as big as Pearl Harbour, if not bigger. Research the 'Project for the new American Century'. It actually references the need for a new 'Pearl harbour' catastrophe for America to impliment its goals.

I also notice you refernce 'millions' of witnesses to 9/11 seeing planes etc. Im not sure where you get this figure from. According to what I have read, many people in New York on 9/11 didnt see any planes, except on mainstream TV many hours later...

And finally, you summarise your post with the tired old 'Oh but we all know the Feds failed on 9/11..'. Well sorry, but I dont buy it. Your Feds may be human, I agree, meaning they make mistakes like the best of us, but to say human frailty was to blame for 9/11, and that they simply overlooked and failed to track THREE 'hijacked' planes for more than 90 minutes, and that I would buy such a suggestion, is an insult to my intelligence..

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Nonchalant]

Panama totally fully discredits the premise of your first paragraph.
And your second paragraph contradicts the premise of your first.

As to your 3rd, that actually makes sense. And I’m neither excusing their mistake or discounting that it was deliberate. But it in no way even suggests that anything that took place on the day of Sept 11th was faked.

Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by Grimstad

 

That first 2 seconds is CRUCIAL to their argument, or rather the lack of it.
It shows the progressive collapse that they say did not happen. That video you used shows the outer shell of the building collapsing. At that point the interior had already been falling for 1.5 seconds. By using that video as your evidence you are perpetuating the lie. Check it out for yourself.

Originally posted by Wideawake08
Bush's brother was in charge of security at the WTC.. Guess when his last day was? What a coincidence 911! Come on!

I don't know if thats true or not. It doesn't matter.
It says nothing about if anything was faked.

Originally posted by Grimstad

Panama totally fully discredits the premise of your first paragraph.

You will have to fill me in on what you mean by panama. Ive no idea what your talking about, sorry.

Originally posted by GrimstadAs to your 3rd, that actually makes sense. And I’m neither excusing their mistake or discounting that it was deliberate. But it in no way even suggests that anything that took place on the day of Sept 11th was faked.

I think you missed my point. Im saying it wasnt a mistake, and that to claim such is to insult the intelligence of people reading this forum. In my opinion it was deliberate. If it was deliberate then obviously there was a reason for it.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Nonchalant]

Originally posted by Grimstad
So you are saying that all were faked or some were faked?

I was debating with myself whether or not it was worth giving you another 5 points with a reply. Consider yourself lucky and enjoy the 5 points.

I didn't state that any of them (planes) were real or fake. I pointed out your faulty logic for what it was.

As a matter of fact you don’t accept anything that’s does NOT support your theory. That is not a search for the truth.

Huh? Have you been stalking me for more than two years and reading all of my 3000+ posts to know what I accept and what I don't accept? Please, can you tell my what my theory about 9/11 is? I'd really like to know, as I haven't worked it out yet. Wow...

Is anybody that doesn’t agree with you a plant?

See above for a similar reply.

I’m glad you mentioned the Harley guy. You already know what happened in that thread. I explained very clearly and concisely how I arrived at the very same conclusion as that guy and I get called a plant and a liar and you tried to defend the guy.

You probably need to learn not to mix threads on ATS. If you have a problem with me that relates to another thread, then please, continue it in the other thread. Seriously, you're derailing your own topic in this thread, while making accusations about me.

You pulled something I said out of context and tried to construe it as a threat when I was simply putting an asshole in his place.

Putting arseholes in their place is best left to the Moderators. They're better at it than you are and it's within their powers to do so.

Real good truth seeking there. Just because you don’t understand something does not mean it’s not understandable.

I'm able to understand seriously flawed logic, like your's, in the opening post. That's one service that I can provide, free of charge.

Don't expect a reply from me. I've donated enough points to you in this illogical thread.

Originally posted by Nonchalant

Originally posted by Grimstad

Panama totally fully discredits the premise of your first paragraph.

You will have to fill me in on what you mean by panama. Ive no idea what your talking about, sorry.

Originally posted by GrimstadAs to your 3rd, that actually makes sense. And I’m neither excusing their mistake or discounting that it was deliberate. But it in no way even suggests that anything that took place on the day of Sept 11th was faked.

I think you missed my point. Im saying it wasnt a mistake, and that to claim such is to insult the intelligence of people reading this forum. In my opinion it was deliberate. If it was deliberate then obviously there was a reason for it.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Nonchalant]

Panama was explained toward the bottom of the 1st page.
Your premise was that they ignored the planes for 90 minutes.
That doesn't indicate that anything was faked.
It only shows they didn't care.
So they wanted this to happen.

Originally posted by Grimstad

That doesn't indicate that anything was faked.
It only shows they didn't care.

They didnt care? Wait, your saying the US military didnt care that the US was being attacked? Do you really believe that? I mean seriously, Im always open to debate but this is beyond silly..

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Grimstad
So you are saying that all were faked or some were faked?

