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

I don't believe the official story.

Why?

Because:

a: ...the War on Terror has only generated more terror and deaths, as well as billions of dollars of profit for the Military Industrial Complex.

b: ...if Bush truly cared for the USA, and truly believed Islamic terrorism was behind the attacks, he would've launched anti-terrorism campaigns through education and increasing the quality of life in places like Palestine, Afghanistan or Iraq.
One look at the money gifted to Palestine vs. Israel will tell you this didn't happen. One look at the motivation of suicide bombers will tell you it's a combination of poor education, feelings of revenge, and poverty. This is easily remedied with funding, but that's not profitable.

c: ...if the Government truly cared about 911 victims, it would eagerly help out all the heroes who worked endlessly in the rubble to find survivors who are now dead, dying or sick. They Don't; it's not profitable.

d: ...if the Government truly cared about it's citizens, it would bail them out, not the super-rich Banksters who caused the crisis. Instead, people are evicted from Bankster owned homes/neighborhoods, left to rot away in tent cities while the Bankster homes get boarded up and left unused. It's the Law.

e: ...there are many different religions practiced in the USA, ranging from Atheists to Zen Buddhists, and so George W's remark of "God Bless America" really struck the wrong chord in me when he stated that in his press conference on 9/11.
It's only outcome is more division, tension and hatred, and it was proof enough for me that he/the government was up to something other than trying to avoid more death/terror/misery....

These are all just my intuition, emotion based evidence that is no good in court, I know.

As for rationality based evidence, I think there's enough available for anyone to conclude we need an entirely new investigation. Obama was going to bring CHANGE, so surely he's in support of a new investigation?



No he is not, because he works for the same people the Bush administration worked for.

So in my opinion it is not an 'inside' job, because the Military Industrial Complex and Bankster Cartels are supposedly not part of our Government.

Question: the steel, why was it exported the next day to China?
Answer: Scrap? Besides, it was obvious that the towers were hit by aircraft. There was thousands of tonnes of steel and rubble. Nowhere to store it all.

That made me laugh. Obviously, the United States of America is a small country, and there's no space anywhere to store the evidence for further examination.
It may have been obvious that planes hit the building, but does a homicide detective skip the autopsy and proceed with a cremation every time "it was obviously suicide or an accident"?

--

I noticed the debunkers have very sparse rebuttal info, many Straw Men arguments and fail to note an important factor in regards to the high ranking officials or professionals who come out to publicly oppose the official story:

They have something to loose.

It's safe to keep your mouth shut and go with the party line, with the (staged) general consensus, and it is bravery on the part of those who go public with their doubts. It is out of respect for the victims then, the victims since, and the victims now to demand a new investigation.

It is out of self-respect as well, to stop bending over, and research your own fate, your children's future.

The debunkers motivation?

Nothing to see here? Move along?

My question is: TOWARDS WHAT?

It simply amzes me how with all of the supporting evidence people can still believe this was not a cover up. As stated everywhere, steal melts at around 2400 F and fossil fuel completely evaporates at around 1400. Which means at this point the steeel would have been just fine.

Lets take this example as well. If you took a structure the exact area of the floor levels of the WTC but had the weight of lets say 10 of the floors combined, and dropped it on the top of the WTC at a fall of just the level of 1 floor level, do you really expect me to believe this would cause the entire structure to pancake into the ground? If thats the case then why did the weight of the airplane not cause it to pancake immediately?

The basement being blown in the lobby as stated by a multitude of witnesses which falls in line with a controlled demolition.

The fact that investigations have been sought after every major conflict in U.S. history i.e. JFK, Pearl Harbor, and even Clinton and Monica within roughly 10 days, but takes Bush over 400 days to put together an investigation on this. Then he heads it with someone who served closely with his father who would control what was and was not investigated.

The fact that 70% of the questionable aspects of the incidents are not even covered in the investigation.

The fact that Bush refused to talk separately from Cheney in the commission hearing, and would not even provide a legitimate reason as to why when asked about it. The fact he would not allow any cameras, or script to record the investigation, and had it done with all of the doors closed, then made all of the notes be subject to security investigation confiscating some before they were able to be used, then refused to disclose why he took all of the actions to the American public.

The fact the for the first time in U.S. history NORAD control was taken out of the hands of the military and into Cheney's hands conveniently 3 months before 9/11, and almost the entire force of NORAD was sent everywhere else that day by Cheney.

5 of the 11 terrorists who died in the planes PROVEN to be alive and well today.

Globally, even here in the U.S. the stock market was bought in stocks and commidities and options of stocks that would benefit solely from 9/11 in essence of 10X or more in previous history for that single timeframe for 9/11.