I was debating with myself whether or not it was worth giving you another 5 points with a reply. Consider yourself lucky and enjoy the 5 points.

I didn't state that any of them (planes) were real or fake. I pointed out your faulty logic for what it was.

As a matter of fact you don’t accept anything that’s does NOT support your theory. That is not a search for the truth.

Huh? Have you been stalking me for more than two years and reading all of my 3000+ posts to know what I accept and what I don't accept? Please, can you tell my what my theory about 9/11 is? I'd really like to know, as I haven't worked it out yet. Wow...

Is anybody that doesn’t agree with you a plant?

See above for a similar reply.

I’m glad you mentioned the Harley guy. You already know what happened in that thread. I explained very clearly and concisely how I arrived at the very same conclusion as that guy and I get called a plant and a liar and you tried to defend the guy.

You probably need to learn not to mix threads on ATS. If you have a problem with me that relates to another thread, then please, continue it in the other thread. Seriously, you're derailing your own topic in this thread, while making accusations about me.

You pulled something I said out of context and tried to construe it as a threat when I was simply putting an asshole in his place.

Putting arseholes in their place is best left to the Moderators. They're better at it than you are and it's within their powers to do so.

Real good truth seeking there. Just because you don’t understand something does not mean it’s not understandable.

I'm able to understand seriously flawed logic, like your's, in the opening post. That's one service that I can provide, free of charge.

Don't expect a reply from me. I've donated enough points to you in this illogical thread.

Oh. So that’s what points are about.
What possible reason would there be to fake only some of the planes?
Where is the logic in that?
That is where you say my logic is faulty.
My apologies for lumping you in with the rest.
Based on our first encounter, apparently I came to a false conclusion about you.
And if you had not brought Harley man into this thread, I wouldn’t have mentioned it.
Perhaps you should have reported me rather than try to put me in my place.
And as to your last point, I refer back to lines 2 and 3 of this post.
In order to discount my logic as flawed, you must have some logical alternative.

Originally posted by Nonchalant

Originally posted by Grimstad

That doesn't indicate that anything was faked.
It only shows they didn't care.

They didnt care? Wait, your saying the US military didnt care that the US was being attacked? Do you really believe that? I mean seriously, Im always open to debate but this is beyond silly..

So they did care or they didn't care. I don't care.
It's irrelevent to your supposition that they watch for 90 minutes and did nothing.

They had to use more than one plane because if they didnt then Larry Silverstein would not have got his maximum payout on the insurance and the vital paperwork in each building needed to be destroyed. The pentagon was hit and hit right in the relevant place to destroy condemning paperwork held there.
That is my explanation for using more than one plane.

Originally posted by FT1980
I have two theories on 911. One, President Bush was murdered in the 911 incidents then cloned to cover up an outbreak. Watching the events on television didn't convince me that what I was witnessing ever even happened.

[edit on 4/19/2009 by FT1980]

Just so I leave no one out.
This theory is just as valid as any of the others I've looked into.
But it negates all the eyewitness accounts.
I heve never personally been to New York so I have to rely on witnesses that it actually exists.

Originally posted by lagnar
Show me an engine or two - or eight and 4 black boxes, and I'll show you 4 downed planes. >.<

Show me nothing, and I believe just that.

It's not called an idiot box for no reason.

I'm still researching this one. There are discrepencies, as there are with virtually every piece of evidence put forth. Allegedly the fed report says no boxes were recovered, yet there is picture evidence to the contrary.
The feds have in fact reported on the contents of them. But there seems to be some discrepencies there too.

Originally posted by FT1980
I remember watching it and my first reaction was, this is fake. They're talking about a terrorist attack, but all I see is just another demolition!

And when I witnessed it I came to the exact oposite conclusion. The same one as the "Mystery Witness" on the street.

Originally posted by chiron613
Your questions don't really eliminate the possibility of a governmental conspiracy. A night-time attack wouldn't have been as good for TV. Whoever did this wanted to maximize the number of fatalities, and to get the most thorough, visible coverage possible.

Here's why I think it wasn't the US Government. The following quote is from the Koran. Note, in particular, the verse from the Koran - 9:111.

"ALLAH has bought from the believers their lives and their money in
exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of ALLAH, willing to
kill and get killed. Such is His truthful pledge in the Torah, the Gospel,
and the Quran - and who fulfills His pledge better than ALLAH? You shall
rejoice in making such an exchange. This is the greatest triumph." [ Koran 9:111]

The verse discusses jihad. I am convinced that the date was chosen because of the number of this verse.

Sorry. I thought I replied to this last night but I seem to have missed it.
Possibility does not denote probability.

As to the rest of it, very good point. I'll have to reconsider my thought that it might have had something to do with 9-1-1. Though it's still an interesting coincidence.

reply to post by Grimstad


No, its not true. Marvin Bush was never in charge of security at the World Trade Center, never. Until June of 2000, Marvin Bush was a member of the Board of Directors of Securacom, a company that was involved with installing electronic security systems, and which did have a couple contracts to install their systems at the WTC. However, they did not run physical security at the complex...that was a shared responsibility of the PAPD and the WTC security department, which on 9/11/2001 was being run by former FBI agent John O'Neill.