This is but a fraction of the questionable activity of 9/11 that happened that day. To choose a mindset to ignore the overwhelming evidense is just plain ignorance in my eyes, and evidence that you just don't want to know the truth, not that you don't believe it exist. They stood everything to gain from it through the oil industry, arms industry, Patriot Act, as well as numerous other aspects.

Just because a world leader smiles to the public, does not mean that they are not capable of the most atrocious acts. History has proven that repeatedly.

Edit* Also why would they not be able to store the scrap here inthe US with the thousands of acres of open land everywhere here. Thats just a very lame excuse of sending it to China before an investigation because where would they store it.


[edit on 19-7-2009 by prepare4it777]

[edit on 19-7-2009 by prepare4it777]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Swampfox, did you even read that report you seem so proud of using to support your assumptions? I've read the first 100 pages and if you're hanging you hat on that you're betting on the wrong horse.

First off, read the preamble which states that the inspection basically was a walk-through not an in-depth survey. Next, make note of the repairs they are pointing out. I won't say that the WTC was an accident waiting to happen but the report describes it for what it is-an aging building with many major systems (mechanical, plumbing, corrider ceilings, fireproofing, etc.) that did at the time or soon would (1-10 years) require major work. Did you also note the explanation for there being no code violations because the Port Authority was the code enforcement agency?

If this is what you think shows that a band of renegades lead by a friend of the Bush family brought down that WTC then you need to start afresh, that document does nothing.

As for Silversteins financial situation today, this is today and nobody could forsee what woudl happen 8 years in the future. Besides, I doubt that the WTC was brought down for financial gain anyway. It was brought down for political reasons and I doubt very much whether the financial implications were even considered.

The issue of Silversteins insuring the building is brought up due to its timing.

I'm never on one side or the other. I don't believe the official story. And I have my reasons. Many of which were discussed here. But not too many people know the extent of criminal negligence that the NSA displayed, and why the FBI didn't act as quickly as it could have. PBS took care of this adding just one more piece of the puzzle:

www.pbs.org...

Watch online.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by projectvxn]

Originally posted by baboo
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

 

Swampfox, did you even read that report you seem so proud of using to support your assumptions? I've read the first 100 pages and if you're hanging you hat on that you're betting on the wrong horse.

First off, read the preamble which states that the inspection basically was a walk-through not an in-depth survey. Next, make note of the repairs they are pointing out. I won't say that the WTC was an accident waiting to happen but the report describes it for what it is-an aging building with many major systems (mechanical, plumbing, corrider ceilings, fireproofing, etc.) that did at the time or soon would (1-10 years) require major work. Did you also note the explanation for there being no code violations because the Port Authority was the code enforcement agency?

If this is what you think shows that a band of renegades lead by a friend of the Bush family brought down that WTC then you need to start afresh, that document does nothing.

As for Silversteins financial situation today, this is today and nobody could forsee what woudl happen 8 years in the future. Besides, I doubt that the WTC was brought down for financial gain anyway. It was brought down for political reasons and I doubt very much whether the financial implications were even considered.

The issue of Silversteins insuring the building is brought up due to its timing.

Personally, I do not think the purchase of insurance was suspicious at all. It was to be expected on any similar purchase. What was odd, was the fact that no private owner had ever owned the WTC's since they were completed. It's the fact that he even decided to purchase them at all, and the timing of only 6 weeks prior to the attack that makes it all fishy. The fact that he profitted over 300,000% is just further suspicion.

The report highlights the problems any new owner would have to deal with in the future, further highlighting the fact that it was a bad purchase.

Yes I did read it. I am wondering if you read your own post however. You asked me to take a point used by the truthers and discuss it. I did.

"Truthers" allege that Larry Silverstein purchased a 99 year lease on an office complex that was losing money, was full of asbestos and basically derelict...because he could insure it, watch it be destroyed and rebuild it...AND make a profit. The documents I posted stated, that while the WTC was going to need work, it wasnt in as bad a shape, structurally, tenant wise or financially as the "truthers" would lead you to believe.

Now, Silverstein's financial situation. Again you seem to think that it has only arisen since the economy started its impression of an anchor. Once again, the "truthers" assertations is that Silverstein undertook his lease to make bank on it after the WTC's destruction. I pointed out information that states 1. He did not have enough insurance to rebuild it 2. Any rebuild would take years before it would be creating revenue and 3. He was STILL PAYING RENT on property that is not generating income. For some reason, "truthers" think that he would make money under that scenario and that is the scenario he has been operating under since Sept 12, 2001....it didnt start this year or last year.

If this is what you think shows that a band of renegades lead by a friend of the Bush family brought down that WTC then you need to start afresh, that document does nothing.

This one is funny. I dont think a "band of renegades lead by a friend of the Bush family brought down the WTC". I know it was a band of terrorists lead by Osama Bin Laden that did it.

Oops, almost forgot the insurance thingie again.....

Baboo, you think there is something wrong with him insuring the complex and I am not sure why you think its out of the ordinary. Anytime you rent a building, you normally have to have insurance. Larry Silverstein was renting the WTC complex from the Port Authority, to do so, required some loans. No bank in its right mind is going to loan someone the money to rent an office complex WITHOUT requiring insurance to be purchased.


Side note to King, Silverstein did not purchase the buildings, he was renting them from the PA.

reply to post by ironbutterflyrusted


They basically say that the towers are twenty-some years old and are going to need some work, but that they are not the asbestos ridden white elephants that King was trying to say they are....and they definitely werent in need of demolition as some would have you believe.

Then there is this!

This story originally broke in Italy's oldest newspaper: Corriere della Sera


www.infowars.com...

Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
Man who blew the whistle on Gladio tells Italy's largest newspaper attacks were run by CIA, Mossad

Originally posted by chiron613

The odds of hitting the correct wing of the Pentagon were not excessive. They were 1 in 5.

20% odds.

I briefly skimmed your little post of your support for your beloved OS account. The same unquestioning of authority that weak minded/infantile peons that NO NOTHING OF HISTORY always espouse.

I cited this little quote of yours because you seem to not understand something very important. I'm going to assume the fact that you know they were actually headed towards a different side of the pentagon before they made a 270 degree turn.

So the 1 in 5 chance(20%) goes completely out the window. They WANTED to hit that side of the building! They actually made the operation MORE difficult with LESS a degree of curtainty just to hit that specific side of the pentagon. In other words, that was the side they PLANNED TO HIT!

Please take some time to do some unbaised serious critical thinking about what I have just said.

I don't play with opinion any more when dealing with 9/11, only 100% facts. They wanted to hit the re-enforced side of the pentagon.

Now you have to seriously ask YOURSELF this question... Why???????

Good luck.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jfj123
Well to start, JUST A FIRE, didn't bring down 3 buildings.
2 buildings were hit by BIG planes and caused structural damage.
So you have structural damage + fire = rubble.

Yes, 2 buildings that were purposely over-built and designed to withstand those impacts. Take the planes out of the equation for a second and add in a controlled demo team.

You hit the nail right on the head. SUPPOSEDLY overbuilt. SUPPOSEDLY.

Now from someone who is actually in the construction industry, I can tell you that almost every building I've worked on after it was built, was not overbuilt but in actuality, under built. This is what I believe the government MAY actually be covering up. The fact that these buildings and many more, were not actually built to design specs.

That is one of the best theories I have ever read about 9-11. That actually makes a lot of sense.

I wonder if the building could be proven it was under built if the contractors, architects, enginneers, owners, city of NY could be sued by victims families?

[edit on 19-7-2009 by drock905]

reply to post by jfj123


Sorry, but it's not that tough to either keep a receipt in your hand while pushing cartSSSS, as you say, or tuck it into a pocket, etc. Sounds to me like you just enjoy being obstinate and antagonistic.

To the original poster of this thread - I agree with you 100%. 911 did not happen as they claim!

Originally posted by Seventh


Look at any of the pre doctored by the F.B.I. passenger lists, as you used flight AA11 for preference I found the original list released by CNN, like I said no Arabic passengers....

img229.imageshack.us...

DUDE! Those are victims lists provided by the mainstream media. (hint: the terrorists were not victims, they were the perpetrators)

The flight manifests are the actual documents. With ALL fare paying passengers, and crew listed. Do you realize how many innocent people you implicate in this conspiracy with all this no-hijacker nonsense?

Do you even know of all the evidence you have to ignore, or distrust to believe this no-hijacker non-sense?

W-O-W

Nice thread, many S&F if I could.