As stated earlier, Marvin Bush stepped down from Securacom in June 2000.....long before his brother was the Republican nominee for President.

Why do things so over the top and with so many layers?

My personal conclusion was that the planes crashed in order to get a public response, bombs were used to cover the evidence of one or more kinds, making sure nothing of that particular evidence survived, and nanites empowered by a haarp projection were used to send a message to groups aware of the potential and watching for it, as well as to keep the city intact. Using all three has the confusion benefit preventing any but the official story from quickly gaining credibility.

The confusion element was desired for the same reason we still have no firm case of who exactly killed Kennedy, why, or what we could have done to make sure they payed for doing so.

Originally posted by Lhuhikwdwoo
Why do things so over the top and with so many layers?

My personal conclusion was that the planes crashed in order to get a public response, bombs were used to cover the evidence of one or more kinds, making sure nothing of that particular evidence survived, and nanites empowered by a haarp projection were used to send a message to groups aware of the potential and watching for it, as well as to keep the city intact. Using all three has the confusion benefit preventing any but the official story from quickly gaining credibility.

The confusion element was desired for the same reason we still have no firm case of who exactly killed Kennedy, why, or what we could have done to make sure they payed for doing so.

Even after reading some of your other posts, I'm still not sure if you're kidding or not.

Originally posted by Grimstad

Originally posted by lagnar
Show me an engine or two - or eight and 4 black boxes, and I'll show you 4 downed planes. >.<

Show me nothing, and I believe just that.

It's not called an idiot box for no reason.

I'm still researching this one. There are discrepencies, as there are with virtually every piece of evidence put forth. Allegedly the fed report says no boxes were recovered, yet there is picture evidence to the contrary.
The feds have in fact reported on the contents of them. But there seems to be some discrepencies there too.

Yay...So they found a black box. But the physical object isn't what confirms that there were planes there, the information therein is.

And believe me, as I've spent hours upon hours on this subject alone. There was never any evidence of engines (or even engine parts), or tires, or lug nuts found anywhere near any of the planes - at least not prudently. Engines constructed of tempered steel and titanium don't just vanish...especially 4 of them. Did they dig themselves into the ground so hard and fast that they left no trace in PA, or did they bury themselves in the cement foundation of the freshly battle-hardened Pentagon? This is really elementary school science peeps. I didn't think the dumbing down of America's educational system had gotten so far (another thread :/).

Do I know what the real story is(?)...nupe. But I have enough confidence in my own common sense to not believe what we were all shoveled...which wasn't much in the first place.

Here's a question: What was the supposed target of the fourth plane? What if it was The White House? Anybody know what would have been the chronicle of events that would've come to pass had something actually hit the White House? Think we'd be having this seemingly calm and fairly idle conversation right now? Think there would have been any questioning of the official story at all?

reply to post by lagnar

So you are discounting the photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts of the very engines you say don't exist?
Even theorists seem to agree there were parts. They choose to believe the site was salted.
And applying a little of my own common sense, If engines were to be obliterated it would be against a ‘battle hardened” structure.

There are many photos of the debris from flight 77 and several show engine and landing gear parts. Not many intact (battle hardened structure) but they are there.
I see lots of questions posed on sites but repeatedly no answers. One I keep seeing on that location is,” If this is a piece of the plane then why are there no smaller pieces laying near it?”. The other question I see is,” Why no burn marks?” Now some may not understand why, but I do. Do I understand all of it? I don’t know, I haven’t studied all of it. But repeatedly, the parts of the puzzle I examine I do understand. But because others don’t seem to have a basic understanding of physics, they look for some conspiracy. Perhaps I was paying attention in grade school science, physics is after all one of my own personal curiosities.

Do I know what the real story is? I believe so. And I have enough confidence in my own common sense and powers of observation and deduction, to sort it out for myself. And I know for a fact that the “Truthers” as they are called are misleading, obscuring and wildly speculating to promote their own agenda. Do you think that is something reserved to the government? Do I know why? Well, to get more hits on their website so they can attract some advertising dollars? Attract some contributions to their organization so they don’t have to get REAL jobs? I don’t know but those seem like 2 good reasons to me. This is after all America and even alleged idealists need to pay the rent.
Is the government lying to us? It’s possible but I haven’t read any of their reports so technically they haven’t lied to me about this. I don’t need to see what is being criticized to see obvious flaws in the criticisms.

As to your last question, the only difference would be the location of the impact site. That’s it. No other discernable difference. Would there have been any less debate in congress? How can you have less than there already was? And exactly as many people would be questioning the official story. It’s the nature of the game.
Because they believe everything that comes from the feds comes by the shovel full.