You are right, my friend. The dividers did a great job at what they do best...dividing! As you can also tell in this thread, they are still amongst us, fighting fiercely to protect and defend the lies we have been told and are still being told. It will never end so lets not play into their hands and focus on what's really in our best interest. And the truth is in everyone's best interest, isn't it?
The best part about this whole thing is that the truth is already out. It's just been distorted so perversely that even the most intelligent person here, or anywhere, could really explain what, how, and why it happened, without any actual foreknowledge of the event. The only thing we really know and can prove is when.
But we have been given enough information to come to the conclusion that I see it happening everywhere: People will only tolerate being lied to up to a certain point. And this point is basically right now. There will be many more manufactured events such as the sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Golf of Tonkin, Hitlers Reichstag Fire, 9/11, 7/7, take your pick. These events are bound to happen and TS is right, it is our reaction to these events that will make the difference! Many, too many innocent people will lose their lives if we let them control our reactions again. The dividers will be everywhere, whispering in our ear false theories and blatant propaganda to sway our approval towards their solution. But not this time. This time we will not listen and we will quietly rebel by spreading the truth.
Thanks TS for having the courage to start this thread.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

This one is funny. I dont think a "band of renegades lead by a friend of the Bush family brought down the WTC". I know it was a band of terrorists lead by Osama Bin Laden that did it.

How do you know? Where you with Osama Bin Laden when he blew up the WTC? I find it interesting that you seem to know information that the FBI doesn’t know. Tell yah what, why don’t you enlighten us to this new creditable information that proves Osama Bin Laden pulled off 911? Because I am sure, the FBI would like to know, so they can go ahead and charge him.



[edit on 20-7-2009 by impressme]

Great post, and thanks for taking the time to write that lengthy thought.

I totally agree with you, and have been shifting my efforts from debate
to spreading the news.

On any other day, WTC 7 is a controlled demolition

On any other day, 'pull it' is an CD industry term

On any other day, four pilots of four hijacked planes would fight for
their lives before giving up their craft and responsibity for passengers.

On any other day, fire does not take down three buildings in 6.5, 10,
and 12 seconds

On any other day, the most protected building in the world would have
intercepted a slow a#s commerical airliner.

On any other day 13 people drawing similar flight paths who have never
met before would bound a story beyond a shadow of a doubt.

On any other day, nine scientists would be respected for their discoveries.

For what it's worth, all of this debating with GL's is just a formality for me.
If it wasn't for killing time at work, I wouldn't waste my time with them.

I believe the government was fully aware of the attacks. Do I believe they organized 9/11? No. But instead, they let it happen. A good excuse for war. But that's just my opinion. Don't flame me because you disagree or even call me ignorant. We all have our opinions on who organized the events that took place that day.

cheers.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

 

This one is funny. I dont think a "band of renegades lead by a friend of the Bush family brought down the WTC". I know it was a band of terrorists lead by Osama Bin Laden that did it.

How do you know? Where you with Osama Bin Laden when he blew up the WTC? I find it interesting that you seem to know information that the FBI doesn’t know.

Tell yah what, why don’t you enlighten us to this new creditable information that proves Osama Bin Laden pulled off 911? Because I am sure, the FBI would like to know, so they can go ahead and charge him.

Well Osama Bin Laden was at the top of the FBI list since the '98 Keyna and Tanzania bombings.. He couldn't go any higher. His organization's actions were considered an act of war which puts the pursuit of OBL firmly in the hands of our military.

If you think for a second that Bin Laden isn't wanted by all US enforcement agencies you are kidding yourself. IOW he ain't getting off on some cockamamy technicallity.

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

Originally posted by Seventh


Look at any of the pre doctored by the F.B.I. passenger lists, as you used flight AA11 for preference I found the original list released by CNN, like I said no Arabic passengers....

img229.imageshack.us...

DUDE! Those are victims lists provided by the mainstream media. (hint: the terrorists were not victims, they were the perpetrators)

The flight manifests are the actual documents. With ALL fare paying passengers, and crew listed. Do you realize how many innocent people you implicate in this conspiracy with all this no-hijacker nonsense?

Do you even know of all the evidence you have to ignore, or distrust to believe this no-hijacker non-sense?

W-O-W

WoW indeed, do you mean the F.B.I list where “Mosear Caned” is removed and replaced with Hani Hanjour later in the day and 6 of the 19 declared themselves alive and well, yep OS evidence can well and truly be believed.

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
I believe the government was fully aware of the attacks. Do I believe they organized 9/11? No. But instead, they let it happen. A good excuse for war. But that's just my opinion. Don't flame me because you disagree or even call me ignorant. We all have our opinions on who organized the events that took place that day.

cheers.

But you do understand, I hope, that "let it happen" means that it was indeed an inside job, right? Meaning that certain people had to look the other way, right?

Are we on the same page here?

What you just implied is that certain people HIGH up knew it was going to happen and allowed it happen. But they absolutely needed some cooperation from the lower downs to comply. Agreed?

If you understand this basic philosophy, you might have just taken your first step from leaving "the matrix" my friend.